Sitting of 29 March 1990

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
NOTTINGHAM PARK ESTATE BILL [Lords]
Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]
RIVER TEES BARRAGE AND CROSSING BILL [Lords]
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Monday 2 April.
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],
That the Bill be now considered.
Debate further adjourned till Thursday 19 April.
Mr. Speaker: As the 10 remaining Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them as a single group.
ADELPHI ESTATE BILL (By Order)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [27 February],
That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate further adjourned till Thursday 19 April.
CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)
LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)
VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)
LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 19 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Small Businesses
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many small businesses were set up in Northern Ireland in 1989; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): That information is not yet available for 1989. The Government continue to assist the development of small businesses through the Local Enterprise Development Unit and have increased its funding by £4·7 million, or 17 per cent., to more than £33 million for 1991.
    Dr. Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Local Enterprise Development Unit, unique to Northern Ireland, is doing a most satisfactory job in promoting small businesses and employment in the Province? How many small businesses have been assisted by LEDU and how many jobs have been created since LEDU was founded in 1971?
    Mr. Needham: Many thousands of small companies have been assisted and 43,000 jobs have been promoted by LEDU since 1971. Last year 5,004 jobs were promoted at a cost of £4,400 per job. LEDU is upping its target for new jobs to 10,000 per year in 1994. As my hon. Friend said, there is no doubt that the creation of small businesses and the work created is crucial to the economic success of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: What advice would the Minister give to small businesses that feel that they are being forced to use LEDU-nominated professional advisers when preparing business plans for grant applications? Will he take steps to reduce the time taken to process such applications?
    Mr. Needham: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's last point first. It is crucial that we get as much of the work through as fast as we can. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking on that. It is up to the company concerned to determine which professional adviser it uses. Clearly, there will be those who have greater expertise on this subject, and LEDU's advice should be listened to carefully. In the final instance, it must be up to the companies.

    Hospices
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on Government funding to hospices in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Needham: A total of £530,000, a 100 per cent. increase in the present level of funding, will be made available in 1990–91 to provide, for the first time, a firm public sector financial base for the support of hospices in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that wonderful reply. Hospices have been funded through charitable donations in the United Kingdom—in my constituency, in

    655
    Weymouth, people have been excellent in putting money into that sector. Does my hon. Friend agree that such community involvement is similar to the Government's opting-out proposals? Does he think that that will happen even more in the Province of Northern Ireland? Where will the additional funding be spent in the Province?
    Mr. Needham: There is, of course, a need for a partnership with those involved with the terminally ill. There is a wonderful record of voluntary service and help to the terminally ill in Northern Ireland. The Government feel that they must do whatever they can to help and are increasing their spending this year by £530,000—£530,000 more than last year—and in 1991–92 they plan to spend a further £200,000. The objective is to obtain a 50:50 partnership with the voluntary organisations. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is crucial to keep the partnership going and to attract as many private donations and as much support as we can, particularly from the business side. I think that he will agree that the Budget measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will help in that.
    Mr. Hume: As the Minister will be aware from correspondence from me, a vast amount of voluntary effort in the Derry area has gone into setting up the Foyle hospice, demonstrating the need for that service there. Is he now telling us that at last the Government will fund that hospice?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman knows that hospices in Northern Ireland are a regional service, but the Foyle hospice is not regional in that sense. However, he also knows that the Department has suggested to the boards that they negotiate the funding of the revenue element with the hospices, and that applies to the Foyle hospice. I hope that the discussions that I believe are about to take place between the Western board and the Foyle hospice will lead to a satisfactory conclusion.
    Mr. Dickens: When my hon. Friend next considers the funding of hospices in Northern Ireland, will he also consider funding for hospices in the north-west, such as those at Oldham and Rochdale?
    Mr. Needham: Up to now I have not considered that, but I shall bring it to the notice of my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State who has responsibility for health matters in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Minister said that he hoped that the discussions to which he referred would lead to a satisfactory conclusion, but will he confirm that the Government's view of a satisfactory conclusion includes funding the Foyle hospice, which not only serves the people of the Foyle area in a way that no hospice in Belfast can, but serves the region across the border and so builds the type of cross-border relationships that must be necessary? Will he confirm that the Government's view is that the hospice should be funded?
    Mr. Needham: Of course, the hospice has to be funded. Up to now it has not been considered to be a regional hospice, and I do not see why it should be. But, as I said, it is an important movement, which has been supported at all levels in the Derry area, and the Government and the Department have been saying through their policy that we look to the Western board to come to a satisfactory conclusion with the hospice.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the additional funds, having pressed for them in the past, and I should like to share in the tribute that has been paid to the hospice movement, but am I right to infer that it is looked upon as a regional service? If so, does that mean that there will be Government limitations on developments in Foyle, Newry or anywhere else where voluntary bodies come together?
    Mr. Needham: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has been a great supporter of the hospice movement and has done much to enable it to develop throughout Northern Ireland. As I said, the funds are earmarked for the boards and it is up to them to negotiate how those funds will be distributed in each area. The aim of the Government and the Department is to move to a 50 per cent. funding arrangement with the hospices.

    Anglo-Irish Conference
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will propose that the secretariat for the Anglo-Irish Conference be transferred to Dublin.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): No, Sir. I have no current plans to make such a proposal.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Was the location of the secretariat in Northern Ireland part of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? If not, does the Secretary of State agree that if it were to spend half the year in Dublin, the considerable security costs, which currently fall on the British taxpayer and none of which are borne by the Republic would be halved? Does he further agree that if it were in Dublin, it would enable the Irish Government to show that no matter what perverse judgments come from the Supreme Court, they stand by the good faith of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and, in particular, article I of that agreement?
    Mr. Brooke: Article 3 of the agreement says:
    "A Secretariat shall be established by the two Governments to service the Conference on a continuing basis in the discharge of its functions as set out in this agreement."
    It does not specifically state any geographical location. The Secretariat is in Belfast because that is the most efficient place for it to do business. I have no evidence that the Irish Government do not stand by article 1 of the agreement.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Having confirmed that there is no reference whatever to Maryfield in the Anglo-Irish Agreement—news which will be welcomed throughout Northern Ireland—does the Secretary of State agree that that gives him the option to consider a different location for the Anglo-Irish secretariat, if there is any necessity for the secretariat? Will he confirm that our concept of the secretariat must have changed since the ruling by the Supreme Court of Dublin that the Dublin representatives have a constitutional imperative to pursue a united Ireland through their agencies, including the Anglo-Irish secretariat?
    Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in stating that I have that freedom, as exemplified in the article of the agreement that I read out, but, as I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), I do not currently have such a

    657
    proposal. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I do not accept the premise that was contained in the second part of his question.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State recall that when the Government's salesmen were attempting to sell the advantages of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to the Unionist community, they put forward two premises—that there would be recognition of Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom by the Government of the Irish Republic, and that there would be better co-operation on security, including extradition? Now that those two claims have been blown out of the water by the Supreme Court of the Irish Republic, will the Secretary of State list for the House the remaining advantages of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that could not be obtained from other sources?
    Mr. Brooke: That is the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the events, but he made a specific reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court. We do not accept the claim to Northern Ireland in article 2 of the Irish constitution. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom in our law and our international law. It is important that we look to the future. Successive Irish Governments have accepted the factual status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. Article 1 of the agreement provides that any change to the status of Northern Ireland would come about only with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman draws attention to extradition matters that we have raised with the Irish Government through the secretariat.
    Sir William Clark: Irrespective of the location of the secretariat, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be much fairer if both Governments shared the costs?
    Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to welcome my hon. Friend's steady fiscal attitude, but I am also concerned with the efficiency of the secretariat, and that is most efficiently conducted in Belfast.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about inward investment into Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Needham: We have achieved a number of notable inward investment successes during the past two years, and I am confident that we shall be able to build on those successes.
    Mr. Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that those successes demonstrate the confidence of overseas investors in the economy of Northern Ireland? Can he say from which countries the investment is principally coming?
    Mr. Needham: It is not always appreciated how great the change in the fortunes of the Northern Ireland economy has been over the past few years and how it is growing. In the past year we have had Fruit of the Loom from the United States—the single largest American investment in Northern Ireland for 10 years—Daewoo from Korea, Montupet from France and Holian from Hong Kong. We are about to announce a German company coming soon to the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and another company coming from Japan. We have Harris Laboratories from
    658
    the United States. We are creating thousands of new jobs from inward investment in Northern Ireland because the people who come there realise what a wonderful place it is and what wonderful people we are.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that, within a reasonable time after interview, officials of the Industrial Development Board should be capable of providing a new business promoter with a letter of offer indicative of the support that might be forthcoming from the IDB? Does he further agree that every inquiry must be treated seriously and with sensitivity, to ensure that we do not lose anyone who might ultimately locate in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Needham: Of course, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. It is crucial that the scope and scale of inward investment is fully understoood before the IDB—a body which spends taxpayers' money—makes an indicative offer. Subject to that, an indicative offer can and should be made.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister accept that the bombings in Castlederg and Ballymena have hampered his efforts to attract inward investment to the Province? What encouragement have the Government given to investment in the Mid-Ulster constituency which has suffered so much from unemployment? Is it not true that it is better to have a stable environment, with the defeat of terrorism, and to allow the jobs that have been set up to remain, rather than, after years of hard work by the Department, to allow the IRA to demolish that in a few seconds with a bomb?
    Mr. Needham: I am pleased to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman for once. The recent damage at Castlederg was another dreadful, exasperating and pointless blow to that little town. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that we are establishing a project in Castlederg, which will involve all its people, to find a way forward, to attract investment and to bring the community together to rebuild its soul. For maniacs to blow apart the wishes of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland is utterly despicable.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister agree that if the poll tax were introduced in Northern Ireland, it would greatly affect inward investment? Does he know—and will he condemn it—that East Antrim Conservative association has called for the implementation of the poll tax in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is a member of that association? I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that all of them are infected with mad cow disease.
    Mr. Needham: The community charge is unlikely to have any effect on inward investment in Northern Ireland. One of the incentives that we offer is that people do not have to pay rates. That is one of the main reasons for people wishing to invest in Northern Ireland.

    Tourism
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to develop the tourism potential of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to promote tourism in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Needham: Encouraging progress is being made in implementing our published strategy for improving the economic return from tourism in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that, with the obvious exception of Southend-on-Sea, Northern Ireland is probably one of the most delightful places to enjoy a holiday? Will he use the powers of British embassies to destroy Northern Ireland's unfair reputation abroad and to explain that one can enjoy a holiday and delightful scenery and expect much hospitality at a low cost in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Needham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I spent a holiday with my family in Northern Ireland two years ago, and it was one of the best holidays that I have ever had. I am sure that it will not be too long before you, Mr. Speaker, spend a holiday in Northern Ireland golfing, walking, sailing, eating, drinking, or pony trekking. We must increase the number of people employed in tourism, which at present is only 9,000 compared with 90,000 in the Republic. Once people have spent a holiday in Northern Ireland, they come back time and again.
    Mr. Boswell: Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), does my hon. Friend agree that agriculture can be supplemented by tourism as a major revenue earner in all parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland? Will he confirm that those who visit the countryside of Northern Ireland are as much at risk from terrorism as from a case of snakebite?
    Mr. Needham: Yes, or mad cow disease for that matter. Some 1 million people visited Northern Ireland last year—the first time that that figure had been achieved since 1969. We have set ourselves the objective of raising that figure to 1·6 million by 1994. Next year is Ulster-Canada year, when we expect to double the number of Canadians visiting Ulster. We shall have a tremendous festival in Belfast so that the city can have a year of fun and enjoyment, and everyone here is welcome.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Belfast city airport on achieving such an impressive record in passenger throughput in the limited time that it has been in operation? Will he assure the House that in the event of Bombardier geting rid of that valuable asset, a monopoly will not then be created whereby the Northern Ireland international airports might be interested in taking over Belfast city airport? Will he further ensure that Belfast city airport will be encouraged to develop as a single entity?
    Mr. Needham: Airports are not my responsibility, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who is responsible, has listened carefully to the question.
    Mr. Stott: I am sure that the Minister is aware that a recent article by Mr. Bert O'Hara, who is the executive director of the Northern Ireland tourist board, in the The House Magazine sets out clearly how well tourism is doing in Northern Ireland. The Minister referred to the figure of
    660
    1·12 million people who have visited Northern Ireland in the past 12 months to take a holiday. We welcome the increase in that figure and hope that it will continue. Will the Minister comment on a rather interesting suggestion from Dr. William Hastings, the president of the Northern Ireland chamber of commerce and industry? He addressed a meeting recently and called for
    "a chamber of tourism for all Ireland."
    Will the Minister comment on what I believe is a good suggestion?
    Mr. Needham: Certainly for tourism to succeed in the north, it must be carried out in co-operation with the south and with Bord Failte. I have no doubt that we shall build on those links because we have an awful lot to offer to anyone who comes from the south and who would like to spend a few extra days in the north with us. I always listen carefully to the views of Dr. Hastings and we shall see what further links we can build between north and south to attract more people to come.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that single questions at Question Time mean that we can get further down the Order Paper, which is for the benefit of the whole House.

    Downpatrick (Anaesthetist Post)
    Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the hon. Member for South Down may expect an answer to his written question of 5 March about the appointment of the permanent third anaesthetist post to the Down group of hospitals in Downpatrick.
    Mr. Needham: The answer was given on 15 March 1990.
    Mr. McGrady: Does the Minister agree that for the anaesthetist's post not to be filled at Down hospital for two years is a public health hazard? Is he aware that the anaesthetists at Down hospital have a work load two and a half times that at Belfast City hospital? Will he intervene with the board, as his noble Friend the Under-Secretary did last September, when he insisted on compulsory competitive tendering to save a few pounds? Will the hon. Gentleman intervene now and direct the board to appoint a permanent anaesthetist to save a few lives?
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman and I have been corresponding on the third anaesthetist consultant post at Down hospital for almost as long as I can remember. I wrote to him in February 1989 saying that a third consultant post was to be advertised. I also wrote to him in July 1989 saying that it would be a locum post while anaesthetist cover was examined not only for Down hospital, but for Lagan hospital and the others in the area. I realise the difficulties there, which must be sorted out. The hon. Gentleman is in discussion with the chairman of the board and I shall pass on his points to my noble Friend. The hon. Gentleman has been told exactly what the position is.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Is not there a real need for improvement in communications between the Department of Health and Social Services and the various health boards in the light of the experience of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and in the light of my

    661
    own experience? It took the Department three solid months to reply to me saying that it had passed a constituent's problem to the relevant health board.
    Mr. Needham: If there has been an error between the Department and the health board, I am sure that the Department will apologise for it. Generally speaking, I have found that relationships between the boards, the Department, Ministers and the chairman are very good and work extremely well.

    De Lorean
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of recovery of money from the De Lorean car company and associated ventures.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): So far, £12·6 million has been recovered. A number of claims are still being pursued in this country and abroad.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that I warned Labour and Conservative Governments, who poured £84 million into the venture, that it was fraudulent from the very beginning? I suggest that the Minister should ask some of the social services inspectors, who are busy hounding single-parent families, to turn their attention to the outstanding sums of money. In particular, will he assure the House that he will pursue the recovery of the £20 million that was spirited away by Lotus Cars through GPD Investments?
    Mr, Cope: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's long connection with and involvement in that matter. I am also aware of what went wrong. We shall continue to pursue all the money that we can in every available court here, the United States and Switzerland.
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who sat on the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into that disgraceful affair want to know how my right hon. Friend is getting on with his legal action against Arthur Andersen and also why no one has been brought to trial for the criminal swindling which was clearly revealed in the report?
    Mr. Cope: I am not prepared to discuss in detail the current litigation against Arthur Andersen except to say that it is continuing. The Serious Fraud Office is continuing its inquiries into the matter and one person is currently on remand to Belfast magistrates court in connection with that.

    Northern Ireland Electricity
    Mr, Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity.
    Mr. Brooke: A White Paper on privatisation proposals will be published later this year.
    Mr, Davies: I thank the Secretary of State for that unusually helpful answer. Will he give us a likely estimate of the increase in electricity prices that will flow from privatisation on the one hand and from decoupling from
    662
    the Great Britain link on the other? Can he also give us an idea of the number of jobs that are likely to be lost as a consequence of privatisation?
    Mr. Brooke: Earlier this month I announced the increase in the tariff as from 1 April. That statement was made in the context of present circumstances. The Government have nothing further to say on tariffs at present and will certainly not speculate about tariff levels beyond the coming year. The principle underlying tariffs in the future will be that of charging the economic price Car producing and delivering electricity efficiently in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Kilfedder: May I make it dear that I am totally opposed to the privatisation of the Northern Ireland electricity supply because once that monopoly is placed in private hands, the price of electricity, which is already far higher than in Scotland, will increase to the detriment of industrial and domestic consumers in Northern Ireland who already suffer the highest cost of living in the United Kingdom? I say to the Government, 'Hands off our electricity."
    Mr, Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making clear beyond peradventure his attitude towards privatisation. However, as he knows, appropriate measures of regulation will accompany the introduction of privatisation.
    Mr. Jim Marshal: The Secretary of State will recall that some months ago the Minister of State promised that we would have a White Paper on privatisation in the near future. That statement was made at the back end of last year, but there is still no sign of the White Paper. Will the Secretary of State tell us when, or if, that White Paper will see the light of day?
    Mr. Brooke: I have already said that it will be published kW this year. The -near future- is an elastic term in Northern Ireland.

    Shoppers (Flee Movement)
    Mr. Tharnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the European Court case brought by the Government following restrictions made by the Irish Government on the free movement of shoppers from that country.
    Mr. Cope: The case against the Government of the Republic of Ireland was brought by the Europe= Commission, and was heard by the European Court of Justice on 21 February when the United Kingdom Government was represented by Treasury counsel who advanced our view that the restrictions were contrary to European law and damaging to the economy of Northern Ireland. The Advocate-General of the court delivered his opinion on 21 March, but a date has not yet been fixed for the court's judgment.
    Mr. Tharnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful that the Irish Government are persisting with this absurd restriction,, which will have to go? Will not that be much to the benefit not only of traders, but of Irish consumers?
    Mr. Cope: Yes. We have made it clear, not only through the courts, which I have just mentioned, but to Irish Ministers, through the Anglo-Irish Conference and in other ways, that we completely oppose the 48-hour rule. It has been in force for too long; the sooner it goes, the better.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that the Sealink and rail services from Northern Ireland to south-west Scotland are used by many shoppers who travel between those two parts of the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that British Rail is planning to axe the sleeper service from Stranraer to Euston? What representations has the right hon. Gentleman or his right hon. and hon. Friends made to British Rail about this? If they have not made any such representations, will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that he will make representations to British Rail to stop the axing of that vital service?
    Mr. Cope: It must be a matter for British Rail. Not many people use that service. In any case, it does not arise out of this question, which is about travellers from the Republic of Ireland.

    Terrorists (Extradition)
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had recently with Ministers of the Republic of Ireland about the extradition of convicted or suspected terrorists from the Republic.
    Mr. Brooke: Extradition matters were discussed at the latest meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference on 2 March. I have not had the opportunity to speak to Ministers of the Republic of Ireland since the disappointing outcome of the Finucane and Clarke hearings, but I hope to do so shortly.
    Mr. Hunter: In the light of the recent case of Dermot Finucane and James Clarke, does my right hon. Friend now agree that the Republic of Ireland is a safe haven for terrorists and that that seriously undermines the validity of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Would not it be better to negotiate and to come to an agreement with Ulster Unionists rather than with a Government who appear to support terrorists?
    Mr. Brooke: At the time of the extradition judgments, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in the House that the judgments might give some people the impression that terrorists would have a safe haven in the Republic. The Anglo-Irish Agreement continues to be a serviceable instrument for the discussion of such matters, and in that respect we shall continue to support it.
    Mr. Maginnis: Will the Secretary of State protest in the most strenuous manner at the judgment by a majority of Supreme Court judges in the Irish Republic who ruled that political exemption from extradition should
    "apply to persons charged with politically motivated offences when the objective of such offences was to secure the ultimate unity of the country"?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that that amounts to a mandate for terrorist warfare conducted against the Unionist community in Northern Ireland being enshrined within the legal interpretation of the Extradition Act 1965 of the Irish Republic?
    Mr. Brooke: The Irish Government have been left in no doubt, through the secretariat, of the strength of our feelings about the judgment to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which he will recall elicited astonishment in the Republic. I agree that the implications for future extradition cases from the Republic, especially those relating to the political offence exception, are extremely serious. However, I do not go as far as the hon. Getleman's final interpretation.
    Mr. Gow: Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Government of the Irish Republic that it is most desirable to remove articles 2 and 3 from the constitution of the Irish Republic? Will he assure the House that he has made such representations, either directly or through the framework of the secretariat?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is correct to refer to articles 2 and 3, as they relate to the Supreme Court's judgment. In answer to an earlier question, I made quite clear the Government's attitude towards articles 2 and 3.
    Mr. William Ross: The Secretary of State says that the Government of the Irish Republic have been left in no doubt as to his strength of feeling. Am Ito understand that he now understands the full meaning of the judgment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) referred?
    Mr. Brooke: I did not entirely catch the hon. Gentleman's question, but I point out that the court's judgment has obviously been subjected to considerable scrutiny with a view to the conversations that we shall be having in the future.
    Mr. Hayes: Has my right hon. Friend made it absolutely clear.
    Hon. Members: Ah!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to ask his question sitting down?
    Mr. Hayes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is nice to get a little sympathy.
    Has my right hon. Friend made it absolutely clear to the Irish Government that Conservative Members are utterly appalled at the decision of the Irish Supreme Court? Has he warned them that if this sort of behaviour continues, it will provide more ammunition for those people who are against the Anglo-Irish Agreement and who want to undermine relations between this country and the south of Ireland? Does he agree that that would be regrettable?
    Mr. Brooke: I know that I speak on behalf of the whole House in expressing sympathy with my hon. Friend for his injuries.
    In answer to my hon. Friend's question, I remind the House that this was a decision of the Irish Supreme Court. The Irish Government were acting on our behalf and were as anxious as we were to secure a satisfactory solution. In that light, we shall be having further discussions with the Irish Government.
    Mr. McNamara: Does the Secretary of State accept that our overriding concern must be to ensure that offenders are brought to justice—not where they are brought to justice? Given that the use of the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act does not excite the same controversy as

    665
    extradition, should not the right hon. Gentleman and his Irish counterpart consider means of increasing the number of cases that are tried under that legislation?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is correct to raise that issue, but it is really one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

    Enterprise Agencies
    Dr. Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many enterprise agencies are currently operating; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Needham: Twenty six, and a further six agencies are at an advanced stage of negotiation.
    Dr. Woodcock: Does my hon. Friend agree that enterprise is the key to success in Northern Ireland? How many jobs and how many industrial units are currently being provided by enterprise agency networks in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that it is Conservative Governments who constantly support enterprise?
    Mr. Needham: Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend. In Northern Ireland we have 800 units, in which 26,000 people are employed. The key to the success of Northern Ireland's economy is the private sector and the creation of small businesses. In that regard, we have a very good record, which will improve.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Minister agree that if this agency is to achieve its aims, it must have a skilled work force at its disposal? Can he explain the remark of the Secretary of State for Employment on 27 March? Referring to training credits, the Secretary of State said:
    "There are no present plans to extend the scheme to Northern Ireland.—[Official Report, 27 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 215.]
    Mr. Needham: We are just about to launch the Training and Employment Agency, which we believe is the first step in substantially improving the skills of our work force. We have a very good education system and many skills, but we believe that we can do much better. The best way of achieving this is through the Training and Employment Agency. Of course, at some stage in the future we shall consider what further steps need to be taken, and whether we should come closer to the system in the rest of the United Kingdom.

    Kincora Boys' Home
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the Official Report, I March, column 370, what consideration he has given to allegations that the Army informed the Royal Ulster Constabulary of what was going on at the Kincora boys' home before 24 January 1980.
    Mr. Cope: Various statements have been made by individuals, but all these allegations were available and were investigated as fully as possible by the RUC and by Sir George Terry six years and more ago. If anyone has new evidence, will he please put it to the police?
    Mr. Dalyell: Have Ministers changed their minds about the authenticity of the two Army documents to which Michael Taylor, the former Army information officer at the time, referred on "Channel 4 News" last night? The
    666
    Minister asks for new information. It came from Broderick and from others involved in the programme. Who was right—Ministers or the people who bore witness last night on "Channel 4 News"?
    Mr. Cope: I saw the news programme to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I am in no position to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the RUC forensic report was inconclusive. That has been known for a long time. As to the individuals who made statements on the programme, all the allegations that were repeated yesterday have been investigated, but we stand ready to look at new evidence if it comes forward. I did not detect any in the programme last night, but I am having the transcript of it carefully examined to see whether there is any new evidence there.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 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 shall be speaking at the Anglo-German Koenigswinter conference dinner to be held in Cambridge.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister take time off from her engagements to investigate why the out-patient vehicle service in Cheshire has not been raised from the skeleton level to which it was reduced during the ambulance dispute? Is not it wrong that her Government are cost-cutting at the expense of the sick, the infirm and the disabled? Instead of the Prime Minister giving her usual outmoded and outdated statistics on the Health Service, will she take steps immediately to bring that inhuman treatment of patients to an end?
    The Prime Minister: I shall refer the detailed matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I do not give the House outdated statistics. This year, according to contemporary statistics, the taxpayer has contributed an extra £2·4 billion to the National Health Service and next year the taxpayer will be contributing a further £3 billion to the NHS. The total figure was £7·5 billion a year when I came into No. 10 Downing street: now the taxpayer will contribute £29 billion a year to the National Health Service.
    Mr. Kirkhope: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kirkhope: When my right hon. Friend sees Chancellor Kohl tomorrow, will she explain to him that the British people understand Germany's desire for unification, but that they want to be sure that it will strengthen Europe's security and stability and that it will mean the united Germany being a member of NATO, and the presence of British and American forces, with nuclear weapons, on German soil?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that be win be listened to carefully because I understand that he was one of the parliamentary observers at the recent East German elections. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Chancellor Kohl has been very firm in his support of NATO and of a united Germany being in NATO. He has also been very firm in his support for American troops and nuclear weapons being stationed on German soil. Those are vital for the future defence of freedom.
    Mr.Kinnock: If the Prime Minister had her time again, would she still introduce the poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr.Kinnock: I am very grateful for that reply— [Interruption.] Does the Prime Minister think that if they had their time again, her hon. Friends would vote for the poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. It is infinitely—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Master: It is infinitely preferable to a rating revaluation, which would put a colossal burden on half the people who reside in local authority areas, and it is infinitely preferable to Labour's roof tax and local income tax.
    Mr.: The Prime Minister must be just about the last person in the country who believes all that claptrap. The people of Britain know that from Sunday they will have imposed on them a tax of monstrous injustice and cost, and it win have been imposed by her Government. It is incompatible with democracy.
    The Prime Minister: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman wisely keeps silent about his own policy of a roof tax plus a local income tax—[interruption.] Of course he does, because the moment he enunciates a policy it is blown sky-high.
    Mr. Ashby: My right hon. Friend will know that the whole House is deeply concerned about the discovery of nuclear triggers destined for Iraq, about which there will be a statement later. There has been a steady now of defensive weapons and technology to Iraq over the years. Will my right hon. Friend get together with our European friends as a matter of urgency and institute a meeting to try to stop the flow of this technology and equipment to Iraq and to preserve peace in the middle east?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. The attempted spread of nuclear weapons is very serious and Customs are to be congratulated on having foiled an effort to spread them further. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be answering a private notice question, during which he win make a full statement. In the meantime, we shall urgently be contacting the signatories to the non-proliferation treaty and the missile technology control regime to see what we can do to prevent a repeat of this serious incident.
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Barron: Does the Prime Minister think it right that over 42,000 student nurses in Britain on low incomes should have to pay the full rate of poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: Before long, most student nurses—those who are not yet registered as full nurses—will be on Project 2000. That means that they will be paid a bursary and treated fully as ordinary students: therefore. they will pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge. Before long, most of them will be on that system. [Interruption.] In the meantime, some student nurses who are in receipt of a salary will be treated like all other trainees who are in receipt of a salary. If the salary were very low, they would be eligible for rebate, but most of them will be paying the community charge in full. That was taken into account in the recent pay award and the speed at which it was implemented.
    Sir John Stokes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety about the teaching of English history in our schools? Instead of teaching only what are called themes, why cannot we go back to the good old days when we learnt by heart the names of the kings and queens of England, the names of our warriors and battles and the glorious deeds of our past? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the whole House wants to hear the reply.
    The Prime Minister: As usual, my hon.. Friend is absolutely right. What children should be taught in history is the subject of vigorous debate I agree with him. Most of us are expected to learn from experience of history and we cannot do that unless we know it. Children should know the great landmarks of British history and should be taught them at school.
    Mr. Hone: Will the Prime Minister recall with me that 16 years ago, 21 working-class people were having a quite drink in public houses in Birmingham when they were blown to pieces by the IRA? Does she agree that there is no greater injustice than an atrocity of that nature because it cannot be changed and those people cannot come out of their graves? Does she further agree that the wave of anger and emotion that swept Britain following that atrocity was both natural and understandable?
    Does the Prime Minister agree that it is not understandable that that wave of anger and emotion should distort the course of justice and lead to the conviction of the wrong people? Given the overwhelming evidence that is emerging and the deep anxiety that has been expressed by respected national figures in Britain and abroad, will she now personally order an independent inquiry into the whole affair?
    The Prime Minister: Most of us recall the scenes of that terrorist act, and the great tragedy will live with some families for ever. But we do not conduct trial by television. The place to put any new evidence is with the police. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that if there is any fresh evidence in the meantime, of course, it will be looked at carefully. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of investigations that are under way with the

    669
    chief constables of the West Midlands and of Devon and Cornwall to inquire into the latest evidence. Then it will be for the prosecuting authorities and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to decide whether any further action should be taken, bearing in mind that there has already been one rehearing by the Court of Appeal, which gave a very detailed judgment.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to emotions. We must not let our emotions run away with us either. It is a matter of evidence before the courts, not of feelings.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the need for her trade union electoral reforms was never more obvious than in recent weeks with the dubious electoral practices of the Transport and General Workers Union—the union which sponsors the Leader of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: All our measures on trade union reform were well judged and have been of great benefit to ordinary members of trade unions. I hope that one day the Transport and General Workers Union will take a move to the right. It will be very welcome.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning her press secretary quietly briefed the press that no new developments have occurred in the past few days in the Birmingham pub bombing case? Would not the appropriate course of action be for the Home Secretary to come to the House and say that out loud so that hon. Members can ask the many questions that arise?
    The Prime Minister: No. A television programme alters nothing. We do not have trial by television, and the day we do, the rule of law will have left this country for good. The only thing that matters in a court of law is evidence and the only thing that matters in reopening a case is whether there is any fresh evidence. I am not yet aware that there is, but if there is, that matter will be fully taken into account by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that she has many friends and admirers in this House? [Interruption.] Does she also accept that there was a need to change our system of local government finance? But the poll tax has become friendless even among those who gain most because they do not recognise it as fair or as based upon people's ability to pay. Can we set ourselves upon a path on which ability to pay plays a bigger part than where one happens to live, fortunately or unfortunately?
    The Prime Minister: First, ability to pay is taken care of by the most generous community charge rebates this country has ever known. Every penny of those rebates is taken care of by the taxpayer. Secondly, the majority of expenditure of local authorities is met not by the community charge payer, but by the taxpayer. The taxpayer is part of a progressive system of tax under which, of course, the rich pay far more than the poor. Those are two facts. I can think of nothing more unfair than a system of rating that ensured that half the people who voted for local authorities did not pay a penny piece.

Nuclear Trigger Devices (Iraq)
3.31 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about Government action with regard to Iraq following the seizure of nuclear detonators at Heathrow airport.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The House will wish to congratulate the Customs and Excise on its successful operation yesterday to stop the illegal export of nuclear material to Iraq. This was an effective demonstration of our commitment to carrying out our responsibilities to stop proliferation and of co-operation between the British and United States authorities.
Three people have been charged with offences under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989. The House will understand that I am not able to speculate on the details of the matter which are now sub judice. The question goes wider than law enforcement here and no doubt that is why the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) tabled it.
There are two international instruments which are relevant. Under the non-proliferation treaty, nuclear suppliers undertake not to transfer nuclear devices or technology and the other parties undertake not to receive them. All exports of nuclear material by suppliers who are states parties to the NPT including Iraq, are subject to safeguards administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The second instrument is the missile technology control regime which was established in 1987 by the summit 7 countries. The MTCR is intended to prevent the spread of technology that could be used to develop nuclear-capable missiles. Both instruments are important.
In Geneva, we are urgently consulting other parties in the western group to the NPT in order to find ways in which to minimise the risk of evasion of the treaty. We are in the forefront of those working to expand the membership of the MTCR. We shall urge our European Community partners and other Governments to join the MTCR without delay. The Soviet Union has similar controls that apply to the export of missile technology and we hope that it too will adhere to the MTCR guidelines.
Iraq is not the only power in the middle east with nuclear ambitions. This episode underlines starkly the dangers for the whole world from the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It shows that vigilance pays off. It also points to the vital need to solve by negotiation the wider conflicts in the middle east that undoubtedly acts as a spur to the proliferation of weapons in that region.
Mr. Kaufman: May I, on behalf of the Labour party, congratulate Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the United States authorities on the brilliant success of their operation? The whole world owes them a debt, for what we have seen is the prevention of a crime that would have menaced world security. However, I must say to the right hon. Gentleman, in the light of his response to my question, that the action that he has announced does not bear comparison with the efficiency and determination of the authorities that detected and defeated the nuclear smuggling ring.
672
There are a number of questions to which the House requires an answer. Why did the right hon. Gentleman's Foreign Office spokesman last night describe the seizure of the detonators as only a
"criminal matter which need have no bearing on our relationship with Iraq"?
Is not that a culpably complacent reaction? If our relationship with Iraq is not affected, why did the Foreign Office call in the Iraqi ambassador? Is it a matter of no concern to us that a regime such as that of Iraq has got so far along the road to building a nuclear weapon? If the seizure has no bearing on our relationship with Iraq, why was an Iraqi national arrested on the point of boarding a plane for Baghdad?
If, as the right hon. Gentleman's spokesman said, this is only a criminal matter, why was the decision made by his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to deport a man on grounds which were:
"reasons of national security and … other reasons of a political nature connected with attempted breaches of legislation governing the export of strategic goods from the United Kingdom"?
Why was a decision made to deport the man at all, especially at a time when two British subjects are being held in wrongful imprisonment in Iraq? Why has the man not been held, why is he not to be charged and why has he been sent home to safety and no doubt applause? Given that the whole Iraqi operation was clearly inspired at the highest level in Baghdad, can the Minister say whether the Iraqi embassy in London has been involved? Should the Iraqi ambassador be allowed to remain in London? After the murder of Mr. Bazoft, Opposition Members called for the expulsion of the Iraqi ambassador. Is not such action more appropriate than ever now?
If there is concern about possible Iraqi reprisals against British nationals in Iraq, will the Government now advise British nationals to leave that country in the interests of their own safety? Will the Government now place a ban on all technological exports to Iraq that could have any connection with nuclear or any other armaments? Will the Government reconsider their attitude towards export credits for Iraq? As Iraq is now clearly in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to which it is an adherent and to which the United Kingdom is one of the principal signatory parties, will the Government now call for the International Atomic Energy Agency to use its powers under article 3 of the non-proliferation treaty to go to Iraq and carry out an inspection, as it has the right to do under the treaty?
Will the Government urgently consult our European partners and the United States on concerted action? As the Iraqi action is clearly a threat to world peace, will the Government raise the issue without delay at the United Nations Security Council? The Government must take action with the utmost urgency, because the maintenance of international stability and the threat to peace make this an issue of paramount importance.
Mr. Hurd: This is a deeply important matter; I do not dissent from that. It is a criminal matter, and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was right not to press me on that aspect of it.
The Iraqi ambassador was called in so that we could explain our concern, the steps that were being taken and the reasons for them. Which charges were brought is not a matter for me. My right hon. and learned Friend decided to deport Mr. Latif because his continued presence here

673
was considered to be against the public interest. That is a perfectly normal procedure with which the House is familiar.
The right hon. Member for Gorton mentioned the stance of his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) after Mr. Bazoft's death, but he did not do so wholly accurately. I believe that he was in Sweden at the time. As we did then, we have considered the presence of the Iraqi ambassador and our diplomatic relations with Iraq. There is a considerable risk of damage in breaking off diplomatic relations, with no actual advantage. I do not want to get into the position that we not only leave our citizens, including our two prisoners which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, without protection, but do not have an embassy in the middle east between the Khyber pass and the Mediterranean. We have two empty embassies in two important middle eastern countries, and I do not want to add to that number unless there is a clear advantage in doing so. The right hon. Gentleman has not urged that advantage.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that we do not supply arms to Iraq, and I am glad of the opportunity to make that clear. We covered the issue of exports during our previous exchanges. Exports of nuclear technology and arms are covered by the restrictions I mentioned. It is clear from yesterday's events that those are effectively policed, and will continue to be.
The right hon. Gentleman urged me to consult our partners and allies, which is absolutely right. I have told the House that we are doing so. I do not exclude action in the Security Council, but I am not, at present, clear whether it would he profitable or lead anywhere. What are important are the two instruments I mentioned—the two international regimes—which are not perfect but offer the best hope of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the missiles which could carry them. We are right to concentrate our international effort in following up this serious event by trying to sharpen and improve the effectiveness of those two regimes, which are designed for that purpose.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the coup effected by the Customs and Excise in London, which the whole world will applaud. However, there are many participants in this unsavoury act who should be brought to account. It is worrying that West Germany, China, France and the United States are involved. Will he consider extending the COCOM net, which already exists for some of those countries, to control the exports of such vital equipment to unfriendly territories, and the need to ensure that the world co-ordinates its efforts to stop the proliferation, rather than rely on existing treaties which simply do not work.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is on exactly the right tack. Appended to the NPT is the Zangger list of products. That is one instrument, the other is the missile control arrangement, which I described. We are anxious not only that the original summit seven members should belong to that, but that all our EC partners, and other countries, should join it so that that control becomes more effective. I entirely agree with that, and we shall continue down exactly that path.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to the missile control
674
technology regime and the non-proliferation treaty. Does he agree that the effectiveness of both those regimes will always depend not only on the good faith of their signatories, but on the policing available to ensure that they are followed? Having regard to the position in the middle east, and the continuing unrest there, does he accept that it is time for the launching of a substantial political initiative, of which the Government should form part?
Mr. Hurd: There are different middle east disputes. There is the Iran-Iraq war, on which I am in close touch with the secretary-general, who carries the peace-making banner, and there is the Arab-Israeli dispute, which we have often discussed, and the hon. and learned Gentleman knows our stance on that. To answer the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to pick up a point made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) which I did not answer, I can tell him that the Iraqis have a nuclear research establishment based on a French-supplied reactor which was inspected under the IAEA procedures in April 1989.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most worrying aspect of the affair is that security arrangements have been so sloppy that people such as the Iraqis could get their hands on such bits of equipment? Surely the most urgent thing of all is to ensure that it cannot happen again.
Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend has been in the business long enough to know that such questions arise when one has a success. If the Customs had not been sucessful, the question would not have arisen. The episode shows that there is vigilance and effective co-operation. The shipment was prevented, but that is not a reason for complacency, rather for doing what we have proposed to do, which is to draw more and more people into more and more effective arrangements.
Mr. Peter Shore: As the Foreign Secretary said, this is a disturbing incident. What does the attempted export of the nuclear triggers tell us about the advance of the Iraqis towards producing a nuclear device of their own? Can he assure the House that he will give a full report of our findings and exploration into the matter to the IAEA in Vienna so that it can seriously consider taking much more effective action than seemed to be forthcoming having listened to the complacent interview on the BBC at 1 o'clock with the representative of the Vienna authority?
Mr. Hurd: I had better obtain a transcript of that interview. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The specification of the material confiscated yesterday suggests that the capacitors were intended for use in the trigger mechanism for a nuclear warhead, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it does not follow that all the other pieces are in place. No such deduction can be drawn, but that is not a reason for complacency.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Is my right hon. Friend concerned about the fact that, if any group of terrorists seeks illegally to export such nuclear devices, they can apparently be brought to justice only under a somewhat obscure statutory instrument, the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989, which carries the maximum

675
penalty of a £1,000 fine or a two-year sentence of imprisonment? Is that an adequate deterrent to those seeking to blow up the entire middle east?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend will not expect me to trespass by commenting on the case or what may follow, but I note his point.
Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that if Iraq, with its dangerous regime, were to obtain nuclear potential, it would present a menace to peace? Does he recall that on a previous occasion others who were concerned about that took practical and effective action which was condemned in the House, I believe wrongly? Is he prepared to say what Her Majesty's Government and their allies will do to prevent the need for such action again?
Mr. Hurd: We shall continue to take the action that was taken yesterday. That is the most effective way of ensuring that proliferation does not take place. I would be disturbed if any state proliferated in that way, particularly if it was in an area of a good deal of tension and long-standing disputes. The first thing to do—I am not just talking about the middle east—is to persuade as many countries as possible to join the NPT so that they are subjected to inspection. But that in itself is not enough, as this incident shows, and that is why we need to strengthen the regime and make it more effective.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is not the excellent operation yesterday evidence that the best way of controlling international terrorism is by international co-operation? Will my right hon. Friend now ask the Foreign Office to update its previously held view that there is no evidence that Iraq is developing a nuclear capability?
Mr. Hurd: I am not sure about that previously expressed view. We keep a pretty wary eye on threats of proliferation in the middle east and elsewhere. It may prove to be a rather healthy reminder that, as one threat to our security diminishes—the Soviet threat with which we have lived most familiarily—there are other perhaps more sinister threats. We have to be equally vigilant and prepared to deal with them.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have business questions today and an important debate that has to end at 7 o'clock, so I shall allow two more questions from either side and then I am afraid we must move on.
Mr. George Galloway: While no one in their right mind wants any new countries to acquire nuclear weapons, is the Secretary of State aware of the offence that is felt in the Arab and Islamic world at the assumptions which seem to lie behind such a hue and cry—that it is all right for some countries such as South Africa, Israel and ourselves to have nuclear weapons, but it is somehow fundamentally wrong for Arab countries and other Muslim countries such as Pakistan to have them? Will the Secretary of State amplify the point that he correctly made in his earlier remarks—that Iraq is not the only country in the middle east seeking a nuclear capacity
676
and, thanks to Mr. Vanunu—we should not forget his incarceration—we now know that Israel has a battery of nuclear weapons pointed at countries such as Iraq?
Mr. Hurd: The non-proliferation treaty distinguishes between those who were nuclear powers at the time and the remainder. That is the basis on which 139 countries have adhered to the treaty. It is not a distinction between Arabs and other non-nuclear powers; it is a distinction between the original nuclear powers and the remainder. I draw that distinction. The hon. Gentleman mentioned South Africa. I hope that all the countries of southern Africa will sign and adhere to the NPT.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: May I commend my right hon. Friend for resisting the calls to break diplomatic relations? Are not our troublesome relations with Iraq just where we need diplomatic expertise? Is not the main point to be learned from yesterday's episode that in recent years the arms race has been on the increase in the middle east while the peace process has been on the decrease there?
Mr. Hurd: The peace processes—my hon. Friend knows that we are talking about more than one dispute—are extremely important. There is no doubt that the existence of the Iran-Iraq war—there is a truce and there is no fighting, but there is no formal end to the war—acts as a spur to some of those activities. I agree that we all have a responsibility for urging forward the peace processes. At the same time, we also have a responsibility in that case for preventing the flow of arms and, in all cases, for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Mr. David Young: Is not it true that Israel and Iraq either have or are about to have nuclear weapons and that the history of both those countries has shown that they will not hesitate to use a pre-emptive strike if it suits their purposes? Is the Foreign Secretary content with that situation, which may mean war, and does he anticipate its prevention?
Mr. Hurd: That is the oldest and I think the emptiest argument in the world. Because one country may have thought of that argument, it takes actions which produce exactly the same feelings among its neighbours. The hon. Gentleman will agree that the only sane answer is that we have treaties in place which may not be perfect and we should work with our friends and allies who see the dangers to make them more effective. The success yesterday showed that they are effective, but we cannot be satisfied, because the incident also showed the continuing need and the continuing danger.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is equally unacceptable for Israel to have nuclear weapons as it would be for Iraq to have them? Will he confirm that the Government have been as assiduous in preventing the flow of nuclear munitions, or parts for them, to Israel as they would be to other countries?
Mr. Hurd: I have tried not to get drawn into the preferences of right hon. and hon. Members for different states. There is an occasion for doing that, but today is not it. We are talking about a number of non-nuclear states in an area continuously full of tension and bitterness. In my answers, I think that I have covered what we think is the right remedy.

Business of the House
3.54 pm
Dr. John Cunninham: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The Lard President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2 APRIL—Second Reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embrylogy Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 3 Aartn.—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Social Security Bill (2nd Allotted day).
Motion relating to the National Health Senices (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Amendment) Regulations
WEDNEstiav 4 April—Consideration of any Lords amendments that may be received to the Education (Student Loans) Bill.
THURSDAY 5 April—Adjournment debates.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate that the business for the first week after the Easter Adjournment will be as follows:
WEDNESDAY 18 Anat—Second Reading of the Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 19 April—Second Reading of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill.
FRIDAY 20 April—Private Members' Bills.
It may be for the convenience of hon. Members to know how I propose that the House should handle the debates on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. I should make it plain that I put forward these proposals only after having consulted widely in all parts of the House.
I should like to express my thanks to those hon. Members who have been willing to help me, in particular to the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr.Cunningham).
The Bill is an important part of the legislative programme that the Government have brought before the House In bringing the Bill forward, the Government are responding to developments in human fertilisation and embryology, and their practical consequences.
The key issue at the heart of the Bill's provision is whether certain infertility treatments and research on human embryos should be permitted and brought within a new regulatory regime. In addition, 1 am advised that amendments on the medical termination of pregnancy would be within the scope of the Bill.
These are matters on which there is strong personal feeling, on both sides of the argument, and on which there has been wide public debate. They are matters on which the public have a right to expect the House to reach a clear view, but, equally clearly, there are issues on which the House should reach its conclusions on a free vote, on both sides of the House, as Government and Opposition speakers have made clear on previous occasions.
Against that background. the Government believe it right to do all we can to facilitate the House's consideration of those complex issues. I therefore propose to take certain procedural steps to provide for a structured and orderly debate of the whole of the Bill. Later today, I shall table a motion under Standing Order No. 61(3) to provide for the major issues of conscience on embryology research and on abortion, if and in so far as any amendments are tabled on that subject, to be debated in a
678
Committee of the whole House before the remainder of the Bill is debated in Standing Committee, and a timetable motion covering the Committee and subsequent stages of the Bill. The House will be given an opportunity to consider the motions immediately after Second Reading on 2 April.
I hope that the House will welcome those arrangements, which are entirely intended to enable it to reach dear and orderly conclusions on the important issues, within the scope of the Bill.
Dr. Cunningham: I first thank the Leader of the House for his careful and important statement on how we should deal with the controversial issues in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. I personally thank him for the care and time he has taken to consult the Opposition about those matters and I hope that whatever the views of individual Members on the particular issues, his proposals will receive a wide welcome, which they deserve. I confirm what he and the House already know: speaking for the Labour party, there will be a free vote on these matters.
I also thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the week after the Easter recess as well as for next week. Can he tell us when the Government will be publishing the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill?
Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the survey published today by the BBC of the financial circumstances of the 214 district health authorities? Is be aware that the survey shows that 42 per cent. of all district health authorities are facing debts; that 24 per cent. of them say that, as a consequence of their indebtedness, they are having to reduce patient care; and that 57 per cent. say that their financial circumstances are worse now than when the Government introduced their new proposals for financing the Health Service?
As Government legislation now in the House of Lord's makes it clear that, after 31 March next year, no district heath authority can lawfully operate with a financial deficit, is not this matter now urgent and should not the House hear as soon as possible, preferably in an oral statement next week from the Secretary of State for Health, exactly what the Government intend to do for the finances of the Health Service between now and 31 March next year to avoid an impending catastrophe in reductions in patient care across the country? I urge the Leader of the House to provide time for us to discuss that most critical of matters.
There are about 10 outstanding orders on the poll tat to come before the House for debate This week we have again seen one of the most callous anomalies of all in the poll tax—the position of student nurses, who qualify for no rebate compared with that of apprentices in the armed services earning similar amounts who do qualify for rebates. I draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the editorial in The Times today, which is a damning indictment of the whole barmy idea of introducing a poll tax in Britain—
Mr, Tony Marlow: It does nor say much about the roof tax, does it
Dr. Cunningham: If I may reply to the hon. Gentleman's sedentary intervention, The Tunes said that property taxes should be reintroduced. The hon. Gentleman got it absolutely and comprehensively wrong

679
Given the damning comments from all quarters about the poll tax, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate after the Easter recess, and preferably, introduce measures to get rid of the whole ludicrous idea?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Let me deal with the last point first. There have been a number of opportunities lately to discuss orders in connection with the community charge. There will be an opportunity to do so again later today. The question of another debate on the subject is best left for handling through the usual channels.
The hon. Gentleman did not, of course, disclose that the majority of health authorities are proving able to manage their budgets within the resources available; that must, in the end, be an essential feature of National Health Service management. Even if the resources were to be doubled, and whatever the resources available to health authorities for a given period, a system of management needs to be put into place for managing them within those resources.
One of the purposes of the Health Service reforms is to enhance the quality of management so that the resources that are available, which will and must be finite under any Government under the sun, are managed so as to avoid end of the year problems of that kind. That is the object of the reforms and the hon. Gentleman's analysis was wholly ill founded and astonishing.
Dr. Cunningham: It was the analysis of the BBC.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The fact that it was the BBC's analysis does not make it any more commendable.
The British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill will be published next week and will therefore be available some time ahead of the debate that will take place in the week following the Easter recess. Finally, I was grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments about the arrangements that I propose for discussing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: When will the House have an opportunity to debate the proposals for the change in the regulations relating to housing allowance for police officers so that it can deliver its verdict on what most people would consider to be a breach of faith with the police?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am of course aware of the interest on both sides of the House in those matters. However, the timing of a debate on the police regulations must be left to discussions between the usual channels.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: When the Leader of the House has dinner here in the House of Commons in the evening and he is sitting at his table being served by staff in the Refreshment Department, does he ever stop to wonder how they manage to live on little more than £100 a week? What does he think about that?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have one thought in that context: I am reminded of the tenacity with which the hon. Gentleman pursues that matter on every occasion—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Make us pay more for our meals.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a second, I will answer him. Of course the matter can be considered by the House of Commons Commission, as it will be in so far as the points that the hon. Gentleman has advanced should be considered.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share the growing anxiety in this country about the state of the British press? Is he aware that hardly a day goes by without the announcement of a settlement for some unfounded libel and never a day passes without the invasion of the privacy of people who in no sense are in public life? Does he agree that the balance to be struck between the freedom of the press and the rights of the individual is a vital constitutional issue? If he does agree, will he provide time for a debate on the matter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am aware that that is a topic of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and it has been the subject of debate before, although perhaps not this year. My hon. Friend will have the opportunity to raise it in a debate on the Adjournment. I have no plans for arranging a debate on the subject.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the Leader of the House had a chance to study early-day motion 736, signed by hon. Members from all parties, about the entitlement of fishermen to unemployment benefit?
[That this House views with concern the effects on share fishermen and fishing crews of new regulations, introduced on 10th December 1989, covering benefit payments, which establishes a £43 earnings limit in a seven day benefit week; regrets that the new rules were introduced without consultation with the industry, and despite the existence of a 42-year-old agreement that higher national insurance contributions would be paid by share fishermen on the understanding that they would be able to claim unemployment benefit for the days they cannot go to sea; and calls upon the Government, who have now imposed a compulsory lay-up scheme with the intention of reducing catching effort, to amend the Department of Social Security regulations to allow fishermen to claim benefit payments when they are prevented from going to sea.]
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is disgraceful for the Government to breach a 42-year-old agreement at precisely the time when they are preventing fishermen from going to sea? Is not it time for an early debate in Government time to discuss that and the other injustices being visited upon the Scottish fishing industry?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a question bearing on the more general issues on that topic on Tuesday. On this matter, the Government are aware of the concerns of the fishing industry, and we are monitoring the effects of the changes to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
Sir Anthony Grant: Although I appreciate that there was a short debate in the early hours of the morning a few days ago about the exchange rate mechanism, would it be possible to have a proper debate on that subject in the not-too-distant future so that we may consider how far the Madrid conditions have been satisifed and how far they are still relevant?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I certainly understand the interest that my hon. Friend expresses in that matter. There will be opportunities to discuss it in the course of our regular debates on Community affairs, but I will bear his points in mind.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that, at 1 o'clock this morning, many hon. Members on both sides of the House were deeply concerned that Ministers were still trotting out the same excuses that they have been trotting out for the past decade for not paying compensation to nuclear test veterans, and that they did after only a 45-minute debate? So that we can put the case properly and give justice to those ex-service men, such as is being given in the United States and in other countries, please may we have a full debate next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot respond to the right hon. Gentleman by acceding to his request. As he has said, that matter was debated last night and was the subject of a long answer from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security a day or two before. The arguments that were advanced on behalf of the Government still deserve to prevail.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Through the arrangements that he has announced for the Human Fertilsation and Embryology Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend must be aware that he has brought to an end years of wrangling and uncertainty on a difficult subject. Is he aware that that will have earned the gratitude not only of those of us in this place with strong feelings on the matter, but of many people in the country who have wanted to see that wrangling and uncertainty brought to an end, and, indeed, of many other hon. Members who do not have strong feelings on it, but who have been vexed for many years by the wrangling and pressures that have been involved?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for the generosity of what she has just said.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will the Leader of the House be good enough to ask the Minister for Health to investigate the functioning of the Tower Hamlets social services and housing committee, especially in relation to its arrangements for the care and financing in the community of severely disabled people, with special reference to the case of—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain that that is the direct responsibility of the Leader of the House. Is it a question about a debate, a statement or a question?
Ms. Gordon: Yes, I want a statement. I refer especially to the case of Corporal William Blackburn, who has been in the Queen Elizabeth military hospital in Woolwhich ready for discharge for the past 19 months. Will the Leader of the House please make a statement to the House next week?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise to make a statement about that, but I can undertake to bring the matter to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is the Government's statement about whether or not to charge-cap any local authority coming next week; and if not, why not?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot give a precise answer to my hon. Friend's question, but I expect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be in a positon to make an announcement next week.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that last week I asked for a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office to be brought to the Dispatch Box this week to give a statement about the uprating of the ceiling for rate benefits in Northern Ireland in line with the uprating for the community charge here. Do I take it that silence gives consent and that we shall be able to read about it in the newspapers in the next few weeks?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should draw any particular conclusions from that. He knows that Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office were at the Dispatch Box earlier this afternoon.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time after the recess for a full debate on tourism? There has not been one for some considerable time, and the tourist industry, which is this country's largest earner of foreign currency, is in a state of crisis, partly because of the introduction of the uniform business rate and because of the elimination of any transitional arrangements for people who purchase new hotels.
I also refer my right hon. and learned Friend to the 100-day limit that has been introduced on bed-and breakfast accommodation, which exempts such accommodation from the uniform business rate. Finally, may I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to the fact that the standard spending assessments do not give any recognition to the expenditure on tourism that my local authority in Torbay spends every year, which amounts to about £1 million? Will my right hon. and learned Friend please find the time for a debate after the recess?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has understandably drawn attention to certain matters affecting the tourist industry, which is of importance in his constituency. I shall bring those matters to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I cannot promise to offer a debate.
Mr. Martin Flannery: I understand that, in the light of the programme on the Birmingham Six last night, the Home Secretary issued a press statement. Many of us thought that, before he did that, he should have come to the House to answer questions about what happened. In view of that and of many of the allegations made in that programme-especially the allegation that the police have had the names of those involved for no less than 15 years-does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary should come to the House as soon as possible—certainly during next week—to say what he thinks and to allow us to question hire about that whole business, which is now part and parcel of the thinking of all our people?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The fact that one of the relevant documents referred to in that programme has been in the

683
possession of the police and other authorities for some time tends to support the view that the programme did not contain a great deal of new material. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said today that, as always, he is willing to look at fresh evidence. That is the appropriate course in respect of this matter.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, apparently, there are at present about 25,000 empty council properties in London—10,000 of them in just five Labour-controlled authority areas? Does he know that uncollected rents in five Labour-controlled authority areas amount to £58 million? Does he agree that there is a need for an urgent debate on local authority housing in London, so that the slur about "the plight of the homeless" may be fully exposed?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend, as so often, has drawn attention to two important facts that underline the extent to which Labour-controlled authorities in London are failing to meet the needs of their populations in respect of housing.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Leader of the House accept that his announcement about the guillotine on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is about the only guillotine announcement that will be widely welcomed on both sides of the House? Will he give the House credit? The public are fed up with our failure to come to a decision and with our appearing to mess around with an important issue.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the same time confirm that no guillotine will be imposed on the Education (Student Loans) Bill when it comes back from the House of Lords next week? Following the question from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), can he remove any doubt that there will be an early statement next week on any capping of councils? The system will come into operation next week, and councils need to know whether an upper limit will be fixed by the Government.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I have said clearly that I expect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement next week. We shall have to consider, as the days unfold, the most appropriate arrangements for dealing with student loans. I wish to express my gratitude for the hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the arrangements that I announced concerning the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
I qualify my gratitude in one respect: I should have expected someone of the hon. Gentleman's enlightenment to recognise that the timetable motion that I propose is not in any sense a guillotine. It is being put in place as a result of very wide consultation, to enable the House to consider the matter sensibly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the word "guillotine" and accept the word "timetable", which is much more elegant and gentle.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that his decision to give special time for matters that are normally considered matters of conscience is due entirely to the fact that those debates will stem from amendments to
684
Government legislation—amendments that are in order and that there is no change whatever in long-standing Government policy never, ever, to allow extra time for private Members' Bills?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our position starts and finishes with the premise of which I am reminded by my right hon. Friend. In this context, the Government thought it right—certainly I thought it right—to make arrangements for issues that arise within the scope of this Bill to be considered in an orderly fashion.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House please make arrangements as soon as possible for a statement and debate on miscarriages of justice in this country? I refer in particular to the case of the Birmingham Six, whose innocence has been known for the past 15 years. These people have lost 15 years of their lives. They have been in prison for 15 years for a crime that they did not commit and could not have committed. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make sure that this debate takes place soon? Will he ensure that the Government do not delay on the inquiry by the Devon and Cornwall constabulary but, instead, refer the case rapidly to the Court of Appeal as the most speedy mechanism by which these men may be released, and the sense of injustice removed?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have said already, it does not appear that any significant new matters were raised in the course of the recent programme. However, the position remains the same: my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is always willing to consider fresh evidence and, in the light of it, to decide whether any further procedural steps should be taken.
Mr. Cecil Franks: Bearing in mind an earlier question about the media, and also the widespread concern expressed in the House about the violence which has followed media-inspired and orchestrated demonstrations, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider an early debate on the issue? To help him to determine what to do, may I draw to his attention to two events in my constituency? First, last weekend a media-orchestrated and inspired demonstration broke into my constituency office during my advice bureau: it resulted in the police being called and a Labour councillor and the Labour party press secretary being arrested. Secondly, following an article on Monday calling for a demonstration outside the hotel where my constituency was to hold its annual general meeting tomorrow, the hotel has refused to give facilities for the meeting. There is a climate of fear in the constituency, deliberately orchestrated and inspired by the local media.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: While I cannot undertake to offer a debate on the particular matters raised by my hon. Friend, he is certainly right to draw attention to the need to avoid violence in the expression of opinion on any issue at any time, and to draw attention to the need for the media, like anybody else, not to provoke or incite violence on such occasions.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Can we have a debate on Wednesday on the illegal export of nuclear bomb triggers, instead of dealing with Lords amendments to the Education (Student Loans) Bill? Today we had only a private notice question on the nuclear bomb triggers; a

685
Government statement should have been volunteered. As the Leader of the House knows, the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty is very important and has suddenly leapt into prominence. We should be given time to debate it and to support the 137 non-nuclear nations who support the treaty. We want to strengthen it. We could discuss how the Government are sabotaging the treaty by being in breach of article 6 because of the development and purchase of 10 billion worth of Trident nuclear weapons. We could examine and expose the double standards of a nation and Government who want an increase in the capability to cause mass extermination but condemn other nations that want to follow suit.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The quality of the hon. Gentleman's argument in support of his case is such that it convinces me that his case does not deserve to prevail. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has dealt clearly today with the instant matters. It is also manifest from the success of the authorities in intercepting the equipment that Her Majesty's Government take their obligations in this respect very seriously.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Grave and valid concern has been felt in all parts of Northern Ireland by the callous call of Northern Ireland Conservatives for the imposition of the poll tax on the people of Northern Ireland. Can we have an urgent debate on the matter so that the representatives of all the constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland may have an opportunity to put forward the reasons why the tax should not be imposed on the hard-pressed people of Northern Ireland?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is in a position to advance in the House the case that he has just put forward. It would surely be sensible for Conservatives in Northern Ireland to have a comparable and expanding opportunity to do the same.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Further to the point raised by the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), does the Leader of the House recognise that the Police (Amendment) Regulations 1990 are causing a considerable drop in morale in the police forces of the United Kingdom? Can he be more specific about when he will find time for a debate on them? I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government are not avoiding a debate, for which there is considerable support on both sides of the House, just because the Government are trying to avoid the discussion of thorny and embarrassing matters.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: While I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's judgment on the merits of the regulations, I have said that there is widespread interest in the matter among hon. Members on both sides of the House. The usual channels will be considering when a debate can conveniently be arranged.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Further to the questions posed by the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the innocence of the Birmingham Six was not demonstrated by an emotional and misleading television programme in which one of the most absurd propositions was that a conspiracy was conducted by police officers, solicitors,
686
barristers, judges and Ministers to ensure that a disgraceful miscarriage of justice was perpetrated against six innocent men?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. and learned Friend makes some important points in response to the programme., but he will agree that we do not have to accept trial by television as a means of reaching justice in this country. I assure him and the House that the Home Secretary will continue to consider fresh evidence that is presented on this matter in the proper way, as he has done heretofore.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: The whole House will appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend's care in consulting widely on the Human Fertilisation and Embrology Bill. So that the House can come to a clear view, may we have votes on the subject at a reasonable hour, when the House is well attended, as it will be unwhipped business?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his general welcome for my proposals. We shall be seeking so to arrange matters that they are conducted in a reasonable way at not unreasonable times.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate so that we may discuss the leaked memorandum from the chief solicitor of Barnet council admitting that, over a period of years, Barnet council has illegally discriminated in the rehousing of immigrants and is liable to prosecution under the Race Relations Act 1976?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is a relatively unorthodox foundation for suggesting a debate. I do not immediately respond to it with enthusiasm.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate on the situation in Hungary? It would seem that the Hungarian Communist party changed its name to the Socialist party to fight the recent elections. But only 10 per cent. of the population voted for that party, and presumably the other 90 per cent. could not tell the difference between socialism and communism. Does he agree that that would be an interesting subject for a debate?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend makes a penetrating observation about an interesting subject. I am not sure that it carries the matter far enough for me to arrange an early debate.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: When will the Leader of the House announce a debate about Harrods? Such a debate has been made more urgent by the disastrous and disgusting performance of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry yesterday before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry when he refused to answer any questions about why he did not recommend the disqualification of the two villains who are running one of the leading corner shops in Britain. Will he note that there is a demand for an urgent debate on both sides of the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Again, the way in which the hon. Gentleman advances that case is not very effective in persuading me to shift from my position. A debate on the matter would not be appropriate while the Select Committee is considering the subject.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate on the valuable work undertaken by the Audit Commission? Many hon. Members have campaigned, and welcome the decision by the Government, to deploy the Audit Commission in the National Health Service, as outlined in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Many of us are also extremely impressed by some of the important reports produced by the Audit Commission.
I think particularly of the report "Care in the Community", which has been widely welcomed on both sides of the House, and the valuable work that it did in respect of the homeless and homelessness. Many other areas might benefit from the attentions of the Audit Commission. Could time be found to discuss the matter on the Floor of the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the tribute he paid to the work of the Audit Commission and to the way in which its area of operations has been effectively enlarged. That adds force to the case for its being considered on the Floor of the House, but I cannot give him any promise in that respect.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the answer that he gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) about a debate on people in council houses who cannot pay their rent? Will he extend such a debate to a full debate on the issue of poverty, so that some of us on this side can explain to Conservative Members what causes poverty, why people cannot pay their rents, why some people—not all—are suffering more than they have ever suffered in their lives, especially those in a state of poverty who are about to face poll tax demands which they cannot possibly pay? Is it not time that we had a full-scale debate on poverty so that there can be some glimmer of understanding among Conservative Members of why people are in poverty?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My recollection is that, on a Supply day not many months ago, there was a debate on a subject similar to that identified by the hon. Gentleman. He may have the opportunity to play his part in selecting other Supply days for that purpose. I hope that my hon. Friends will make use of the occasion to identify the extent to which poverty has diminished as a result of the successful operation of the Government's economic policies in raising average living standards throughout the country.
Mr. John Marshall: May we have an early debate on the policies of Barnet council, in view of the interest in them of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), so that I can point out that our community charge is two thirds that of Brent, that every day 2,000 children come from Brent to be educated in Barnet and that Barnet does not have the rent arrears of Brent or the stock of empty houses of many London Labour councils?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: In the absence of a debate, my hon. Friend has made good use of the opportunity just afforded to him.
Mr. Dick Douglas: It would be helpful if the Leader of the House could tell us when the Secretary of State for Scotland will respond to the situation that confronts us on the capital offset for the poll
688
tax. May I crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and raise with the Leader of the House a matter that I have raised with you connected with the Select Committee on Defence and the interest of the Chairman of the Committee in SGL? Next week the Committee will spend about £15,000 of taxpayers' money.
The Leader of the House should be aware that yesterday the Select Committee passed a motion to the Select Committee on Members' Interests expressing anxiety that there might be a conflict of interests created by the information received by members of the Committee in connection with their work and which they gain from trips abroad.
Mr. Speaker rose—
Mr. Douglas: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but it is a matter for the whole House. Witnesses coming before a Select Committee of the House should have the absolute assurance that the information that they give will be used for the purposes of the Committee and of the House and for no other purpose. There is a conflict of interest between the offices that the Chairman of the Committee holds—[Interruption.] I have given him notice that I intended to raise the matter and the position that he holds.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I would welcome the guidance of the House. I am withholding my attendance from that Committee. If I am wrong that witnesses should have that assurance, the House should put down a motion saying, "Dick Douglas is wrong." I believe that I am not wrong, and I await the decision of the House on the matter.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the precision of the request with which the hon. Gentleman closed his observations represents a proposition that I could not be expected to table in the present or any other circumstances. On the underlying substance of the matter, it is the subject of representations between the two relevant Select Committees—the Defence Committee and the Select Committee on Members' Interests. It is best that it is handled in that way, by the two Committees considering it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Members who are on their feet but I ask them not to repeat questions that have been asked before, in view of the heavy business before us.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week and give us a detailed list of the number of Bills that have been passed, but which have not been put fully into practice? I raise that matter in particular because he will recall that he was one of the Ministers who piloted through the Industrial Relations Bill. It became an Act of Parliament, but then the Government put it on the back boiler and never used it. I suggest that it would not be a bad idea if they repeated that practice with the poll tax.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's insight is uncharacteristically inaccurate in several respects. The Industrial Relations Bill would have had a flourishing and effective life had it not been for the temporary misfortune of the country in electing a Labour Government in March 1974. That Government made the mistake of repealing it,

689
but the present Government have put in place provisions designed to achieve similar purposes, and they have done so to good effect.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House consider early-day motion 539, which has been signed by 49 Members and which asks him specifically to separate the issues of human fertilisation and embryology from the emotive issue of abortion?
[That this House believes the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has crucial implications for the future of in vitro fertilisation techniques, diagnosis and treatment of serious congenital disease, advance in knowledge of the causes and treatment of serious congenital disease, advance in knowledge of the causes and treatments for infertility, miscarriage and contraception; further believes that this important Bill deserves serious and detailed consideration on its own merits; therefore declares its intention to resist efforts of anti-abortion hon. Members to introduce the separate and controversial issue of abortion into this Bill, in particular by the moving of amendments to lower the abortion time limit below 20 weeks as the medical and ethical arguments about late term abortions are quite different from those surrounding the treatment of embryos in the 14 days after fertilisation, and believes that this essential debate on embryo research must not be allowed to be distorted and overshadowed by the inevitably heightened emotion which would follow from the introduction of abortion amendments.]
Surely it would have been more appropriate to accept that amendment when my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) introduced her ten-minute Bill, Medical Services for Women, which specifically mentioned abortion. Is not it a shame that the House has allowed a Bill that will give great happiness to many infertile couples to be hijacked by people for the wrong reasons?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am disappointed that the hon. Lady does not share the general view that the arrangements we have in mind are best calculated to handle those complicated issues. It is not for the Government alone to determine the scope of the debate on embryo research, which cannot be separated from the moral issues that underline the abortion question. It will be for Parliament to decide the right approach to those questions on the basis of careful arrangements that commend themselves to people in most parts of the House.
Mr. Roy Hughes: The Leader of the House is a good Welshman and he will be aware that the Severn crossing is our main access point. Does he appreciate that there is speculation now that the contract for the second crossing will be awarded to a consortium with major French interests, which will take over the existing bridge and all that that entails? May we have an early debate on this vital matter? Meanwhile will he use his good offices to ensure that a solution is found that will at least maintain the tolls on both crossings at their current prices in real terms?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I would be very imprudent were I to respond affirmatively to the last question posed by the hon. Gentleman.
No decision has yet been taken about the second crossing provisions, but when that decision is reached, the
690
House will be informed about it. That decision will be reached after a proper assessment of the value and merits of the alternatives.
Mr. Max Madden: May I again ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware of the growing public concern about Members and financial interests, including the Chairmen of Select Committees? I echo the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and urge the Leader of the House to do everything possible to enable the Select Committee on Members' Interests thoroughly to investigate the complaints that have been referred to it.
That can be done only if the backlog of inquiries facing that Committee are dealt with. I suggest that that Select Committee establishes a number of Sub-Committees so that thorough and prompt inquiries are made into the complaints facing it. As long as the matter drags on, no recommendations are made and the House takes no decision on such matters, public concern will continue and is bound to escalate.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that there is significant interest in the question of Members' interests, but there must be a limit to my capacity or anyone else's to mobilise parliamentary resources out of thin air. The Select Committee on Members' Interests is seized of all the questions. A few weeks ago, in the light of the debate on the affairs of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), some extra items were added to the agenda of that Select Committee. The Chairman of the Committee and his colleagues are addressing themselves to the issues as expeditiously as they can. The House has proper procedures for such matters, and they are being followed.
Mr. Greville Janner: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the important debate on Hong Kong will not cover the conditions under which Vietnamese boat people are still living there? Is he aware that, in response to my complaint about the filthy, insanitary conditions in the place, I received a reply from the Hong Kong authorities saying that the reason was not that the drains were open, but that people put excrement into them? Can we please have a debate on that, as those conditions are unworthy of us? Will the Leader of the House be kind enough to refer the matter to the Home Secretary, or to someone who can ensure that the people at least have reasonable conditions rather than conditions of which this country should be ashamed?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. and learned Gentleman offers us a glimpse into the obvious when he says that those matters will be outside the scope of the debate on the Hong Kong legislation. He will appreciate that everyone who has addressed the question is bound to be deeply concerned about the conditions in the Hong Kong camps: that is the very reason why the Government are following a policy designed to diminish the numbers forced to face those conditions, and to improve them as far as possible. The real improvement is to be found through reducing the numbers that are obliged to stay there.
Mr. John McFall: The Leader of i he House will be aware that on 11 October last year the Secretary of State for Scotland announced a transitional relief scheme for householders in Scotland who would be

691
penalised by having to pay £3 per week extra during the transition between domestic rates and the poll tax. To date, no regulations have been made on that.
We are all aware of the speed with which the Secretary of State for Scotland arrived at the door of No. 10 after the foul-up in the Budget. Will the Leader of the House show the same speed? Will he grab his right hon. and learned Friend by the scruff of the neck to make him come here and lay the regulations before the House, so that the people of Scotland receive the just entitlement for which they have waited too long?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not aware of the particular deficiency to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He himself provided an eloquent tribute to the speed with which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland does his work, and I am sure that he will continue to do so.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: The Leader of the House is probably aware that, on Tuesday this week, I presented a ten-minute Bill containing the proposition that the Abortion Act 1967 should be amended to make the law of England and Wales the same as that in Scotland, where there is no upper time limit. The House gave its unanimous consent to a further debate of that proposition.
May I ask the Leader of the House for a procedural ruling on how the House, which already has a proposition before it on abortion, can make separate arrangements to proceed against another Bill? Is it not the case that the proposition that was passed unanimously on Tuesday is now the relevant Bill before Parliament?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I listened to the eloquent observations by the hon. Lady in support of her Bill, which covered a wide range of matters, including that one. The House was kind enough not to oppose its introduction; however, I do not think that she should assume that it will have as optimistic a prospect of making headway as the Bill that we will be debating on Monday.
Ms. Primarolo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Is the Leader of the House aware that, according to Greenpeace, the United States has today set—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Greenpeace does not organise debates here.
Mr. Cohen: I am asking for a debate on an important matter. According to Greenpeace, the United States has today set a 1,000 yd exclusion zone around its King's Bay submarine base, and the USS Tennessee, armed with Trident D5 missiles, is about to go on operational patrol —the first operational patrol with Trident missiles. Can we have an urgent debate on that huge and dangerous expansion in the world's nuclear arsenal?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not immediately persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's case.

Points of Order
4.45 pm
Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to defend the interests of hon. Members—I hasten to add that I was not one of them—who are lucky enough on either Tuesdays or Thursdays to draw a question for Question Time between eight and 15 minutes past 3 o'clock? In the past 12 months, it has been increasingly difficult to hear anything that is said at that time. That is a relatively new feature. The only other time that I can remember its happening was during the Falklands war, when there was a good reason for the House to concentrate on one issue. It is not fair to the hon. Members concerned. If the House does not want to have questions beyond 3.8 pm, we should start Prime Minister's questions then.
Several Hon. Members: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one thing at a time. I agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) if he is saying that, in the few minutes before the Prime Minister gets up, there is a growing tendency for private discussions on both sides of the House. I frequently draw attention to that fact.
While I am on the subject of Prime Minister's questions, I should like to say that the quality of the questions asked of the Prime Minister makes a difference to the reaction of the House. We saw an example of that this afternoon when the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) asked a question that was heard in complete silence.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we do something about the amplification system? It was not possible to hear anything today. It may have something to do with the cameras and the BBC, but we really must be able to hear what is said.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same matter—the microphones?
Mr. Madden: Yes, Mr. Speaker. You have been asked on a number of occasions to try to do something to help hon. Members to hear the proceedings. May I ask why, over the past week, the microphone nearest to me has been installed? It is smaller than all the others. I wonder if a bit has dropped off it, whether it is an experiment or whether it is a direct line to MI5.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is the latter. [Interruption.] Order. This is a serious matter. We are in an experimental period for television. The answer to the hon. Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) is that we are also experimenting with microphones that were not originally designed for television. They need a certain amount of adjustment, and that is being carried out.
Whether hon. Members can be heard in the Chamber is entirely up to the House. Let me repeat that the quality of questions that are asked determines the reaction that they receive.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Further to that point of order on microphones, Mr. Speaker. The impact of television on the microphonic equipment has been insignificant. The microphones are the same as those that have served the House for a long time, although modest changes have been made to take account of the positioning of people in relation to the Dispatch Box.
The real problem may be thought to be that they are rather ancient, but, even if they were to be replaced by a modern system, it would be difficult to design a microphone that can at one and the same time pick up the voice of the hon. Member who has the Floor of the House, speaking at a modest level, and exclude hubbub from the rest of the House. That balance is extremely difficult to achieve, but it is under continuous consideration by the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Skinner, if it is helpful.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker. We had the same problem a few years ago, before television came in. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the last leader of the Liberal party, as it was then called, said that he could not be heard. A separate microphone was installed for him alone because he had such a wee small voice. To put the balance right, another microphone was placed on the Tory side of the Chamber for the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)—for when he crossed the Floor.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can have a debate on microphones this afternoon. We have important—
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. We have a very important debate on the community charge in the form of two prayers. [Interruption.] Order. I am sure that all the points of order are serious, but hon. Members who are not interested in taking part in the debate on the community charge should bear in mind the fact that many of their colleagues are.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), Mr. Speaker. Will you tell the House what you think of the quality of the questions put by the Leader of the Opposition? Conservative Members feel that he never has an opportunity—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Fortunately, the Chair is never required to give an opinion about such matters.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am interested not in arguments about the quality of questions, but in the lights, which are having a bad effect on my eyes and probably on other hon. Members' eyes. When will something be done about the glare? I have to put my hand above my eyes like this to get
694
a view of the House. It is a serious matter, and sooner or later something must be done about controlling those lights.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that other hon. Members who want to ask questions on this matter should refer them to the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House, because I cannot answer them. They are properly matters for the Committee and should be drawn to its attention.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: I have to pursue this matter, Mr. Speaker, because, unfortunately, the comments by the Leader of the House were technically incorrect. The reason we cannot hear in the House of Commons has nothing to do with the quality of the microphones. The reason is that, in order not to spoil the sound track going out with the television transmission, the speakers in the back of the Benches have been turned down. That is why we cannot hear the proceedings when there is a hubbub. Can we have a frank admission of that fact?
Mr. Speaker: Again, those matters should be raised with the Select Committee. When the microphones were turned up, there was so much noise from about 50 amplifiers that those speaking could not be heard.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Well, I am beginning to get involved in a debate. I cannot take any more questions about televising.
Mr. James Couchman: You, Mr. Speaker, may have noted that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has moved himself closer to the microphone which he said had some sinister purpose. I believe that he thinks that good things come wrapped up in large parcels, and I have sympathy with him.
Mr. Speaker: I know. It might be helpful if this were the last word on the matter.
Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
Mr. Speaker: No. I am constantly seeking to help the House on this matter, which is serious. It would help those concerned about noise if, when hon. Members spoke, they stood close to a microphone. They would not then need to speak so loudly.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Ms. Primarolo—on a separate point of order.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a separate point of order.
In reply to my question during business questions, the Leader of the House commented on the intentions of hon. Members in not opposing the Medical Services for Women Bill which I introduced. The Leader of the House could not have known all the intentions of every hon. Member, and his comment undermined the rights of Back Benchers to move ten-minute Bills and impugns motives which he cannot know exist. Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to

695
rule that the Leader of the House could not have known that and that the ten-minute Bill, unopposed, stands in its own right.
Mr. Speaker: The House gave the hon. Lady permission to bring in her Bill, which has yet to have a Second Reading.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. I am taking no more points of order. Other hon. Members want to speak in the debate and I cannot answer any more questions about microphones.
Mr. Cryer: It is not about microphones.
Mr. Speaker: If it is not about microphones but a different matter I will hear it.
Mr. Cryer: Yes, a different matter. When information is sent out about the operations of the House, such as the guide to the Chamber, could the information be included that when we stand up we are not being deferential to the Prime Minister or anybody else? Many people outside believe that we are. However, we are trying to be called. The past few minutes, during which I have been trying to be called, and jumping up and down, illustrate the case very well.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Is it consistent that the Opposition parties should take part in last night's debate about allocation of time and then take time from today's debate with a vast number of questions to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and bogus points of order?
Mr. Speaker: That is not very helpful, either.

Adjournment Motions
Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 5 April, up to 10 hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning, and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Community Charge
4.56 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Community Charges (Deductions from Income Support) (No. 2) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 545), dated 8th March 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be annulled.
May I say how glad I am to be speaking from a microphone which is unlikely to be either decreased in size or moved.
The Opposition wish to pray against some of the poll tax benefit regulations. Those regulations implement what is fast proving the most detested tax introduced in this country for 600 years. In addition, the way in which the regulations have been handled shows that the Government are not only breaking down, but are hell-bent on a campaign of self-destruction.
I shall start with the Government's strongest card: the sweetener they threw into the Budget to spice up what would otherwise have been described as a wimpish Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly believes that doubling the upper capital limit for poll tax benefit will elicit instant gratitude and, no doubt, long-term political dividends. However, it has blown up in his face, not only because, as he had the grace to admit, he clean forgot about the existence of Scotland, but because he, as Chancellor—or was it the Secretary of State for Social Security—got his sums wrong. Far from being the great concession it was cracked up to be, it has turned out to be a huge political con.
In his Budget speech, the Chancellor claimed that 250,000 people would benefit. We now know that the true figure is about half that—only 130,000. He said that two thirds of those benefiting would be pensioners. But that is still less than 1 per cent. of all the pensioners who will have to pay the poll tax. He did not say that this much-touted concession still does not compensate for the tightening of the capital rules which the Government imposed two years ago. If the Government claim credit for having eased the capital rules, they must also accept censure for having introduced the initial capital rule two years ago which deprived 700,000 pensioner households from any entitlement to housing benefit or rate rebate.
It was only when my right hon. and learned Friends raised a huge political outcry about this matter that the former Secretary of State was forced to backtrack a few months later in May 1988. A total of 100,000 pensioners were then brought back into the benefit net. With this further concession the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Social Security will bring back another 100,000 pensioners into the entitlement net, but that still leaves 500,000 pensioners who were entitled to benefit before 1988 but are still left outside the benefit net. It is as though someone had robbed a bank, but then, under pressure, given back some of the swag. That is hardly an occasion for unqualified gratitude, more perhaps a case where humility, and perhaps an apology, from the Government are overdue.
It is not only that the numbers of the newly entitled will be distinctly modest, but much more: that most of them will find out when they claim that they will get little. Many will get nothing. As I said last night, that is because of the rule on tariff income. For every £250 in savings of more

697
than £3,000, people are deemed, however totally unrealistic it may be, to receive an income of £1 a week. That reduces their poll tax rebate by 15p a week.
Let me take as an example—not an extravagant example—the case of a single pensioner with a small occupational pension, which takes her £10 a week over her applicable amount, and who also has £15,500 in capital —just the sort of person whom the Government are trying to help. Because of her extra £10, £1·50 will be deducted from her poll tax benefit. The tariff income from her capital would come to £50, so another £7·50 would be deducted on top of the £1·50. Unless her poll tax was more than £611 a year—I think that I am right in saying that not a single local authority has that notorious distinction—the pretend income that is attributed to her would completely extinguish her entitlement to poll tax benefit.
I stress again that that is not, as the House can see, a far-fetched or exceptional case. The sheer modesty of what is being proposed is illustrated by the Government's estimate that it is worth only about £35 million a year, which works out at less than half of 1 per cent. of the total revenue that they will receive from the poll tax. After all the excitement and ballyhoo, with Conservative Members waving their Order Papers in delight at the Chancellor's announcement, the cold reality of minimal relief will disappoint and anger many pensioners whose much-aroused expectations are about to be dashed to the ground. It is surely irresponsible for the Government to boost hopes in that way and to encourage pensioners to fill out complex forms only to find that a zero or negligible rebate is calculated to offset their massive tax bills.
There are two ways out of the dilemma into which the Government have put themselves, but they have consciously refused to take either of them. The first is to raise the lower capital limit as well as the upper one. If the lower threshold at which deductions start were doubled to £6,000, the value of the concession would be greatly increased. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I tabled a new clause to that effect during yesterday's Report stage of the Social Security Bill. As hon. Members know perfectly well, the new clause was voted down by Tory Members by 307 votes to 204. That shows that Tory Back-Benchers are a great deal more concerned to prop up a Government who are on the ropes than to protect pensioners.
The other way out of the Government's self-inflicted dilemma would be to revert to the pre-1988 system so that the actual rate of interest was counted rather than the artificial tariff rate. It is absurd for the tariff income to assume a rate of return on savings of 20 per cent. There is a bitter irony in all this. The Tory Government introduced the system two years ago to cut expenditure on housing benefits and rate rebates and they are now impaled on a device of their own making which grossly undermines the value of the poll tax concession that they now claim they wish to make. Not only the people of Scotland, but all thrifty pensioners have been insulted by the Government's incompetent handling of the poll tax rebates.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend mentioned two ways to get rid of the problem, but there is a third way—to adopt the Labour party's policy and drop the tax altogether. I pray in aid a remarkable editorial in The Times today—a paper which supports the Tory party and the Prime Minister through and through—which canvasses the idea that the poll tax should be dropped and
698
a tax based on property and the ability to pay introduced in its place. When we have support from such strange quarters it means that the poll tax is almost friendless.
Mr. Meacher: That is the obvious solution, and it is the solution which the British people overwhelmingly want. However, we know that it will not happen because the iron lady, who cannot turn, has been committed for the past 15 years to the abolition of the rates and their replacement by something like the poll tax. It is her tax and as long as she is Prime Minister it will remain.
Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there had been a secret vote in the Cabinet on the poll tax, the majority would probably have been against any such proposal and, perhaps even now, a motion to repeal the poll tax would be carried? There can be no doubt that on a free vote in the House of Commons the poll tax would have been decisively rejected, as was urged by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who is putting forward his own case for the leadership.
Mr. Meacher: None of us knows with certainty the truth of the matter, but I have always assumed that only one member of the Cabinet is in favour of the poll tax. I doubt whether it has a single other taker. Conservative Members would like nothing more than to get rid of the poll tax, but the truth is that the poll tax will get rid of them.
Mr. Richard Tracey: We all accept reasonable protest, but will the hon. Gentleman repudiate those of his colleagues who are refusing to pay the community charge and so are breaking the law?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The regulations have nothing to do with that intervention.
Mr. Meacher: That is the sort of remark that we would expect from a former Minister for Sport.
I come now to what might accurately be called the Scottish embarrassment bonus or the "Rifkind" face-saver. It is increasingly clear that "we in Scotland" are becoming rather forgetful. It appears that on a recent visit "we in Scotland" failed to remember that the Scottish Labour party conference was taking place at the same time. One memory loss might constitute a significant offence, but two is decidedly careless.
The Chancellor has now admitted that he completely forgot about Scotland in the Budget and he will not be surprised if Scotland forgets about the Government when it comes to the next election. We shall be looking extremely carefully at the Secretary of State for Scotland's ex gratia scheme to see whether it guarantees full retrospection. A discretionary scheme of ex gratia payments is one thing, but a system of assured rights for all those entitled is another. We welcome the £4 million proposed in a humiliating Government climb-down, but we wish to be sure that Scotland receives a fair deal in exactly the same way as England and Wales.
Our central objection to the poll tax benefit regulations, on which we shall be calling for a vote tonight, relates to the Government's proposal to deduct income support from those on the poverty line if they fail to pay the poll

699
tax. The first and the fundamental point that I make is that those who are poor enough to be on income support should not have to pay the poll tax at all.
Until the Fowler reviews of 1986, it was accepted by all Governments that the supplementary benefit or income support line was so low that rent and rates had to be separately provided for in full. In 1986, for the first time, the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Security decreed that even the poorest on income support would in future be forced to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax and 100 per cent. of water rates.
The poll tax bills have been fixed at such a high level that the Goverment have been forced to backtrack, but they have done so in a way that still exposes millions of people on income support to paying a hefty chunk of poll tax. That is precisely why such draconian legislation is being introduced today.
Mr. Max Madden: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Bradford and a number of other places a problem has arisen for couples who are in receipt of income support and housing benefit because the automatic poll tax rebates which people on income support and housing benefit were told would be paid are not being paid to partners who did not apply or sign for the housing benefit? The poll tax rebate is going only to partners who applied for housing benefit. That is resulting in tens of thousands of people who are in receipt of housing benefit and income support not getting full poll tax rebates and it is causing great hardship. What action do the Government plan to take to alert those people who will lose their poll tax rebate so that they can apply immediately for the poll tax rebate that the Government have been telling them for months they will receive automatically?
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend raises one of a wide range of anomalies about entitlement to that benefit. We are all interested to hear the Minister's answer to that.
The problem with the poll tax is that it is extremely complex and the entitlement to rebate is hedged round with several conditions that are not exactly common sense. My hon. Friend has illustrated the point that, although the Government claim that a large number of people will be entitled to rebate, because of the complexity and difficulty of the regulations and people's lack of awareness, only a small number of people will gain significantly, but we look forward to the Government's answer on that.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: My hon. Friend may be interested to hear about a case in my constituency involving a single pensioner who has no savings whatsoever and has been entitled to rebate, but because his retirement pension is£46·73 a week any entitlement he has to income support has been cancelled, so he receives none. He has to pay a poll tax bill of more than £81 this year out of that small income. Because he has chronic bronchitis and circulatory troubles and needs to spend a great deal on heating his house, he has less than £30 a week to pay for his food, clothing and poll tax and he is in desperate straits.
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend illustrates one of the many thousands of cases which no doubt will be drawn to
700
the attention of the Minister and his officers in the next few months. We look forward to his detailed reply on these matters.
The Government have not succeeded in compensating people on income support. They have claimed to protect them from the pressures of having to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax by providing a 20 per cent. personal allowance for income support claimants based on the Government's average poll tax figure of £278. But that is flawed in three ways. First, as everyone knows, the figure of £278 is a Government fiction and the average figure is about £363, or £85 higher. Income support claimants will not be compensated for that shortfall. Secondly, there will be no compensation for people on income support living in areas charging above the average poll tax. The Opposition have always argued that people on the poverty line should not be treated as pawns in the Government's political battles with local government of any party, and we stick to that principle. Thirdly, the amount added to income support to compensate for the 20 per cent. of poll tax that everyone has to pay was arbitrarily reduced by the Government by about half.
The effect of those three factors is that average poll tax payers on income support in England and Wales will have to find more than £36 from their basic benefit. A couple will have to find almost £76, and in 34 local authorities couples on income support will be more than £2 a week worse off, and at income support level that really matters. In Haringey for example, a couple on income support will be £163 a year worse off. In case anyone thinks that I have particularly chosen a Labour-controlled council, in leafy south Oxfordshire they will be £116 worse off.
There are 4·6 million poll tax payers on income support in England and Wales and nearly all will lose money—with the exception of people living in only two local authorities throughout the country. The steady extortion of money from the poorest in society to subsidise the cost of the poll tax is the most repulsive aspect of a most repulsive tax. Hundreds of thousands of poll tax payers on income support will simply be unable to pay.
The Under-Secretary of State, to whom I am grateful for such a full parliamentary answer, admitted on 19 February:
"The Department expects that in any year in England, Wales and Scotland some 850,000 applications for deductions from income support may be made in respect of the community charge, though the number will depend on the extent to which authorities choose to recover unpaid charges using this particular method. We expect about 700,000 of the applications to be enforced."
That is an extremely high figure. One of the poll tax regulations that we are debating today implements that enforcement procedure to which we most strongly object. If Conservative Members believe that those consequences spelt out by the Under-Secretary of State are onerous, not to say draconian, they have the opportunity today to reject the regulations.
Where a liability order is made against the single debtor, the deduction can be 5 per cent. of the rate for a single claimant over 25, or £1·85 a week. For a couple who are both in arrears it is double that—£2·90 a week. The severity of the regulation can be judged by the fact that that amount can be deducted from benefit, provided only that a person is left with at least lop in income support.
The Government are going further still. They propose that deductions for poll tax arrears sit on top of the deductions for other debts—for example, social fund loan

701
repayments. In other words, under this regulation to which we so strongly object, the Government propose that provided that a person will be left with 10p in benefit, he could be forced to pay up to 25 per cent. of his income on housing, fuel, water, and deductions for arrears and still have to pay a further £1·85 a week in poll tax deductions.
The great debt-collecting apparatus will cost a lot of money. I return to the answer given by the Under-Secretary on 19 February which stated:
"The average annual cost to the Department of servicing each application is estimated to be £26. The total staffing requirement in Great Britain is now estimated to be approximately 470 posts."—[Official Report, 19 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 554.]
But even that underestimates the costs. One has to add in the costs to local authorities for registration, billing and interviews, so the total cost is likely to be considerably more than the amount collected. I do not see how one could reach any other conclusion.
There is also the question whether the poll tax deductions take precedence over other deductions for debt. If so, the Department is likely to stop making social fund loans for essential items on the ground that they will not be repaid, or claimants will increasingly have their fuel cut off as payments to the fuel boards are stopped. Of course, councils will not be able to claim arrears through benefit deductions. Local authorities will either have to write off poll tax arrears or use distraint or other measures to recover ridiculously small amounts from the poorest in our community. In the process, councils will simply be adding to the poverty of those on income support because the cost of going to court is invariably added to the original debt. At £100 a time, it could easily amount to more than the original debt.
Why are the Government so gung-ho in pursuing the 1 million low-income families who are already known to be in serious debt when they refuse to take action against landlords who are ripping off the taxpayer by about £420 million a year by continuing to charge the same rent when they no longer have to pay rates to the local authority, when they failed to collect almost £4,000 million of assessed tax revenue in 1988 and wrote off £500 million of so-called uncollectable tax revenue, and when they have failed to collect £250 million of national insurance from the self-employed each year because they will not spend one tenth of that amount on staff to collect it?
If the poll tax is a curse, the regulations to extract tiny amounts of poll tax, at huge cost, from the poorest and most debt-ridden section of the community are an abomination, and tonight the House should reject them.
5.20 pm
The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Although the Opposition have spoken to just one motion, I understand that we are also discussing the next three motions on the Order Paper:
That the draft Community Charge Benefits (General) Amendment Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Community Charge Benefits (Permitted Total) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 533), dated 7th March 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be annulled.
That the draft Community Charge Benefits (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.
702
The motions must be set against the background of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget, that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had decided to raise capital limits for income-related benefits. I shall deal with the Opposition's criticism of those arrangements, but most hon. Members warmly welcomed that announcement.
Mr. Jim Sillars: The Minister admitted last night, and he did so again today, that the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer consulted the Department of Social Security. Did the Department consult the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Scottish Office before the Chancellor made his Budget statement?
Mr. Scott: I can only give the assurance that I gave last night: the Chancellor consulted the Department of Social Security, and we warmly welcomed the opportunity to raise the capital limits, as would any sensible hon. Member.
Mr. Madden: So the answer is no.
Mr. Scott: The matter has been raised elsewhere. My concern was to ensure that the Department was consulted. We welcomed the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made to the House.
Mr. Brian Wilson: The Minister said, as a man of reason, and as any sensible or rational person would, that he agreed to the change for the coming year. Was such an approach made last year? Was there any rational person in the Treasury, the Department of Social Security or the Scottish Office? How was the system allowed to run for a year without anyone noticing that this terribly sensible measure had not been taken?
Mr. Scott: I am sorry, but I shall not spend the afternoon jogging backwards with hon. Members from north of the border. We welcome the new arrangements. They will be to the overwhelming benefit of many people.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) misquoted my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on the number of people who will benefit as a result of his announcement. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was clearly talking about the number of people on income-related benefits, not just community charge benefit. If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, I can give him the exact quotation, but I imagine that he will not want me to do so as it would further his embarrassment. It is clear that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was referring to those on income support, housing benefit, family credit and community charge benefit. I shall deal later with the precise number who will benefit from community charge benefit.
I am sure that the House will agree that, with income-related benefits being designed to help people in greatest need, there should be a capital limit above which benefit entitlement ceases. We may argue about the level of the capital limit, but we must all agree that if we are to help those most in need there must be a cut-off point. Under all income-related benefits, the first £3,000 of a claimant's capital resources are ignored, and the lower limit—I know that this is to the regret of the hon. Member for Oldham, West—will not be affected by the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Capital of less than £3,000 and the income that it generates is disregarded in the calculation of a person's or couple's benefit

703
entitlement. For all income-related benefits, a standard tariff income of £1 a week is assumed for each £250 above the capital limit.
Apparently, the hon. Member for Oldham, West thinks that that provision is ungenerous. I looked back to discover the state of play in 1979 under the previous Labour Government. The hon. Member for Oldham, West giggles in embarrassment; he probably knows what is coming because, as he does his homework so carefully, no doubt he looked back to that period. Under the supplementary benefit rules in 1979, the first £1,200 was ignored—roughly £2,400 according to today's prices, compared with the £3,000 that operates today. The tariff, on which so much weight has been placed, was 25p a week for each £50 of capital—equivalent to £1 for every £200, compared with the £250 that we operate today.
Much play has been made of the 20·8 per cent. assumed income above the lower capital limit. I do not agree with that system of measurement, but if we accept it for one moment, the system operated by the previous Labour Government was not 20·8 per cent. but 26 per cent.
Mr. Jeff Rooker rose—
Mr. Scott: Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish the point?
Mr. Meacher: Be fair; allow my hon. Friend to intervene.
Mr. Scott: The hon. Member for Oldham, West normally responds by saying, "In a moment", when an hon. Member wishes to intervene in his speeches. I hope that he will not mind if I do not give way immediately.
The Labour party, which has been so critical of us, operated a capital rule that came in at a lower level and imposed a steeper tariff above it.
Mr. Rooker: What was the upper capital limit cut-off point under Labour?
Mr. Scott: Under Labour, there were differing systems—
Mr. Rooker: What was the upper capital limit cut-off point under Labour? Tell the whole truth, please.
Mr. Scott: Two differing systems operated under Labour until reforms were introduced, mainly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in 1986. One set of rules applied to supplementary benefit, but a totally different set applied to housing benefit.
Mr. Madden: So there was not one.
Mr. Scott: Precisely; there was not one. The system for housing benefit was ridiculous because only income was taken into account, regardless of the amount of capital held. That was a completely unsustainable system. The benefits of an aligned system for income-related benefits are obvious to everyone. I think that I have made the point about the Labour party—
Mr. Madden: Get on with it.
Mr. Scott: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is keen to get on with it, because I have proved categorically that we operate a more generous system than the Labour party did.
Mr. Madden: Rather than spending the last five minutes going down memory lane, the Minister should have addressed himself to the question that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). Is he aware that in Bradford, and in other parts of west Yorkshire, only one person in two-person households will receive poll tax rebate, which for months the Government said would be paid automatically to households receiving income support and housing benefit? Tens of thousands of people are receiving full poll tax demands who should be receiving a rebate. What will the Minister do about that?
Mr. Scott: Local authorities are empowered to treat any claim for housing benefit as a claim for community charge benefit. If the hon. Gentleman believes that things are going wrong in Bradford, his proper course is to contact his local authority to ensure that it is operating the system effectively and that it is treating those claims as claims for community charge benefit. If it is doing that properly, there should not be a problem in Bradford. I recommend—
Mr. Madden: There is a problem.
Mr. Scott: I recommend the hon. Gentleman to take that step with the local authority.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Why do the Government still assume that every £250 of savings generates an income of £1 a week? We have just had a Budget and the Chancellor tells us about all the benefits of thrift, but for my sake and that of everyone else, will the Minister tell us where on the high street one can obtain a 20 per cent. rate of interest on one's savings? The tariff rate of £1 a week for every £250 of savings is twice the real rate that people can obtain, from Girobank or anywhere else.
Mr. Scott: I have just been making the point that when Labour was in office and interest rates were rather lower, the Government assumed a 26 per cent. rate of interest. We debated all this yesterday, although it seems longer ago than that. We are really talking not about the principle of an assumed income, but about a rational way in which we can ensure that as people's capital assets increase they can be less dependent on benefit. The rate at which such support through the benefit system is reduced as capital increases is a matter of judgment. It is wrong to consider it in terms of an assumed return on the capital itself. We should consider what is the proper rate at which we reduce the burden on the taxpayer as people's capital increases.
Mr. Lewis Stevens: We have been discussing the 20 per cent. tariff. Surely the real position is that up to £8,000, the first £3,000 incurs no penalty at all. At £8,000, the real tariff is approximately 13 per cent., which is a far more realistic rate and gives us a simple way of calculating benefit without the complication of people making returns.
Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend is right. Two factors ameliorate the 20·8 per cent. most frequently quoted. The first £3,000 is disregarded and once benefit begins to be withdrawn above the level the 15 per cent. taper operates for community charge benefit, which further reduces, well into single figures, the rate that is assumed.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: This is a matter of importance. When I live down here, I live in Westminster, which has kept its level down to £195. One

705
of the actions that it has taken to achieve that has been to discontinue the redecoration of the council houses of elderly people. As a consequence, not only will those people have to meet the cost of redecoration themselves, but they will still have to pay the 20 per cent., and 36 painters, most of whom are in my union, the Union of Construction and Allied Trades Technicians, will be thrown out of work. That is just one of the small steps taken by Westminster council to reach the level of£195. Will the Minister explain how those elderly people will be able to raise money to save, to benefit further under the Government's policies? Does the Minister believe that ordinary working people will stand for this in view of the suffering that this policy will cause them?
Mr. Scott: If I were to stand at the Dispatch Box this afternoon and explain exactly how each local authority is operating and how it has managed to fix its poll tax or community charge limits I should spend a great deal of time here. I have done my best to be generous in giving way to hon. Members of all parties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too generous."] My hon. Friends say that I have been too generous, but I am a generous fellow. It is about time that I got on with the remarks that I want to make.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West described our actions yesterday in defeating the new clause that he had tabled. He must have taken note of the particular anomaly to which I drew his attention and I do not want to go over all that today. However, the hon. Gentleman had every opportunity to draft the new clause properly and sensibly. He did not do so, so we were right to reject it. We are not discussing the level, but whether there is a different rate for single people and couples. The hon. Gentleman seemed to accept my point yesterday, although he said that it was a quibble. It is up to him to get a new clause right.
Mr. Meacher: I do not want to take further time on the issue, but I must say that the Minister is scraping the dregs of the barrel if that is his only point. He is acknowledging a weakness in his proposals. The poll tax is concerned with individuals, yet single persons and married couples receive the same. That is hardly logical. The Minister said that if one of an elderly married couple died, the amount received would be halved under our proposal. However, the whole point about the poll tax is that it is directed at individuals and it would be wrong for such people to receive double. The Minister's objection is worthless.
Mr. Scott: I am interested to hear that the Labour party is prepared to say that, when an elderly partner dies, the community charge rebate is reduced. That would be the consequence of accepting the new clause.
Mr. Meacher: No.
Mr. Scott: With the greatest respect, I must say that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. By increasing the limit for everybody, we have made it possible for almost 200,000 individuals to benefit from community charge benefit. Of those, 150,000 are pensioners. I am not prepared to accept an anomalous new clause which would lead to people having benefit reduced.
It is about time that I continued, otherwise I shall talk out the whole debate and I should not want to do that. Doubling the capital limit for community charge benefit will help almost 200,000 individuals, of whom 150,000 are pensioners. Sixty-five thousand couples will be helped—half of all new cases. The benefit cost in 1990–91 is expected
706
to be about £35 million. The extra cost will be charged to the reserve and will not increase the public expenditure planning total. On average, gainers will gain a £5 a week, or £260 a year, reduction in the community charge bill.
There have been groundless allegations that there is an automatic cut-off at £10,000 of capital resources or savings. As I implied in shorthand terms in the debate yesterday, I can assure the House that 70,000 benefit cases with capital over £10,000 will be able to receive benefit and about 50,000 benefit cases involving pensioners will be affected. They too will gain an average of £5 a week, or £260 a year. It is wholly incorrect to assert that only those whose savings are just above the current £8,000 limit will benefit as a result of our proposals.
It may be helpful if I now explain the way in which the rules regarding the treatment of capital work in practice. The House is familiar with the broad details about the £3,000 and the £1 for every £250. In our exchanges across the Floor of the House, we have cleared all that out of the way.
Mr. Nellist: No.
Mr. Scott: We have. We may not agree, but at least we understand the basis of both arguments. We have acknowledged in the course of our discussions yesterday and today that the community charge benefit scheme, incorporating a taper that is more generous than the old rate rebate scheme under housing benefit—15 per cent. compared with 20 per cent.—is another step in the right direction.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West picked out a few examples and, of course, he chose those least helpful to the Government. I want to give some more average examples about the outcome of our proposals for the community charge benefit scheme. Let us consider a pensioner couple, one of whom is over 80 years old. They pay £30 a week rent and their community charge is £350 each. If they have savings of £15,000 and a weekly income of £75·35—and that does not include income from capital—they would gain £4·51 a week community charge benefit. Therefore, it is clear that many pensioners will gain.
We may also consider the example of an unemployed couple with two children aged 10 and 14. They pay rent of £30 a week and a community charge of £325 each. They have savings of £15,000 and a total weekly income of £74·90. They would get £5·70 community charge benefit. It is clear that considerable benefits will flow to a wide range of people as a result of the changes.
I believe that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members welcome the changes. Of course, it is the Opposition's job to nit-pick and criticise, but most people accept that we are taking an important step in the right direction. Hon. Members accept that the conscientious efforts of people with low incomes who have built up savings for retirement should be recognised in the system of community charge benefit.
Mr. Meacher: The Minister has quoted examples that he believes confirm the Government's case. As he always talks about the spread of occupational pension schemes and the amount that people receive in occupational pensions, does he accept that if the people in the cases that he has quoted had an occupational pension of as little as £30 or £40 a week the benefit accruing would be nil?
Mr. Scott: With regard to occupational pensions, that may well be so. However, I was referring to people in the precise circumstances that I outlined. Just as one's capital affects the calculation of benefit in any income-related benefit scheme, so too does income from any other source. We cannot get away from that fundamental principle.
I want to refer now to claims for benefits, and the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) might be interested in this.
Mr. Nellist: Does the Minister have any information about the number of people in receipt of occupational pensions, in relation to the number of people who have between £15,000 and £16,000 in savings? There must be a few million people with works pensions, who have worked 30 or 40 years, who will be hammered while the rebates, which the Minister described as generous, will be extended to people with savings.
Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will have listened to that point with great care and we shall see whether we can be helpful to the House—if I ever get to the end of this speech.
The House will be aware that the changes come into effect on 1 April this year. The regulations provide for backdating claims from people who will become entitled to benefit as a result of the new benefit rules. That will mean —and this is important—that so long as people make claims by 27 May, they will be able to receive any benefit for which they were eligible during the period after the increase takes effect on 1 April. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West will understand, it is unusual in social security matters to allow backdating.
Mr. Allen McKay: As the Minister will be aware, many people receive cash in lieu of concessionary fuel, which affects housing benefit. Such a case is at a tribunal; the tribunal chairman found that the Department was wrong in taking that into consideration. If the Department does not take the case any further on appeal or if it is lost on appeal, will there be retrospective payments for people whose benefits have been affected?
Mr. Scott: I would have to see the final outcome of that case before I commited myself to replying to that question. I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because I respect him highly. However, he would not expect me now, in advance of the tribunal's decision or in advance of an appeal by either side, to give a commitment about backdating.
We shall ensure that so long as people claim by 27 May, they will be able to have benefit backdated to 1 April. I hope that that will be helpful because I am aware that a new benefit such as this can confuse people. We want to ensure that people are aware of their rights and are given the maximum opportunity to claim. We have discussed those matters with the local authority associations and they gave general support to the changes. Local authorities are making every effort to get benefits to the new claimants as soon as possible.
Mr. David Nicholson: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his great patience. Will he take the opportunity in this debate to give the lie to an allegation made in another part of the Palace today, by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), that young people living at home with their parents face eviction because of the rebate scheme? Will he confirm that parents are not legally responsible for meeting the community
708
charges of their children who are over 18? Will he also confirm that any young person who is genuinely unemployed will receive maximum help, irrespective of the income of his parents?
Mr. Scott: That is absolutely right, as one would expect.
Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Scott: No. The hon. Gentleman will have other opportunities to make his points and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will reply. However, I believe that it is the mood of the House that I should conclude my remarks as soon as possible. That is certainly my view and I believe that it is widely shared.
I want to consider briefly the amending regulations that were laid before Parliament earlier this month. I do not believe that the House would welcome a line-by-line explanation of them and I do not intend to embark on that. However, the regulations make a number of important changes that affect several groups of people. For example, they provide for an increased disregard of £10 a week for war widows' pensions and war disablement pensions, which was announced last July. They also provide that the special payment to war widows whose husbands served before 1973, which was announced before Christmas, shall be disregarded totally when assessing claims for community charge benefit. Those payments are also tax free. The regulations provide that such payments are to be disregarded completely for community charge benefit. That means that the additonal help being provided for war widows whose husbands served before 1973 will not affect the help to which they are entitled under the scheme.
I want now to consider the Community Charges (Deductions from Income Support) (No. 2) Regulations 1990, which were laid before Parliament on 9 March 1990 and which come into effect on 1 April. The House will be aware that the main principle behind these deduction regulations is that there should be some measure of equality of treatment between those in employment and those receiving benefit. Deductions from income support for those receiving benefit represents a parallel measure to attachment of earnings for those in work where people fail to pay their community charge.
To achieve a liability order, the charging authority must first obtain a liability order from a magistrates court to prove that it is owed the money by the claimant. The liability order triggers the operation of the regulations, which provide that when a local authority has obtained a liability order for a community charge debt it may then apply for deductions from income support to meet that debt. In applying for deductions, the local authority must provide sufficient information to enable the local social security office to identify the debtor. If the adjudication officer decides that there is sufficient income support in payment, the standard rate of deduction will be £1·85 a week, and £2·90 a week for a couple if an order is made against both of them and income support is payable for both of them.
The regulations fix those weekly rates of deductions; there is no provision for them to be varied. The lower rate of deduction is the same as for any other third-party debt. We have taken great care to ensure that the regulations are in harmony with the rules governing payment to any other third party, which are contained in schedule 9 of the Social

709
Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987.
To sum up, the Government believe that it is right that deductions from income support should be made where the claimant fails to pay his community charge and the charging authority has a liability order to prove the debt. Those regulations are an extension of the Department's existing procedures. Accordingly, I invite the House to reject the prayer against them since they strike a fair balance between the needs of the local community which has to pay the community charge and those who fail to do so. I also invite the House to reject the prayer against the permitted total order.
The Community Charge Benefits (Permitted Total) Order 1990 allows local authorities to make additional payments of community charge benefits to claimants where they consider the circumstances to be exceptional. Those discretionary powers restrict the payment to no more than the maximum community charge benefit. Therefore, however exceptional the circumstances, the charge payer still has to pay 20 per cent. of the charge set by the authority. Primary legislation requires the Department to set a ceiling on the amount of discretionary payments that an authority may make. Similar arrangements apply to housing benefit. We therefore decided that the prescribed ceiling for those discretionary payments should be set at 0·1 per cent. of the total amount of community charge benefit that an authority pays out in a year. We have no evidence that the limit causes difficulties for local authorities and I believe that it offers welcome flexibility for dealing with exceptional circumstances.
I commend the order to the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless hon. Members are brief from now on, many hon. Members who wish to speak will be extremely disappointed.
5.50 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I shall take those words to heart, Madam Deputy Speaker, and be extremely brief.
People on income support are not being treated equally regarding deductions from benefit when compared with people on earnings. Some people in receipt of income support would like their poll tax payments to be deducted from their benefit automatically—similar to what happens with a direct debit for people with earnings. But they will not be allowed that facility, so they are not being treated equally. They will be treated in that way only if a debt builds up. That unequal treatment is grossly unfair.
If my memory serves me right, the Minister said that the provisions will relate to the court costs as well as to the debt. Without checking the Minister's figures, I do not think that, once the costs are added to the 20 per cent. debt, people will be able to pay off those sums during the first 12 months. As they approach the next year and the next poll tax, their debt will go up and up and up.
When the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security replies to the debate, I should like a commitment that the House of Commons will be given the information that it requires. Hon. Members need to know how many people at each local office are having a liability order slapped against them for deductions from benefit. On 14 November last year, I asked the Secretary of State to list
710
how many claimants on income support at each local office in Birmingham had had their names and addresses sent to the community charge registration officer by the local office. The Minister gave the standard answer that the information was not readily available and that it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Not to be put off, the next day I wrote to the managers of the two local offices that serve my constituency. Both managers replied by return of post stating that they had contacted their headquarters about it and could not give me the information. Although eventually they were advised by their headquarters that they could tell me, initially Ministers tried to stop the information coming out. When I went to my local office, the staff there were instructed, "Do not answer him; we will think about it."
A lot of trouble would be saved all round—for local managers and local staff—if we could be given such information at the Dispatch Box when hon. Members ask questions about their local offices and the number of income support claimants who are affected. We should be given that information without the rigmarole of having to write to the local managers or even the Minister. We simply want answers to parliamentary questions about a matter for which the Minister is directly accountable to the House. I should like that point to be clarified when the Minister replies.
Before mentioning some of the anomalies with rebates, I wish to make a point about the independent living fund. Although I do not have it with me, I received a written answer on this from the Minister some weeks ago, and some clarification would be desirable. I have only one constituency case that relates to the independent living fund, and although I do not have to declare an interest, I freely admit that it involves a member of my own family. But the person concerned is a constituent and is entitled to her Member of Parliament's services, just like anybody else.
In effect, the lady concerned has all her income above income support levels subvented to the independent living fund as her contribution to its contribution. Therefore, all her graduated pension and all her occupational pension have to be paid to help meet the independent living fund's contribution to the care and other arrangements made by the local authority. In effect, she has been told, "You do not have anything above income support levels because we need it to help with the contributions." That lady cannot apply for a poll tax rebate because she could not fill in the form and state honestly that she is in receipt of income support, because she is not. She has an occupational pension and a graduated pension.
One of two things must happen. Either people who are involved in independent living fund arrangements have to have their poll tax discounted above income support levels —in other words, they can keep the poll tax amount so that they can pay the tax—or they should be able to apply for a rebate like anybody else who has a net disposable income at only income support level. The position must be clarified. Like me, the social services department. in Birmingham has attempted to clarify this anomaly, but without success. Although the Minister's answer was clear, what we were told should happen is not happening. Despite its problems, the independent living fund is of enormous benefit to many people in helping to keep them in their own homes. It is crucial, but the penalty that will be imposed if changes are not made is unacceptable.

711
I shall not rehearse all the arguments about student nurses, but I must refer to some of the anomalies. The Minister said earlier, "We have set it all out now. Everybody understands it. It is simple. Everybody knows where they stand on poll tax rebates." I must advise him that most people do not and that even those who understand do not think that the system is fair. I have received a parliamentary answer about the position of Royal Air Force officers. The Ministry of Defence has said that it is aware of the 411 trainees at RAF Halton and that it is telling all the other service stations to ensure that their trainees and students are similarly classified. That is fine for them, but some of them have incomes of as much as £9,000 per year. It is wrong that they should get the rebate when student nurses do not.
One of my constituents wrote to me only last week. She was a health visitor with earnings of £12,000 per year and was due to go on a course at Birmingham polytechnic. It had been agreed that she would be classified as a student and that she would be entitled to an 80 per cent. rebate on her poll tax. Circumstances that I need not go into have meant not only that she is unable to go on the course, but that she has had to leave her job. She is now a housewife with no income and she will receive no rebate because of joint and several liability. She asked me how, when she was earning £12,000 per year, going on a course and married to a husband who was working, she would get an 80 per cent. rebate on her poll tax, whereas now, when she is not working, has no income and is not going on that course, she has to pay her full poll tax. It does not make sense. If the system is shot full of anomalies like that, the Minister has not heard the end of the difficulties about poll tax rebates.
Poor people will be in real trouble. I should like to share with the House a couple of sentences that were uttered when these issues were debated on 23 February 1988, which seems a long time ago now. I refer to the 17th sitting of the Committee that considered the Local Government Finance Bill:
"Above all, I am worried because in recent years we have seen the development of two societies….
I am not over-dramatising the position, but I have noticed the haunted look in the eyes of people who shuffle into my surgery. They have been caught in the poverty trap which has come about by a combination of our benefits and tax system and low income….
We have a get-rich-quick, materialistic environment. It scorns people who cannot keep up with it. That is also distressing for parliamentarians. People need our help; they must not be kicked in the teeth by a system that is becoming increasingly hard on them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23 February 1988; c. 884.]
I am not quoting a Labour Member of Parliament; I am quoting a Conservative Member of Parliament. I shall not embarrass him by identifying him. The hon. Gentleman is no longer in his place, as he was a few minutes ago—[Interruption.] Very well—it is public knowledge—it was the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)—
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Surprise, surprise.
Mr. Rooker: Conservative Members are trying to dismiss that statement. A Conservative Member of Parliament has seen the "haunted look". Two years ago, when we were discussing the poll tax rebate system and
712
how it would work, the Secretary of State said, in effect, "Why should what the duke has to pay be different from what the dustman has to pay?" That is the kind of attitude that we are facing.
The system is unfair. It is shot through with anomalies. With the best will in the world and, at the Department of Social Security, with the finest of dedicated civil servants —I am making up for last night—who do their best to serve Ministers, and who, of course, do not ask questions about the effects of the policies in the first place, the system will not work. The poll tax does not deserve to work. In fact, the rebate system will be the final nail in its coffin.
6 pm
Mr. Timothy Raison: Hon. Members may recall that I did not support the introduction of the community charge when the legislation was passed two years ago. I am bound to say that many of the gloomy predictions made at that time have been fulfilled. However, in this debate we are concerned not with fundamental principles but with the very important question of how to implement the charge, and whether that can be done in as reasonable, perhaps even humane, a manner as possible. Elements of the instruments before us today show that Government are trying to ensure that implementation is eased. They have taken certain important steps to ease the impact of the charge.
My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the generous rebate taper level. It is exceptionally generous compared with almost anything else. Then there is the transitional relief, designed to limit increases where charges are more than £156 above what the Government deem to be a sensible level. In addition, the Chancellor, in the Budget, raised the capital limit to £16,000. That is the subject of the fourth of the instruments that we are considering.
All those things are welcome in principle; they are genuine attempts to ease the introduction of the community charge. However, we still have not done nearly enough to ease the burden on many people who are hit hard by the community charge. Some of the concessions, which were certainly intended to be helpful, have not had the effect that, at first sight, it appeared they would have. In the process of easing the transition into the new system, the Government must go further.
How can that be done? I shall briefly offer one or two thoughts. First, I return to a point that has been raised already. I refer to the capital limits—in particular, to the effect of the assumption that each £250 of capital above £3,000 should add £1 a week to the level of income on which rebates are assessed. As my right hon. Friend the Minister reminded us, this matter was debated here only a few hours ago, but I do not think that the debate has been put to rest. We cannot say that we have got the system right. We really are assuming the equivalent of a 20·8 per cent. yield on capital. That cannot be justified.
I accept that, so long as someone remains within the rebate range, he will have to pay only 15 per cent. of the increase, and I have referred already to the fact that there is a generous rate of taper. However, the real problem is that this level of deemed income will take certain people right out of the income range within which they can get help. Under the provisions that we are debating, they

713
might qualify in terms of capital, but because of their income they will fail to qualify. The Government really must face up to that fact.
The answer must be provided by doing something like dropping the assumption that £250 of capital will yield an income of £1 a week and assuming that the yield will be about 50p a week. One could try to tie the level more precisely to prevailing interest and yield levels, but, for administrative simplicity, a rough and ready yardstick such as that would probably make more sense. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see the force of this point and will take it very seriously.
Sir John Stanley: My hon. Friend has referred to the generous rate of taper. In historical terms, this is correct, but I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to a written answer that I received from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security on 23 March 1990. That answer, which is recorded in column 788 of Vol. 169 of the Official Report, reveals that a pensioner couple aged between 60 and 74 on an income of £75·55 would get the maximum rate of community charge benefit, but that if that income rose to £106·23, even on the assumption of a £600 community charge between them, they would lose 50 per cent. of their entitlement to community charge benefit.
Mr. Raison: My right hon. Friend has made a significant point, which the House will have clearly heard.
I want to turn to the next element in the package that the Government have offered in an attempt to ease this process—the transitional relief, the help for single people and couples where charges are more than £156 above current rates. This too is welcome, but it assumes sensible spending by the local authority. The judgment as to what is a sensible level of spending is rather hard to justify. In the debate earlier this week, we heard that it was based on an assessment of what the local authority received in the current year, plus 4·64 per cent. Clearly 4·64 per cent. is below the rate of inflation. As a result, the £156, especially in so far as the scheme touches on the assumed level of spending, has its weakenesses.
This too is a matter that could be tackled. If I were to pick out the most useful single short-term action that could be taken to relieve the pressure of the community charge, it would be a reduction of the £156 to £104, or perhaps even £52. That could be done without enormous administrative complication, and it would have immediate effect. Every penny of the money being provided by way of benefit would, by definition, go to the people who needed it most. I realise that this is not the direct responsibility of my right hon. Friends, but I urge on them the need to think very carefully about my proposition. It could very rapidly do enormous good.
I hope to goodness that the Government will not get sucked into the business of extensive rate capping. That would only prolong the agony, month after month. It would also confirm the belief that the community charge is not achieving its objective. It would undoubtedly lead to endless court actions and to local authorities making cuts in those services in which they felt that cuts would have the greatest and most dramatic effect. I ask my right hon. Friends to pass those points on to their colleagues.
I want to return to a point that has cropped up in this debate—whether those who are on income support should pay any community charge at all. One has an instinctive
714
initial sympathy with the argument that anyone on income support should not have to pay the community charge. On reflection, however, one must accept that, since we have the community charge system anyway, interfering with the objective of achieving greater accountability in local government would make total nonsense of the whole thing. I have therefore come reluctantly to the view that those on income support should have to pay the notional sum—or the 20 per cent.-plus, which I accept is more than notional. But that makes it all the more important that they should be helped in other ways to maintain their standard of living.
As other right hon. and hon. Members want to take part in the debate, I shall not go further, save to say that the Government must immediately take further steps to make the system operate more fairly and to win more acceptance for it among the public at large. Over the coming year, it will be crucial to think again about the fundamental problem of whether there is some way of relating the community charge much more closely to ability to pay.
6.9 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The debate is reactive to the outcry against this unfair and regressive tax. That is the background to the comments of every hon. Member. The regulations, particularly those which came through the Budget, are an attempt to make some adjustment in view of the unprecedented response, across the generations, to the tax. I am still surprised at how many Conservative Members did not see the gathering storm clouds. There are a number of hon. Members in the Chamber who served, as I did, in Committee on the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which introduced the tax. Hon. Members on this side warned the Government what would happen; some of their own Back Benchers warned them, and so did almost every outside body. Yet a succession of hon. Members who voted the legislation through seem to be surprised by what has happened.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The people who could best have warned the Government were the Scottish Conservative Members who served on the Standing Committee on the legislation which imposed the poll tax on Scotland, but most of them lost their seats at the last election.
Mr. Taylor: I was about the say that they would have found it harder to warn the Government because they are no longer here.
In regard to the regulations about deduction from income support, all the other deductions associated with loans and all the rest come first and the poll tax deduction comes on top, so we see how penal and draconian the measure is. A person might have 25 per cent. of his income support deducted even before the poll tax is considered. Many people whose income is on or just above the exemption limit do not know how they will pay the tax.
On Monday night, I addressed a meeting in my constituency about the poll tax. The people there do not normally come to political meetings. They were angry and were reacting in an extreme way. I tried to explain the penalties and difficulties. The reason for their reaction was that they cannot afford to pay the tax. When some of them spoke to me privately after the meeting, they were more

715
friendly but they were frightened because they do not know how they will pay. That is what we find about the people who are coming to our surgeries.
The explanatory memorandum on the Community Charge Benefits (General) Amendment Regulations says:
"Regulation 78 is amended so that collective community charge contributions may in specified cases be paid direct to the collective community charge payer without the consent of the person entitled to the benefit."
Perhaps the Minister would explain that. It seems that the people who are entitled to the benefit will not actually be the people who are expected to have paid it. I am not sure why the benefit should go to the landlord.
I should like Ministers to take up with their colleagues the case of a mature student in my constituency. She has two children and is studying in Plymouth, where she has to live for part of the week. She is expected to pay the 20 per cent. contribution there. Otherwise, because she is on income support, she would have been paying 20 per cent. in my constituency. Because she has a property in my constituency, where her children live during the week, she will have to pay a standard community charge, a double poll tax. The problem has not been properly resolved by the Government. I cannot believe that it is intended. If it cannot be dealt with here, I hope that Ministers will see that something is done about it, because it is clearly nonsense.
The Chancellor's announcement about capital limits, intentionally or otherwise, misled many people. When they heard that the limit was to be increased from £8,000 to £16,000 they believed that they would be entitled to considerable extra help. Certainly they believed that they would be entitled to some extra help. When councils dealt with the flood of problems, more often than not people found that they will not get any help or that the help will be minimal.
We have to explain that the concession is based on the idea that they are getting a return of 20 per cent. on their savings investment. Although they might not be pleased about it, people might understand it if the deduction was based on actual income. The problem is that they are not getting a 20 per cent. return on their savings, apart from the fact that they have already paid tax on the money before putting it aside. Instead of increasing the capital limit to £16,000, the Chancellor should have tackled the limit of £3,000 or the rate of reduction which, more than anything, is divorced from reality.
If the concession is to be based on people's income, why is there a cut-off limit? If we could find someone with savings of £16,000 who is still entitled to help—I think we would be hard-pressed to do it—it is not logical to say that that person will not get help. By definition, the person needs help.
Not only did the Chancellor not think about Scotland: he did not think through his policy as a whole. It does not add up. He has admitted that it was rushed through at the last minute, with insufficient consultation. I think it was rushed through without any thought. The Government had read in the newspapers that it would be a good idea to increase the capital limit to £16,000, so they bunged it through, and ever since they have been wondering what they got up to. We know that they forgot about Scotland. That is not surprising. They forgot about Scotland all the way through. It was not just Ministers who forgot about
716
it, but all the Conservative Members in England who pushed through for Scotland what they now find unacceptable.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Not true.
Mr. Taylor: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. A few Conservative Members—three, I think—paid attention to what was being done north of the border.
The Government are attempting to ameliorate the problems associated with the poll tax. They are trying to deal with the reality of people's inability to pay. Every time Ministers try to come up with a solution, they throw up more problems for themselves. The tax is not based on ability to pay. However much the Government try to adjust it, they cannot do it. It will not work.
Throughout all the debates it has been pointed out that one other country, Papua New Guinea, was foolish enough to precede the Government down this path. However, that is not true. Papua New Guinea did not bring in a poll tax. It was debated there in 1906 but was rejected as too unfair and difficult to introduce. Instead, a local income tax was introduced. Ministers would be wise to follow that example.
6.20 pm
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I particularly welcome the uprating of the rule on savings because the old system was a disincentive to savers. We must increase saving levels in Britain—[Interruption]—and rather than sniggering, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) should reflect that the previous Labour Government, instead of giving incentives to savers, had negative interest rates and taxation at 98 per cent., at the highest rate, on savings.
We had a ludicrous state of affairs. That reflects Labour's commitment to savings. We must increase saving levels because the higher they are, the larger the pool of investment for industry—[Interruption.]—and the more—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is clearly nothing wrong with the microphones in the Chamber. The problem is the barracking that is going on underneath them.
Mr. Oppenheim: Opposition Members do not like hearing pertinent facts about the policies of Labour in power.
A high level of savings provides a larger pool of capital for industry to invest, which puts downward pressure on interest rates. That is why countries such as Japan, which have been economically successful, have concentrated their efforts on persuading people to save. We in Britain have learnt that lesson late, but I am glad that action is being taken to redress the balance.
The new regulations do not help many people who do not qualify for rebate, but who are suffering as the result of high levels of community charge. Media cover to date has concentrated on Conservative areas that have problems of their own, problems which are largely irrelevant to my county of Derbyshire.
Some Conservative county councils receive little by way of Government grant. Surrey, for example, gets only £60 a head. In addition, some of those areas are paying

717
substantial sums—as much as £75 a head—into the safety net. They may complain that they are subsidising Labour areas such as Derbyshire.
We in Derbyshire do not have that excuse because not only are we getting a massive amount by way of Government grant—three or four times Surrey's level—but in my constituency we are also benefiting from the safety net at levels ranging from £51 to £58 a head. Unfortunately, the media have concentrated on Conservative areas, which have one set of problems, and ignored the fundamental problems in Labour-controlled counties such as Derbyshire.
Derbyshire has no excuse for having a high community charge because it is generously treated by the safety net and has a huge grant, much higher than almost every other shire county.
Mr. Michael Jack: Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation to which he refers in Derbyshire is reflected precisely in Lancashire, where Government grant of £533 a head is not sufficient to dissuade the county council from increasing its expenditure by 17 per cent., equivalent to a 30 per cent. increase in the old rates? The result is a community charge £60 to £70 higher than it should be.
Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend makes the point well. It is a shame that the media have not paid more attention to areas such as Lancashire and Derbyshire, where the real problem comes from very high county council spending.
Mrs. Fyfe rose—
Mr. Oppenheim: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not give way because time is short. Opposition Members have intervened on many occasions during the debate and the hon. Lady has already intervened, and I see the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, (Mr. Nellist) bursting at the seams to take part in the debate.
Many people have told me that they would consider a community charge in the county of £250 or even £300 to be fair, but not £400. Many who will not qualify for rebate cannot afford £400. The community charge is at that level in Derbyshire because of the policies of the Labour-controlled county council.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Oppenheim: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has just come into the Chamber, while many of his hon. Friends have sat patiently through the whole debate. No doubt he will have a word with me outside in the Lobby after the Division.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Oppenheim: Had the hon. Gentleman been here for the whole debate, I should have happily given way to him. But he wanders into the Chamber from the Tea Room or wherever else he has been and expects to make an intervention.
Mr. Skinner: Will mammy's boy give way?
Mr. Oppenheim: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member who has the floor has made it clear that he does not intend to give way.
Mr. Oppenheim: We have a ludicrously high community charge in Derbyshire because of the irresponsible and profligate spending policies of Derbyshire county council. My constituents are expected to pay a community charge close to £400 a head, despite benefiting from the safety net and from one of the most generous Government grants available to any shire council, because the county council has decided to have a £34 million contingency fund, equal to almost £50 per charge payer. Having done its best to keep rate rises low last year—election year—it is setting the community charge as high as possible this year so that it can blame the Government.
Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
Mr. Oppenheim: In addition, the county council has spent £1 million a year on a public relations department that produces nothing short of socialist propaganda. Just after the community charge level of nearly £400 was announced, the county council threw an expensive party, at the charge payers' expense, to celebrate the release of Nelson Mandela. Many people are happy that he has been released, but they do not want to contribute to a beano at which councillors can celebrate it.
In addition, those councillors have spent £600,000 on an equal opportunities and race relations department; £140,000 on twinning arrangements mainly with towns in China and Russia; and nearly £15 million on a dubious so-called community education programme that most people believe is of little educational benefit.
Derbyshire county councillors have no interest in efficiency and in keeping costs down. That is why—[Interruption.]—since 1981, the number of staff employed by the county council has increased by 8,000, a 20 per cent. increase, and the largest increase of any shire county. The county council leadership seems to believe not that it is running a council to provide services for the people of Derbyshire—
Mr. Barnes rose—
Mr. Oppenheim:—but that it is running a huge, bloated job agency for its friends in NUPE and COHSE.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although there are specific motions before the House, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) seems to be spending much of his speech on items that are not relevant to those motions.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is the most genuine point of order that has been put to me in my three years in the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is quite correct, and perhaps the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) will now address his remarks to the regulations and the question of their annulment.
Mr. Oppenheim: The purpose of the regulations is to reduce the burden of the community charge on poorer people. I am suggesting other ways of reducing that burden. The massive, wasteful and profligate spending policies of counties such as Derbyshire are a significant factor in increasing the burden. Were those councils more sensible in pursuing proper policies, the burden on community charge payers would be substantially reduced. I shall give an example. When district council leaders in Derbyshire got together and produced—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given a ruling. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to follow it and return to the subject under discussion.
Mr. Oppenheim: I always abide by your rulings, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The regulations will prove to be important in making the community charge fairer. On the other hand, we must retain the principle of accountability in relation to the charge, with everyone making a contribution towards the costs of local government.
We must go further and do our utmost to make the community charge fairer. Most people now realise that not everyone pays the same amount because, after all, there is the rebate system. On top of that, throughout England and Wales, 70 per cent. of local government spending is funded by business or directly by the Government. The funding that comes directly from the Government is financed primarily by income tax, which is disproportionately paid by better-off people. We must do as much as possible to make sure that the community charge is fairer.
Local government also has an important responsibility to ensure that it reduces wasteful spending and does not put unnecessary burdens on poor people who cannot afford to pay them. We do not yet have the accountability that we should, because many people voted for county councils last year under the old system without realising what the new system would mean. As the system develops and is fine tuned, it will introduce a great deal of accountability. Until we have greater accountability—which we may not have for two or three years—it is important to defend less well-off people who do not benefit from rebate or benefit only partially. In a county as irresponsible and wasteful as Derbyshire, the only way to defend people is to cap the council.
6.31 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist: The poll tax and the rebate regulations that we are discussing become law in three days—on April fool's day. I am almost tempted to rest my case there, but as I have a few minutes, I shall push on.
During the past two or three weeks we have watched Tory Members of Parliament race around in panic. They were compared to headless chickens. I think that that is unfair. Headless chickens are a model of sobriety compared to the way Conservative Members have panicked in the past few weeks both inside and outside the Chamber. However, their concern was synthetic.
Conservative Members were not worried about low-paid workers presently in low-rated property who will be pauperised by the poll tax. They were not worried about women throughout the country and in every industry who earn on average two thirds to three quarters of the wage of a man but have to pay the same poll tax as a man. They were not worried about young people, 80 per cent. of whom, when they leave school, find jobs that earn less than the Council of Europe decency threshold of £150 a week but who pay the same poll tax as higher paid workers. They were not worried for the 11 per cent. of West Indian families and 29 per cent. of Asian families who have six or more adults in their household and will face bills in three days' time of £2,000, £2,500 or £3,000.
They were worried about Conservative seats. The Daily Express predicted that 81 Conservative Members would lose their seats because of the poll tax alone. I do not know
720
about the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), but if the Prime Minister were run over by a bus tomorrow morning, half that lot on the other side would vote for the bus driver to be the next Prime Minister in grateful thanks.
The regulations before us are supposed to make a fundamental difference to the mass opposition to the poll tax throughout the country. We should remember that only 19 per cent. of the population support the poll tax; 81 per cent. are against it. The regulations will do nothing of the sort. Many families, particularly the 3 million families who are already in serious debt, and arrears for mortgage, rent, gas, water and electricity, must find tonight's debate a joke. What the hell does it matter if the rebate threshold is increased from £8,000 to £16,000 if one is already deep in debt? If one had that level of savings, one would not be in debt in the first place. For millions of families, tonight's debate is irrelevant.
Everyone in the country should apply—I shall use the same date as the Minister used—before May 27 for the rebates to which they might be entitled from every local authority in England and Wales. The reason why they should do so is that those who will pay should not pay any more than they have to. Those who will not pay should not owe any more than they have to. What is more, anything that gives the councils a bit more work to do in the next few weeks so that they cannot get round to court orders suits me down to the ground.
The rebates are paltry. To take my own borough of Coventry—
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What about Wandsworth?
Mr. Nellist: I shall come to Wandsworth in a minute. The hon. Gentleman has just walked in from the bar, obviously after a good lunch, as they say. He should pipe down and let us get on with the serious debate.
In Coventry, the poll tax is £394. That is £7·56 a week. Therefore, the maximum rebate is £6·04. Everyone has to pay a minimum of £1·52 or 20 per cent. For those under 25, that is a net loss of 88p a week. For those over 25 there is a net loss of 85p a week. For couples, there is a net loss each of 88p.
What about those in work? Someone under 25 in Coventry who takes home more than £70·85 a week receives no rebate whatever. Someone over 25 who takes home more than £78·75 a week receives no rebate whatever. A pensioner between the ages of 60 and 74 with an income of more than £85·55 a week receives no rebate whatever. A couple with two children under the age of 11 with a net income of more than £177, including all income from family credit, child benefit or anywhere else, even out of two low-paid jobs of, say, £88 or £89 a week, receives no rebate whatever. That is notwithstanding the regulations that we are discussing.
Young people in Coventry and throughout the country on such levels of low wages will owe from next Monday 2 April a month or a month and a half of their total annual income just to pay Maggie's tax. A hell of a lot ain't going to do it.
The regulations cover two main areas. First, we have the concession of raising the savings allowed from £8,000 to £16,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) dealt with the perfect example of those who thought—probably until tonight—that they would gain. Someone with £15,500 in the bank thought until the

721
Budget that they would get no rebate. When they heard that the figure had been increased to £16,000 they thought they were okay. He dealt with the example of a pensioner with a small occupational pension which took her £10 over the applicable amount, and with £15,500 savings. Even if she lived in an area where the poll tax was £611, there would be no rebate. That is bad enough, but most hon. Members, particularly the Tory headless chickens, do not realise that, if the poll tax was £350—let us remember that three quarters of all councils in England and Wales have set a poll tax higher than that—that pensioner is limited to a maximum of £4·51 a week in rebate. When the Tories next do their surgeries, they will not have a lot of grateful pensioners coming along to say, "Thanks for doubling the amount." We have gone into all the reasons for that.
I should have still voted against the poll tax, as the Minister knows, but it would have been a bit better if he had done what several of his hon. Friends suggested and lifted the £3,000 at which people start to lose rebate to about £8,000. Parallel to that—no one else has argued for this tonight—he should have increased by £20 or £25 a week the applicable amount of other items such as works pensions which are disregarded before the loss of rebate. We heard from the Chancellor about thrift. But pensions are only deferred wages. It is a way to set aside wages for the future. That is thrift. But people are being penalised by that lower limit of weekly income.
As the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said in response to a question that I put to the Minister, the idea that for every £250 above the savings limit of £3,000 one receives £1 a week in interest is wrong. No Tory Member could point me to any bank, savings institution or other high street institution to which ordinary people have access—I am not talking about Lloyd's—that gives 20 per cent. interest and would give £1 a week for every £250. Millions of people have been conned by that.
The second area covered by the regulations is income support. From Monday, one of the three penalties, other than gaol, which the Government and local authorities can use to force people to pay is benefit arrestment. It is worth noticing—it does not seem that any Scottish Member will get into the debate—that Scotland has had 12 months of the poll tax but not one person has had his or her benefit arrested in Scotland by exactly the same powers as are available here. That is because of the huge number of people affected.
In Scotland, people do not worry about debates such as this, because they have their own rebate system—more than 1 million people have not paid the tax. The Scottish are successfully implementing their own rebate system.
Mr. Wilson: It is true that no hon. Member representing Scotland will have the opportunity to participate in the debate. That is unfortunate, but I know it is not the fault of the Chair. However, that does not give my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) the right to misrepresent the situation in Scotland. An enormous amount of suffering has been caused in Scotland by the poll tax. The vast majority of people included in my hon. Friend's fanciful figure are not involved in non-payment campaigns. The greatest recruiting sergeant for non-payment or underpayment in Scotland is poverty. Inability to pay and poverty is what it is all about. I will not allow anyone, on either side of the House, to claim a trophies people in my constituency who are unable to pay the poll tax and who are not involved in any campaign.
722
The poll tax is an evil imposition, but one must get the politics of it right. The way to defeat the poll tax is to defeat the people who have imposed it on us.
Mr. Nellist: I do not necessarily disagree with my hon. Friend. The vast majority of people in England who will not be paying will be unable to pay the tax. My hon. Friend says that the figure I gave is fanciful, but it is based on the returns of Strathclyde, Lothian and other regional councils of those who have not paid since last April, who are now more than five months in arrears and who have stopped paying the tax. I maintain that more than 1 million people in Scotland are unable to pay that poll tax.
The regulations raise the amount that can be deducted from income support to £1·85 for a single person and £2·90 for a couple. It is deplorable that people already on the poverty line and in receipt of income support should have anything deducted from that benefit. One third of claimants in this country are already deeply in debt. On average, those in debt owe £84 for fuel, £135 for housing, £132 on purchases, £210 on loans and £119 in other debts. They owe a total of £680, and for them to be driven further into debt by deductions from their income support is absolutely disgraceful.
There is a small silver lining in the cloud. If the poll tax is £500, as it is in Tory Maidenhead and Basildon, those on income support must pay 20 per cent. towards it—£100. That means that, even with the increases announced today, it costs less to have the poll tax taken out of one's benefit than to try to pay it. I am sure that quite a few people will follow that line.
In recent weeks, I have received an enormous number of letters and they have made me proud of the things I have said inside and outside the Chamber. I have received, for example, a letter from a former beach commando who was strafed and bombed for five and a half years during the second world war. In the past two days, I have received letters from pensioners living in Cheshire, Exeter, Wallsend, Birmingham and Tamworth who tell me that they cannot afford to pay. They say that they are pleased that someone is standing shoulder to shoulder with them in their battle.
I make no apology to those Tory Ministers who were egged on and organised by Dr. Julian Lewis in their attempts to smear those who will not pay the poll tax. It will not work.
A couple of years ago, the Prime Minister said that the poll tax was the flagship of her third term of office. From Monday, millions of people will show that it ain't no flagship, it is her Titanic. She is going down with the ship.
6.43 pm
Ms. Clare Short: Tonight we are discussing one set of regulations that try to modify a deeply unjust tax. It is no good, however, fiddling around at the margins—that will not help. The fundamentals behind the tax are unjust and cannot be put right. The country has begun to realise that such is the Government's problem. The other regulations relate to taking away money from those on benefits who get into debt.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim)
—I am sorry that he has left the Chamber—failed to give way to anyone and made a disreputable attack on Derbyshire county council. I do not know about that county council in detail, but we all know that Tory authorities have set their poll tax 31 per cent. above the

723
Government-set figure, and that Labour authorities have set it 34 per cent. above that figure. We know that the Government figures are wrong, and statements from associations representing Labour and Tory local authorities back our claim. To say that the debate centres on Labour councils is equivalent to lies and fibs.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley also attacked the equal opportunities policy of Derbyshire. Clearly the hon. Gentleman is not in favour of black people and women having equality in the county. He also attacked the party given to celebrate that lion of a man, Nelson Mandela, on his release from imprisonment, and community education. His attack on the county council was disreputable in all respects.
The first set of regulations relates to deductions from those on income support to meet their arrears on poll tax. We know that those on income support are already being ripped off because the 20 per cent. contributions that they must pay towards the poll tax in their local area is based on the Government's figures, but the real rates of poll tax are much higher. Everyone on income support will be poorer because of the poll tax and the Government's implementation of it.
The principle of deduction from income support is a worry, because we are taking money from people who are given the minimum on which it is calculated they need to live. The people who are unlikely to be able to pay the poll tax are those who are already in debt for other things. The level of debt in Britain is higher than it has ever been; our level of indebtness is higher than that of any other European country.
People on low incomes, low-paid workers and people on benefits are being squeezed by the Government so that they can give more in tax handouts to their rich friends. Loan sharks and creditmongers have pushed their credit at those on low income and many people are now suffering deeply as a result of indebtedness. Many people are already paying money out of their income support to pay off debts that they have collected.
The regulations mean that a deducation of £1·85 a week can be made from a single person—nearly £100 a year—and £2·90 a week from a couple—nearly £150 a year. Given that those deductions will not cover the debt, it will carry on in subsequent years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has made clear. The deductions can be made, providing a person is left with at least 10p per week in income support. Deductions might already be made from that support to pay for housing, rent, fuel and water debts as well as the overpayment of benefit, whether it was the fault of the recipient or not. A person's income support might also face a deduction for the social fund.
Under our system, a maximum of 25 per cent. of a person's income support can be deducted without his or her consent. That deduction is made from the minimum which it is judged people need to live on. Today the Government are suggesting that, on top of that 25 per cent., £1·85 or £2·90 can be taken from that benefit, provided that 10p a week is left in income support.
Tonight the House is being asked to approve regulations penalising those on little, who are already in debt. Those people are facing a deeply unjust tax and they are now to have money compulsorily deducted from their
724
income support. Will Conservative Members vote for that? What will they say to their constituents? When they vote this through and find out how unpopular it is, they will try to distance themselves and pretend that, for some reason or other, they do not really support the change.
The other regulations implement the Chancellor's misleading concession in the Budget. There is no doubt that he misled elderly people with savings into believing that they would receive a rebate on the poll tax. I do not believe that the Chancellor knew what he was doing, as the figures he quoted do not make sense. He said that 250,000 people would benefit, at a cost of £120 million. From my desk in the Cloisters, I heard a Tory Member with a marginal seat who rang his agent to say that 500 people in a certain area would get £400 each. Suddenly, different figures were given by the Department of Social Security. We are now told that 195,000 people will benefit at a cost of £35 million. Where did all the other money go?
I think that the arrangements were cobbled together in panic. I do not believe that the Department of Social Security was properly consulted. Opposition Members tabled an amendment to the Social Security Bill on this very point, and were told by the Minister that there was no possibility of a concession. Shortly afterwards, the Chancellor made such a concession and messed it up—probably because he did not properly consult the DSS, any more than he thought about Scotland or the needs of its people.
The concession on capital limits has been a mess from beginning to end. It has misled Tory Members into waving their Order Papers because they thought that they had obtained some relief; more seriously, it has misled many elderly people who have more than £8,000 in savings and who thought that they would be given significant help with their poll tax. That is wrong: the poll tax is wrong. It is wrong to mislead people in that way.
I believe that even the Government's so-called concession will blow up in their face. The anger of those elderly people when they find out what really went on will cost the Government politically even more dearly than the poll tax is costing them now.
6.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I should dearly like to answer all the detailed questions that have been asked during this short debate, but time does not permit it. Some, in any event, would be dealt with more appropriately by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), however, asked one question that needs to be passed on to the trustees of the independent living fund. The hon. Gentleman also asked about information from local officers. I assure him that local office managers have approached the divulging of information with proper care, although of course they were able to answer his inquiry in a proper way as well. We have nothing to hide in that regard.
Today's debate has centred on two issues—tariff income and capital, and deductions. Hon. Members' concern about tariff income and capital limits is understandable, because community charge benefit is not the simplest benefit in the world to explain. Nevertheless,

725
there has been some misunderstanding about the £1 of weekly benefit per £250 of capital, and of the fact that the deduction represents a very generous taper of 15p a week.
Let me give some examples, as a good deal of misleading information has been given. Let us take a married couple in their 50s. The husband is disabled, and is cared for by his wife. Their rent is £23 a week, their community charge is £400 each and their savings stand at £13,000. Their total weekly income is £138·90, not including income from the capital. That couple will receive £6·96 a week in community charge benefit.
Now let us take a single pensioner in her 80s, paying a rent of £25 a week and a community charge of £400. She has £12,000 in savings and a total weekly income of £47·15, not including income from her capital. She will gain £5·89 a week in housing benefit, and £1·73 a week in community charge benefit.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) pointed out, however, the prayer is against the provisions for deductions. The enforcement of community charge arrears is, as she will appreciate, a matter for local authorities, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has already explained how that will work. I feel, however, that I must clarify the misrepresentation that has been repeated today by the hon. Members for Ladywood and for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about the 10p a week. It is entirely misleading to say that the Department intends to take large amounts of benefit away from people in order to leave them with only 10p a week on which to live.
Ms. Short: We did not say that.
Mrs. Shephard: That was the implication, and neither hon. Member corrected it.
Mr. Meacher: What we said was that large sums could be deducted in poll tax arrears, as long as people were left with 10p in income support. We did not use the words "in order to leave". Does the Minister not consider that disgraceful?
Mrs. Shephard: I should like to continue my explanation, because I still think that the hon. Gentleman is giving a misleading impression. He is giving the impression that the 10p is all that people will have to live on. The fact is that benefit can be reduced to lop a week only if the income support was very low in the first place because the claimant had other income—for example, from other contributory benefits. The 10p minimum level of income support is retained precisely to retain for the claimant automatic eligibility for free NHS dental treatment, prescriptions and vouchers for glasses. It is important to clear that up.
As an amount is included in income support for the payment of 20 per cent. of community charge, we think it only right that a separate deduction should be made to pay any community charge arrears, as would happen if the claimant were in work. Deductions can be made from income support to meet debts relating to housing costs and fuel or water charges: clearly that is necessary for the claimant to retain tenure of the property and the supply of essential services.
From April, those deductions for arrears will be limited to a maximum of £5·55 a week. If the income support being paid is not enough to meet the debts and the community charge arrears, the regulations provide that the other deductions shall take precedence over
726
community charge. Obviously, deductions from income support for housing, fuel and water costs must be given a higher priority, to protect claimants and their families.
Mr. Rooker: The debt deduction from income support will be possible only if a liability order has been obtained from the courts, and that will involve court costs. The local authority will add them to the debt, which will mean a minimum of £60 on top of the 20 per cent. payment. How will that money be collected?
Mrs. Shephard: As I have said, the enforcement of orders will be a matter for local authorities.
Mr. Rooker: Who will pay the court costs?
Mrs. Shephard: I really cannot answer the hon. Gentleman in any better way; that is the position.
It is extraordinary that Opposition Members should choose to ignore the positive aspects of the regulations. Perhaps, on the other hand, they prefer not to know about them. According to an advertisement about the community charge that was issued recently by the Labour-run Association of Local Authorities,
"a few might find themselves entitled to a rebate".
That is misleading, as one might expect; but it is misleading on two counts. It will be not a few, but a large number, and it is not "might" but "will". The increase in the limit of the savings that people can have while still receiving help with the community charge has been widely welcomed.
Let me repeat that the increase will help 195,000 individual charge payers, of whom 150,000 will be pensioners. The backdating arrangements and the publicity will ensure that people will be able to benefit, provided that they apply before 27 May. The regulations also provide special arrangements for specific and vulnerable groups—although Opposition Members, of course, did not mention that.
The £40-a-week payments announced in December for war widows whose husbands served before 1973 will be entirely disregarded, and the disregard for war disablement pensions will be doubled to £10 next month. All lump sums from the Macfarlane Trust for haemophiliacs with an HIV infection will be totally disregarded, and the disregard for regular and charitable payments will also be doubled. That move has been widely welcomed by charitable and voluntary organisations throughout the country.
The sums allocated for the benefit are very generous indeed. The planned expenditure on community charge benefit for next year is £2·5 billion. The more generous taper of 15 per cent. instead of 20 per cent. will bring a further 650,000 people on to the benefit, and half of all benefit claimants will be helped. Help is to be given to 10 million people in all—one in four of the population.
The regulations are sensible, fair and generous. I commend them to the House and invite the House to reject the prayers.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 298.

Division No. 148]

[7 Pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Allen, Graham

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Armstrong, Hilary

Barron, Kevin

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Beckett, Margaret

727

Beggs, Roy

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Bell, Stuart

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Bermingham, Gerald

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Bidwell, Sydney

Illsley, Eric

Boateng, Paul

Janner, Greville

Boyes, Roland

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Bradley, Keith

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Kilfedder, James

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Lamond, James

Buckley, George J.

Leighton, Ron

Caborn, Richard

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Callaghan, Jim

Lewis, Terry

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Litherland, Robert

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Livingstone, Ken

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cartwright, John

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Loyden, Eddie

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

McAllion, John

Clay, Bob

McAvoy, Thomas

Clelland, David

McCartney, Ian

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Macdonald, Calum A.

Cohen, Harry

McFall, John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

McKelvey, William

Corbett, Robin

Maclennan, Robert

Corbyn, Jeremy

McNamara, Kevin

Cousins, Jim

McWilliam, John

Crowther, Stan

Madden, Max

Cryer, Bob

Maginnis, Ken

Cummings, John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Dalyell, Tam

Marek, Dr John

Darling, Alistair

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Martlew, Eric

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

Meacher, Michael

Dewar, Donald

Meale, Alan

Dixon, Don

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Dobson, Frank

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Doran, Frank

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Duffy, A. E. P.

Morley, Elliot

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Eastham, Ken

Mullin, Chris

Fatchett, Derek

Murphy, Paul

Faulds, Andrew

Nellist, Dave

Fearn, Ronald

O'Brien, William

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Fisher, Mark

Patchett, Terry

Flannery, Martin

Pendry, Tom

Flynn, Paul

Pike, Peter L.

Foster, Derek

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Foulkes, George

Prescott, John

Fraser, John

Primarolo, Dawn

Fyfe, Maria

Quin, Ms Joyce

Galloway, George

Randall, Stuart

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Redmond, Martin

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

George, Bruce

Reid, Dr John

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Richardson, Jo

Golding, Mrs Llin

Rooker, Jeff

Gordon, Mildred

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Rowlands, Ted

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Ruddock, Joan

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Salmond, Alex

Grocott, Bruce

Sedgemore, Brian

Harman, Ms Harriet

Sheerman, Barry

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Short, Clare

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Sillars, Jim

Heffer, Eric S.

Skinner, Dennis

Hinchliffe, David

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

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

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Home Robertson, John

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Hood, Jimmy

Spearing, Nigel

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Steinberg, Gerry

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Stott, Roger

728

Straw, Jack

Wigley, Dafydd

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Wilson, Brian

Turner, Dennis

Winnick, David

Vaz, Keith

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Wall, Pat

Wray, Jimmy

Walley, Joan

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Wareing, Robert N.

Tellers for the Ayes:

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Mr. John Battle

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Dorrell, Stephen

Alexander, Richard

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Dover, Den

Allason, Rupert

Dunn, Bob

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Durant, Tony

Amess, David

Dykes, Hugh

Amos, Alan

Eggar, Tim

Arbuthnot, James

Emery, Sir Peter

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Evennett, David

Ashby, David

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Aspinwall, Jack

Fallon, Michael

Atkins, Robert

Farr, Sir John

Atkinson, David

Favell, Tony

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Baldry, Tony

Fishburn, John Dudley

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Batiste, Spencer

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bellingham, Henry

Forth, Eric

Bendall, Vivian

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Franks, Cecil

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Freeman, Roger

Body, Sir Richard

French, Douglas

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Fry, Peter

Boswell, Tim

Gale, Roger

Bottomley, Peter

Gardiner, George

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bowis, John

Gill, Christopher

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Brazier, Julian

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bright, Graham

Gorst, John

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gow, Ian

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Budgen, Nicholas

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Burns, Simon

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Burt, Alistair

Gregory, Conal

Butcher, John

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Butler, Chris

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Butterfill, John

Grist, Ian

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Ground, Patrick

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Grylls, Michael

Carrington, Matthew

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carttiss, Michael

Hague, William

Cash, William

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Chapman, Sydney

Hampson, Dr Keith

Chope, Christopher

Hanley, Jeremy

Churchill, Mr

Hannam, John

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

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

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Harris, David

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Haselhurst, Alan

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hawkins, Christopher

Colvin, Michael

Hayes, Jerry

Conway, Derek

Hayward, Robert

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Couchman, James

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Cran, James

Hill, James

Critchley, Julian

Hind, Kenneth

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

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

Hordern, Sir Peter

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Day, Stephen

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

Devlin, Tim

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

729

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Mellor, David

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Miller, Sir Hal

Hunter, Andrew

Mills, Iain

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Irvine, Michael

Mitchell, Sir David

Jack, Michael

Moate, Roger

Jackson, Robert

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Janman, Tim

Moore, Rt Hon John

Jessel, Toby

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Morrison Rt Hon P (Chester)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Moss Malcolm

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Neale, Gerrard

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Needham, Richard

Key, Robert

Nelson, Anthony

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Neubert, Michael

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Kirkhope, Timothy

Nicholls, Patrick

Knapman, Roger

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Norris, Steve

Knowles, Michael

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Oppenheim, Phillip

Latham, Michael

Page, Richard

Lawrence, Ivan

Patnick, Irvine

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Pawsey, James

Lightbown, David

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Lilley, Peter

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Portillo, Michael

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Powell, William (Corby)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Price, Sir David

McCrindle, Robert

Raffan, Keith

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Redwood, John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Maclean, David

Riddick, Graham

McLoughlin, Patrick

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Madel, David

Roe, Mrs Marion

Major, Rt Hon John

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Mans, Keith

Rost, Peter

Marland, Paul

Rowe, Andrew

Marlow, Tony

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Ryder, Richard

Maude, Hon Francis

Sackville, Hon Tom

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Sayeed, Jonathan

730

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Thurnham, Peter

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Tracey, Richard

Shelton, Sir William

Tredinnick, David

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Trippier, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Trotter, Neville

Shersby, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Sims, Roger

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Viggers, Peter

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Speed, Keith

Walden, George

Speller, Tony

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Waller, Gary

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Ward, John

Squire, Robin

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Warren, Kenneth

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Watts, John

Steen, Anthony

Wells, Bowen

Stern, Michael

Wheeler, Sir John

Stevens, Lewis

Whitney, Ray

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Widdecombe, Ann

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Wiggin, Jerry

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Wilkinson, John

Stokes, Sir John

Wolfson, Mark

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Wood, Timothy

Sumberg, David

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Summerson, Hugo

Yeo, Tim

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Tellers for the Noes:

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mr. Alistair Goodlad and

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.
It being after Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [23 March], to put successively the Questions on motions made by a member of the Government.
Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft Community Charge Benefits (General) Amendment Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.—[Mr. Scott.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft Community Charge Benefits (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.—[Mr. Scott.]
Question agreed to.

Exmouth Docks Bill (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
7.13 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will those hon. Members who do not wish to remain please leave quietly?
Sir Peter Emery: Because of some suggestions in the national press, I make it clear that I have no shares or interest in Exmouth Docks company, the Exmouth Docks Steamship company, the land surrounding the docks or any land in Exmouth, or anything to do with the companies which suggest a development at Exmouth docks.
It is interesting to note that, according to the journals, a previous Bill relating to Exmouth docks received a Second Reading in July 1868—[Interruption.] I have been a Member of the House for a considerable time, but not that long. The Bill received an unopposed Second Reading, but later on, mainly before it reached Committee, it ran into one or two difficulties and Standing Orders had to be repealed to let it go through. Two of the nominated directors in the Bill were removed from it, after which the Bill proceeded without difficulty. The most interesting aspect was that the total capitalisation necessary to make the docks and create the railway sidings ran to only £60,000, an amazing figure when one looks at today's costs.
One need not go back any further than the 1960s, when the docks fell into considerable disuse and remained so, with small tonnages going through, until the docks company was purchased in 1982 by new owners who attempted to revitalise the commercial life of the docks by encouraging the importation of animal feedstocks to serve the needs of the farming community in Devon and Somerset.
It soon became apparent that, if the docks were to be financially successful and a viable proposition, it was necessary to construct new deep-water berths for vessels larger than 2,500 tonnes dead weight. Such larger ships are essential for coastal traffic as the older generation of cargo vessels disappears. But because of the narrow docks entrance at Exmouth, vessels of that size could not enter the docks basin.
It is necessary for me to show that the company has tried to keep the docks going. At that time the company applied to East Devon district council, the local planning authority, for planning permission to construct new berths. But the council said in no uncertain terms that it was strongly opposed to the proposed modernisation of the docks and the company withdrew its application.
In the 1980s the greatest increase in business that the docks company could obtain arose from the docks strike and the coal strike. At that time, the docks tonnages increased from below 400,000 tonnes gross weight a year to 523,00 tonnes in 1985, at which level it remained, give or take 10,000 tonnes, until the docks closed in 1989. For anybody to say that the docks were expanding or becoming increasingly successful would not be correct.
Mr. John Prescott: It is important to know whether traffic through the dock was growing. It has been suggested that the miners' strike
732
brought more vessels and coal through the docks and led to their growth. According to the figures that I have for the numbers of vessels and the tonnage, before the miners' strike the tonnage through the port more than doubled from 158,000 in 1978 to nearly 400,000 in 1982. The number of ships increased from 279 to 551. After the strike about 500 ships a year continued going through the port. It would be fair to say that, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman is implying, traffic through the port has grown not simply because of the coal strike.
Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry if my figures were misunderstood. Let us have the facts, as people should make a judgment on the exact facts. I was suggesting that the growth from 400 to 500 ships occurred during the two strikes. In 1985 the tonnage through the docks was 523,478; in 1986 it was 511,350: in 1987 it was 536,580; in 1988 it was 516,462; and in 1989 it was 523,223. Therefore, my original statement that growth has been at an average level since 1985 is fair.
The objections to the docks made up the largest single file that I had as a constituency Member about any factor in east Devon. The dust, the size of the lorries and the environmental disturbance that the docks were causing to local residents provided me with more complaints than I have received on any other issue. The complaints led to the dock company being taken to court and asked to meet restrictions on and requirements to deal with dust and nuisance. Although the company spent considerable sums of money trying to comply, it is almost impossible to stop dust when handling open feedstuff cargo and the company was prosecuted under the Public Health Acts, leading to the issue of prohibition notices under the Public Health (Recurring Nuisances) Act 1969.
Mr. Prescott: It is important to get some of the facts established at the outset as we shall want to discuss them. I could be wrong, but I understood that the prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive concerned the continued complaints from many people in the area which the hon. Gentleman has drawn to the attention of the House. I confirm that that is so, as I have visited the docks. They were concerned about the dust and dirt and complained that no action of any substance was taken by the docks authority to correct that. That is why the company was prosecuted under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. As he said that considerable sums of money were spent by the authority for dealing with the problem of dust and dirt, can he give us some idea of the sums involved?
Sir Peter Emery: I cannot give the exact figures, but a new hopper complex with covering for the cranes that were unloading and air ducts to stop the dust blowing around was constructed. I know that the company visited docks throughout Europe to try to find modern equipment to meet the requirement to stop the nuisance. The company was very conscious of that, and I repeat that it went to considerable trouble.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Paragraph 6 of the statement on behalf of the promoters of the Bill talks about
"prosecutions being brought under the Public Health Acts.".
However, the hon. Gentleman has mentioned only the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and a prohibition notice. The Health and Safety at Work, etc Act applies to people affected by a process, but substantially it is not the same as the Public Health Acts.

733
Was action taken under the Public Health Acts? The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 is not a public health Act.
Sir Peter Emery: I must look in Hansard as I had no intention of mentioning the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act. I was referring to action under the Public Health Acts leading to the issue in December 1987 of a prohibition notice under the Public Health (Recurring Nuisances) Act 1969.
Mr. Prescott: I mentioned the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act.
Sir Peter Emery: It was the hon. Gentleman who did that, not me.
The company complied with that requirement and applied for outline planning permission for the development of most of the land, including the docks. The company had earlier tried to obtain planning permission for residential development of the land containing holiday chalets round the docks, but the district council refused permission because of the proximity of the area to the working docks. Under the June proposals the dock basin would accommodate only pleasure craft, although facilities would continue, because there was originally an objection from the fishermen in the area, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. They have now withdrawn their objection because arrangements have been made to facilitate the local fishing fleets; I can supply the details if necessary.
The dock basin has been closed since the beginning of the year.
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way and I do not intend to tire him, but a number of people and groups made objections and several of those objections have been withdrawn. It would be helpful to the House if the hon. Gentleman could tell us why the fishermen and others who registered objections are now in the process of withdrawing them or intend to withdraw them. The House should understand the extent of the objections, whether they have been withdrawn and the reasons for withdrawing them.
Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. If I had passed the outline of my speech to the hon. Gentleman he would have seen that an entire section deals with the five objections to the Bill.
The Bill is promoted by the Exmouth Docks company, which was established under the Exmouth Docks Act 1864. The purpose of the Bill is to authorise the company to discontinue the operation of the docks and close them to commercial traffic.
It was originally suggested to the company that a harbour revision order might be the way to proceed. The company was happy to do that. It would have allowed the public inquiry, but the company had no reason to stop that. My hon. Friend the Minister decided that, legally, he was not authorised to grant a harbour revision order. I see that he is nodding in agreement. He might have considered granting such an order if that were possible, but he had to inform the company and East Devon district council that that was not within his legal rights. So the company considered the matter and that is why the Bill is now before the House.
I understand hon. Members on both sides of the House objecting to the private Bill procedure being used to
734
circumvent planning law and planning applications. The Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure has made recommendations on that, but they have not been carried through.
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; it is inevitable that I shall ask him to do so to secure information. I know that he will reply to the debate at the end, but it may be better for him to answer my inquiry now.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point and I should like to hear his views because I have seen documents asking whether the Bill is necessary for the conversion from commercial docks to a marina. I have been led to believe, and I have read statements from either representatives of the development company or the organisations involved, that the company has received legal advice that it is not necessary to proceed with the Bill for the conversion from commercial docks to a marina. If so, why are we considering the Bill?
Sir Peter Emery: As with many legal matters, there is no simple answer to that question. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall try to deal with the matter in detail.
Sensibly, the company considers all the options because it is not gaining any income from the docks at present—
Mr. Prescott: Because it has shut them.
Sir Peter Emery: Of course. It has been advised that it would be unsafe to continue. I shall deal later with the cost to the company of proceeding.
Mr. Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Peter Emery: I am trying to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to answer one question at a time?
The company took advice, and it was suggested that it might be possible—not that it was possible—to proceed without the Bill as long as the development was not challenged in the courts. If it was challenged in the courts, the development would be uncertain.
The planning committee of East Devon district council wants an assurance before granting planning permission that the structure that it suggested in the plans will remain. Later, I shall read a letter from it urging that the Bill should be allowed to proceed. One option is sure but the other is open to some doubt.
Mr. Cryer: The somewhat spartan statement from the promoters says that some consulting engineers have reported. It says that
"certain of the dock walls are unsafe, and could collapse if heavy machinery or vehicles are used at the dockside."
Has a copy of that report been deposited for hon. Members?
Sir Peter Emery: I cannot answer that question. I would judge that it has not been deposited because it has not been asked for, but I shall try to deal with it in my speech because it is an important matter. A Committee can deal with such matters better than hon. Members on Second Reading.
The company decided to bring a Bill before the House. I said earlier that hon. Members object to private Bills being used to circumvent planning procedures. This Bill has been through all the required planning procedures and has the approval of Exmouth town committee, which was

735
set up by East Devon district council and comprises councillors from the Exmouth area. East Devon district council wrote to me saying:
"I understand that the Second Reading of the Bill is likely to take place next week and it may be useful for you to know this council's position on the matter. I can confirm that the Council's Planning Committee has given planning permission for the redevelopment of the Exmouth docks for a marina together with the associated residential development, subject to formal closure of the docks by the necessary legal process, ie the Bill currently before Parliament."
That reinforces the point that I made to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. The letter continues:
"The council has accepted the reality of the situation and that the days of Exmouth as a commercial port are over and that the docks should close. I understand that there are fears in some quarters that private Bills such as this may be used to circumvent normal planning procedures, but I can confirm that this is definitely not the case with this Bill. I would reiterate that the proper planning process has been followed and permission given."
That is of considerable importance and I hope that it assures hon. Members who have been concerned about the private Bill procedure.
I now turn to the report of Hydraulics Research Ltd, about which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked. I am sure that details of the report can be provided to hon. Members if it has not already been deposited in the House. It makes it quite clear that expenditure of over £1 million will be necessary to make the docks safe, and that equipment to modernise and to meet restrictions under the health Acts is likely to cost about the same. It is impossible for the company to meet such expenditure, even if the company does not wish the development of the docks as a marina. The company has considered seeking financial assistance, but section 12 of the Harbours Act 1964, which allowed for grants to docks, was repealed in 1981. That grant facility is no longer available.
Originally, there were five objectors—two major objectors and three individuals. Initially, the major objectors were fishermen, who were concerned about their right to enter the harbour. They wanted to be assured that there would be a harbourmaster. They wished to have areas to unload fish, which traditionally they had done, and one or two other facilities. The company has given legally binding assurances that the number and size of vessels that the fishermen stipulated will be able to enter the port and that it will be open in emergencies or in bad weather. To meet the wishes of fishermen, the company has provided land for a refrigeration process which hitherto they did not have. The fishermen therefore withdrew their objection.
The next objection came from a strange source—one might say that it was somewhat impertinent. It came from Exeter city council.
Mr. Prescott: Impertinent?
Sir Peter Emery: Yes, I said impertinent, but perhaps I should put that in inverted commas. The council objected because it would lose income. Its real objection was that the dues of £168,000 a year which it obtained from the operation would be lost if the docks did not operate. However, as the docks are closed, the council is receiving no income, so it seems strange to me—I do not represent
736
Exeter—that Exeter city council is trying to interfere in what Exmouth and East Devon district council saw as the best development.
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman has come to a more controversial point. He refers to the impertinence of the authority. Exeter city council is, as I understand it, the navigation and conservation authority for the river. It is entitled to impose charges on all vessels on the river to pay for the lights and navigational aids required under merchant shipping legislation. The money does not go into the coffers of Exeter city council for playing fields, for example, but goes to maintain navigational aids on the river and to make it safe. The problem now for the council and the citizens of Exeter is that if the charges are not secured from other vessels or in other forms, the navigational aids will be a charge on the authority itself. Exeter will find not only that it is losing income, but that it still has costs for which it can no longer levy charges. The council is not simply picking up money; its position is a dead loss. It will have to finance navigational aids, which is no loss to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but is a loss to Exeter.
Sir Peter Emery: I had better withdraw the word "impertinent". However, some of the costs will not be incurred because the harbour will not be operating as a commercial harbour. I cannot estimate the variation, but there will be a considerable saving. I do not believe that one local authority should impose charges on another authority which is unable to continue with an operation because it is no longer viable. That is, perhaps, the best argument.
I can now give certain assurances to the House. The House will be pleased to know that a recommendation will go to the relevant Exeter city council committee on Monday 2 April that the objection of the Exeter city council be withdrawn because arrangements have been made between the present company and the authority which allow it to withdraw its objection. I am delighted that that is the case. I was informed that the Committee would have liked to have had the recommendation before this debate, but 2 April is the first date on which it can go to the Committee.
Mr. Prescott: What about compensation?
Sir Peter Emery: I cannot say exactly. All that I can say is that that is the recommendation.
There were three private objections. One was a private objection from a previous employer, which has now been settled, and two are outstanding. Mrs. Susan Winters, a chandler, used to sell goods round the docks. She has claimed that her income has been affected by the closure of the docks. I accept that that is the present position, but Exmouth docks are not her only source of income and her business is likely to be far greater with a marina. She will be able to supply more to the boats in the marina than she could to the slightly larger commercial vessels which previously used the docks. If the Bill goes to Committee, she has the right to make her case and I do not have to make it for her.
The second outstanding objection is from Mr. Stephen Lytton, who is a former assistant pilot. He is not employed by the company, but he is working with only 18 months' service. Even if he had been employed by the company, he could not have claimed a statutory redundancy payment;

737
but the company, realising his position, has made an offer to Mr. Lytton. However, he wants a settlement that would put all the former employees of the company, who have agreed to redundancy payments and other benefits, into a wholly unfair position. The company is still willing to make a fair settlement to the two objectors and it will continue to take that stance.
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman referred to two previous employees who, I believe, were shipping agents in the port. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that they were shipping agents who had to move to another port because the company arbitrarily finished commercial operations at the port in December? Were they shipping agents and, if so, what—if any—compensation did the company pay them?
Sir Peter Emery: A shipping agent was supposed to be putting in an objection. I believe that he never put in a formal objection, but I should have to consult on that. He was a shipping agent in the port. Negotiations took place between the company and the gentleman, and he was happy to accept the terms. I cannot say what he is doing now. I believe that necessary compensation, which was acceptable to him, was negotiated. I am right in saying that no objection to the Bill was lodged by that individual.
The company strongly believes that it is not financially possible for it to reconstitute the dock as a commercial operation. If it were to be a commercial operation, the company would have to consider—this would not appeal to the Opposition—building up a trade in the importation of coal. Some of my hon. Friends might want that, but some hon. Members would definitely object strongly.
Mr. Prescott: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that it would be commercially possible to import coal and to meet the expenditure necessary to allay the anxiety about safety at the docks? He is now telling us that it would be possible to make the port profitable by importing coal. I thought that he was telling the House that the money needed to make the dock safe made it impossible for the dock to operate commercially. Which argument does the hon. Gentleman want to deploy?
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman is being—
Mr. Prescott: Mischievous?
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman would never be mischievous. However, he is putting words into my mouth. I have made it clear that the dock company considers that it could take no action to make the dock commercially viable again. I asked the company where, if it could choose, it would go for cargo and I have told the House its answer. The answer does not imply that there is any likelihood of that cargo alone reconstituting commercial activity in the dock. The company has made it clear that even its previous trade in agricultural feedstuffs has now gone elsewhere and the company's chance of winning that trade back are negligible. Clearly, there is no way in which the company or East Devon district council believes that the dock can be made a commercial proposition once more.
I want now to consider the benefits that would accrue for Exmouth. For a long time many people have believed that the area along the south coast to which I have been referring needs a marina. There is only anchorage in the
738
estuary, and no marina along the east Devon coast in my constituency from Uplyme to Exmouth. One has to go round the Exe to Torquay before one finds such a facility.
Exmouth is a major tourist area and its income is dependent on tourism. The council and the overwhelming majority of people in Exmouth believe that a marina and the kind of development that we are discussing today would be excellent commercially for the town, and that is what they have recommended.
Mr. Prescott: There is some contention over a piece of land to which I believe the hon. Gentleman referred and which is mentioned in the promoter's note. That piece of land is known as Shelley Sands. Does the Bill cover Shelley Sands? If it does, it is a legitimate matter of concern for us this evening. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of an apparent dispute about the ownership of Shelley Sands? I have seen the deeds, titles and the correspondence between the local authorities and the people who contest that the port authority involved in the Bill has a right to that land. Is there a dispute? Will the courts have to decide it? Is there any uncertainty about that piece of land?
Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to answer that. Under the section 52 agreement, the company handed over the Shelley Sands area of the basin to the East Devon district council. There can be no dispute about it. The company was quite willing to do so and that was part of the agreement in the planning application. I am glad that we have got rid of that problem.
Mr. Prescott: So that land is not covered by the Bill?
Sir Peter Emery: It is part of the planning application, but it is not dealt with in the Bill.
I apologise fo having detained the House for so long. I have tried to answer all the questions that were asked. If there are other questions, and I have no doubt that there will be, the right place for them to be asked is in Committee. As there are petitioners, the Bill will go to an Opposed Private Bill Committee and the Committee will examine it rigorously. I urge that the Bill be allowed to receive its Second Reading and proceed in the way that private Bills have proceeded for centuries since the first of these Acts, the Exmouth Docks Act, was introduced in July 1864. It should be brought to a determination sensibly and reasonably for the benefit of Exmouth and of everyone concerned.
7.53 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) set out quite properly to make it clear to the House that he has no interest in these matters. I am sure that he meant also that his company, Shenley Trust Services has no involvement in the matter either.
Sir Peter Emery: Not at all.
Mr. Cryer: When the hon. Gentleman was referring to himself, I realised that he was referring to the company that he owns and controls, and of which he is chairman.
Sir Peter Emery: I want to make it clear that neither I nor any company with which I am associated in any way—minority or majority—have any interest in the matter.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I wish that other hon. Members were as frank and open as

739
he has been tonight. Sometimes, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, hon. Members who may be shareholders in a company maintain that that company's involvement in a certain matter does not involve them because their personal property is not affected. The hon. Member for Honiton has made it clear that neither he nor his company has any involvement in the matter under consideration today.
Although it may not be the hon. Gentleman's fault, I thought that the statement on behalf of the promoters was poverty stricken. The hon. Gentleman said that the company consulted the Minister to discover whether an order would be possible, and under that order a public inquiry would have been necessary.
I do not anticipate that a public inquiry would be confronted with a statement consisting of three pages of double-spaced typescript to substantiate the case. The promoters may argue that a procedure is available in the Opposed Private Bill Committee. I am not concerned about that procedure. I am concerned with the private Bill that is being dealt with on the Floor of the House, and that hon. Members should have access to the maximum amount of information to help them judge the merits of the proposal. Frankly, three pages of typescript, which is all that is available to us, is less than adequate.
I was interested to learn that consultations had been carried out before the Bill was promoted and that the company had approached the Minister and sought an order. However, during those consultations, were local trade unions involved? Trade unions are a very important part of our community, although the Government try to crush them. I believe that they should be consulted about major developments such as the proposal in the Bill because jobs are involved. If there was the potential for jobs, the trade unions would have wanted to know about it and perhaps would have encouraged the venture.
No doubt, if the sponsor could say that the Transport and General Workers Union and the General Municipal Workers Union had given unstinting support to the proposal, that would have been prayed in aid. It is not often that Conservative Members like to stand shoulder to shoulder with trade unionists, but there are occasions when that happens.
Sir Peter Emery: I am not the fount of all knowledge and I have had to consult about that. I am told that consultations with the TGWU did take place.
Mr. Cryer: I am pleased about that. I should be happier if I knew the outcome of those consultations.
Paragraph 5 of the statement on behalf of the promoters states:
"Following the acquisition of the Company by its present owners efforts were made to revitalise the commercial life of the docks, in particular by the importation of animal feedstuffs—
and the hon. Gentleman elaborated on that.
I wonder who the new owners of the company are. All that we have been given is the name of the company. I have not had the time to ask the Library to dig out the names of the directors and their interests. If I knew that, it would help me to be convinced that the directors are interested primarily in transport and not in making a killing from an increase in land values. There is a suspicion that the company could have been taken over, not because the
740
directors were interested in developing the area as a dock, but because they were taking over an old company, with a relatively low capital value but which owned a large area of land, and because its potential value therefore far outweighed its actual capital value. If the planning consent was obtained and the dock transformed into a marina, hugely enhanced capital values could have been achieved for little investment—
Sir Peter Emery rose—
Mr. Cryer: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished this point.
I can well recall that early in the 1970s my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I dealt with the Eastbourne Harbour Bill, which was of much the same character as this Bill. One of our arguments was: why is so much money available for the development of marinas when so little is available for the development of proper long-term jobs in manufacturing industry?
Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I simply want to provide him with information. He asked about the company that took over the ownership of Exmouth docks. It was a grain-importing company. It took over the docks so that it could import grain through that area for the rest of its business. That is the background to the company of which the hon. Gentleman has requested knowledge.
Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I should like further information. I should like to know whether the company feels the need to diversify into land. After all, that is the growth area of the present enterprise culture.
Page 2 of the promoters' statement reports:
"The Company applied to East Devon District Council in February 1986 for planning permission to construct the necessary berths, but the Council informed the Company that it was strongly opposed to the proposed modernisation of the docks facilities and the application was withdrawn."
By a happy chance, a matter of a couple of years later—the date is not clear because we have not had sight of the report—some consulting engineers reported that the docks were in such a seedy condition that
"certain of the dock walls are unsafe, and could collapse if heavy machinery or vehicles are used at the dockside."
I do not wish to cast a shadow over the consulting engineers, but that was a most convenient report because the argument about the massive investment that is required to restore a port that has been so arbitrarily closed to dock work rests on that very report.
One of my complaints about this procedure is that we have been given only a sparse amount of information. I am slightly surprised by that because the sponsor of the Bill is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure which, at this very moment, is considering private Bill procedure—
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman, who is very knowledgeable about the workings of the House, ought to know that the Select Committee on Procedure does not have any powers whatever in relation to private Bills. Our terms of reference limit us to dealing only with the public Bill procedure. We have nothing to do with private Bills. The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Mr. Cryer: I am pleased to hear that the Select Committee on Procedure is not considering the private Bill procedure, which is certainly the impression that is abroad

741
in the House. Knowing how well versed the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure is in the promotion of private Bills, I must advise him that the House expects the maximum possible information. We have certainly not been provided with that tonight.
As I said, that engineering report is crucial—because the promoters have suggested that the cost of restoring the dock facility would be about £1 million and that a further £1 million would be required for new machinery.
Other courses of action may well be necessary. The alleged danger of the docks at the moment—the fact that certain dock walls could collapse if heavy machinery or vehicles were used at the dockside—might be a bald statement and might not reflect the position in 70 per cent. of the port. We do not know—it might apply to 80 per cent. of the port.
I digress to give an illustration. In the early 1960s two or three of us went walking along the then closed British Rail branch line from Keighley to Oxenholme. We examined the track and the bridges. We thought that the line could be made into a viable proposition. However, some people said, "Oh no, you cannot run a railway without ripping up all the track, cleaning and renewing the ballasts, replacing it or adding new ballasts, levelling the track, tamping it and all the rest." They said that some of the bridges needed renewing. Over the years since we opened the line on 29 June 1968, we have taken some track out of use and have done that work.
I use that as an illustration of the dangers of following such reports too closely. A couple of civil engineers gave us reports of great gloom and doom. One of them said that we would need £1 million to reopen the line. That demonstrates that if one considers an issue in different terms, one can produce a programme that does not require the investment to be made all at once. It is possible to plan a programme of renewals that can be implemented over 20 or 25 years. The service—in this case a dock—could still be operated to 50 or 60 per cent. of capacity, perhaps rising to 70 or 80 per cent.
We must ask: what proportion of the dock walls is unsafe? As the port is not working at full capacity, the dock walls that are unsafe may not be needed in the operation of the port. We simply do not know.
I am simply a Member of Parliament carrying out my job of scrutinising private legislation. It might be an unfortunate procedure—it was the procedure under which all the railways of this country were built—and it has unsatisfactory aspects, but as we are using that parliamentary procedure, we have the right to know precisely what is involved in the application. However, we are not being given the necessary information.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) recalls that I asked the hon. Member for Honiton some questions at the beginning of the debate. If the information had been deposited in the Private Bill Office while the hon. Member for Honiton was elaborating on the promotion of the Bill, I should have been able to have a quick look at it. It is a matter of great regret that that information is not available.
Mr. Prescott: On the contentious matter of the consulting engineers' report, which stated that the walls were not safe and that the docks should be closed, I understand that some of the objectors asked for the report, but were denied it. I do not know who was given the report
742
—perhaps the Exmouth authority or the Devon authority was given it—but those whose livelihoods were at stake were entitled to ask for the full report on which they could make a judgment. As I understand it, they did not receive it.
Mr. Cryer: That is interesting information. I wonder whether copies of the report were available for the consultations with the Transport and General Workers Union. As my hon. Friend knows, that union and others have always assisted in planning for the future development of their areas. That is a characteristic of the trade union movement, although it is often not recognised.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend is putting questions to the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery)—or Botswana or whatever it is called these days. I saw the hon. Gentleman nod and wink to the people who are responsible for the Bill. If my hon. Friend were to hang around a bit longer—and I am sure that he has a lot more to say—he might see a message being passed from the promoters' representatives to the hon. Gentleman to enable him to answer questions. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he play the game. He should ask questions fairly slowly and deliberately, and intersperse them with the necessary arguments. The hon. Member for Honiton, in his state of health, cannot afford to keep running over to the promoters' representatives for answers. My hon. Friend must have a lot of questions to put to the hon. Member for Honiton, as, apparently, have other people. Wearing another hat, he has been asking questions at another level. This private Bill procedure is very murky. We know that these matters should not be dealt with on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend should give the hon. Gentleman some time to get answers. I want to know the answers, as does everybody else in the Chamber, including those in the Gallery.
Mr. Cryer: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I raised the question of this report right at the beginning in order to give people time to provide the information. It is outrageous that people should come to Parliament for powers to close a dock, and expect to get those powers on the basis of two and a half pages of double-spaced typescript, with no report on the case on which the whole argument hinges—that the dock has to be closed as parts of it are unsafe. We are not told to what extent traffic is affected. We are not told whether the whole dock, or half of the dock, is affected. We are not told whether the dock could carry on at 50 per cent. capacity. I say to the promoters that this is not the way to go about things.
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend should bear in mind a point that has been made to me by people down in that area. The authority in east Devon has changed its position as to whether legislation should have to pass through the House before the granting of planning permission in respect of dock land. I think that the words that are now used are something like, "use their best endeavours". The reason given for the change was that several Members of the House of Commons are rather awkward about private Bills. Because of that awkwardness, promoters cannot be assured that they will have Bills passed by the House. I do not want to burden the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) with unnecessary journeys across the Floor of the Chamber, but we must have answers to the questions that we put quite legitimately. The hon. Gentleman has a

743
problem because a few truculent Members of Parliament do not co-operate. The point that my hon. Friend has been making is substantial. Where is the consultants' report? Hon. Members need to see that report before they can judge whether the process of closing the dock should be started.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is quite right. Parliament would be a poorer place if it did not have a few truculent, investigative Members. Actually, it would be best to deal with this matter by public inquiry. Such an inquiry would be presented with rather more than two and a half pages of double-spaced typescript. At inquiries, people produce great quantities of documents to substantiate their cases. Inspectors call for information, and witnesses are cross-examined. Anybody who treats Parliament as being less important than a public inquiry is just asking for trouble. Happily, there have always been dissident Members of Parliament who do not say simply, "Private business. It is time to be off. We do not have to be bothered with it." There are Members who take an interest in private business. It is all a matter of priorities in the expenditure of public money. It seems that making money is regarded as more important than making machines. That is why this country has a balance of trade deficit of £20,000 million. The Eastbourne harbour syndrome has been going on too long.
Mr. Skinner: I do not like my hon. Friend's reference to truculent and dissident Members of Parliament. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know only too well, I am against the private Bill procedure. The whole thing stinks. It is about a few people coming here and making money on the side. These moonlighting Tory Members of Parliament have pocketfuls of money. Nearly every Tory Back Bencher has about five moonlighting jobs. We heard the other day about all the money that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) had received from Blue Arrow. He said that he had given it back, that it had been returned.
My hon. Friend and I are exposing this business of making money. Tory Members do not mind what they do. They put people out of work; they close docks; they bring South African coal in through the Humber ports. They do not give tuppence for Parliament. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, yet he is in the middle of it. So I will not have this reference to dissident Members of Parliament. I come here to protect the public purse. I do not believe that public money should be spent in this way. The hon. Member for Honiton has problems—his Tory colleagues have deserted him. I do not know why. This must be a very murky business. Normally, one or two little Tory bootleggers trot between the promoters and the hon. Member who is presenting their case. The hon. Gentleman does not have anybody to do that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Briefly.
Mr. Skinner: The Bill is brief, and it is very costly. Every line in it will make a packet of money—probably for the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Peter Emery: Wait a minute.
Mr. Skinner: I do not know—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Skinner: I am just checking.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not casting aspersions on another hon. Member. That would be quite out of order. Secondly, his intervention has been quite long enough. I hope that he will clarify his remark.
Mr. Skinner: If the hon. Gentleman is disclaiming today, then he is disclaiming today. If he is disclaiming today, one has to buy it. But that does not mean that I will buy it tomorrow.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will satisfy me that he was not casting aspersions on the honour of another hon. Member.
Mr. Skinner: Let me make it absolutely plain. If the hon. Gentleman says that he has nowt to do with this Bill, that he is just sitting there for the good of his health—
Sir Peter Emery: The good of my constituents.
Mr. Skinner: If the hon. Gentleman satisfies you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you want to buy it, that is okay by me. All that I am saying is that my hon. Friend must expose the private Bill procedure. Somebody has to do it. Somebody has to stop this evil practice. It has nothing to do with Parliament. We should not be debating these things at all. It is high time that they were dealt with properly under local authority planning procedures. The local communities should be able to play a part—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall begin to forget who has the floor. Mr. Cryer.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend makes some useful and cogent points. On the matter of dissident Members of Parliament, we are in agreement. Dissident Members of Parliament are those who challenge the received ideas about which my hon. Friend has been talking. One of these received ideas is that Members of Parliament may have jobs outside. We are full-time Members of Parliament, and that is a matter that could be taken to heart by many Tory Members.
To pursue the question of the information which has been provided, I have not yet finished commenting on the engineers' report. The hon. Member for Honiton said that this is a Committee point, but Opposed Private Bill Committees are not like Standing Committees where questions are argued, amendments are tabled and hon. Members can demand reports. The proceedings are conducted by lawyers who receive expensive fees for presenting a case. Happily, I have never been on an Opposed Private Bill Committee and I do not wish to serve on one, I hasten to add. Hon. Members who have served on them tell me that they get a strong impression that the lawyers are paid by the hour and spin things out.
Mr. Prescott: By the word.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend says that they are paid by the word. There is not much opportunity for hon. Members to sift through engineering reports. The engineers' report is pivotal to the Bill, but the Committee stage will be conducted on the basis of submissions, so there will not be an opportunity for detailed examination. Questions may be asked, but the procedure is based on the

745
position of the petitioners. Hon. Members do not undertake the examination. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Honiton that the procedure is satisfactory.
In paragraph 9 of the promoters' statement—
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Cryer: I shall proceed with the question of the five petitioners after this intervention.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has talked about the Opposed Private Bill Committee procedure and said that it is not like other Committee stages. He talked about lawyers making pocketfuls of money. There is another serious consideration. My hon. Friend should explain at length what the Bill is about. An Opposed Private Bill Committee is composed of two hon. Members from the Government side and two from the Opposition side. The chances are that there will be a Tory Chairman who will have a casting vote, so there will be three votes against two. A recent private Bill, the Associated British Ports Bill, was in Committee for some 20 days. Throughout the proceedings the Chairman cast his vote against every amendment. My hon. Friend is well versed in those matters. He knows what happens when a Bill is not amended in Committee. There is no Report stage on the Floor of the House and it goes through like a dose of Epsom salts.
The hon. Member for Honiton talked about a Committee point, but my hon. Friend will not get a chance to raise it in Committee. My hon. Friend cannot serve on the Opposed Private Bill Committee because he has already played a part in the proceedings. Therefore, he cannot speak in Committee. If the Bill is not amended, because the hon. Member for Honiton's Tory Friends defeat every amendment, there will be no Report stage and the Bill will go straight to Third Reading when it comes back to the House. It is an evil system. My hon. Friend would do well to spell it out.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has, as usual, made a cogent, relevant and emphatic intervention. I well remember the Associated British Ports Bill. Unfortunately, there were no amendments to the Bill, so it went straight through. As I recall it, it was on that Bill that the promoters, P and O, arranged a champagne supper to keep Tory Members here.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is a stickler for the truth, so I want to put him right. Yes, there are usually champagne parties organised to keep Tory Members here to vote the legislation through at the appropriate time, be it 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock or midnight. The champagne party to which my hon. Friend refers was on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, whose aim was to put money into the pockets of those who wanted a port system on the other coast.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying miles away from the Bill before the House.
Mr. Skinner: I appreciate that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Skinner: People are bound to get excited sometimes—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is quite enough for an intervention.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has made another relevant and cogent point. He is correct. That champagne party was not arranged for the Associated British Ports Bill; it was for the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. My hon. Friend is pointing to the fact that the Government have used the private Bill procedure to get legislation through and we have been inundated with private Bills, so much so that Associated British Ports, Felixstowe and champagne parties blur into one another. The hon. Member for Honiton has made it clear that there are no champagne suppers for this Bill. I suspect that that is why there will not be too many hon. Members here this evening.
I was about to deal with paragraph 9 of the promoters' statement. The hon. Member for Honiton explained that there were five petitioners. He said that fishermen have withdrawn their petition because they have had a legal, binding assurance. I should like to know what a legal, binding assurance is. An assurance does not normally vary legal weight. If something has legal validity, there has to be a means of applying it. Have the fishermen entered into a legal agreement with the company? Will there be a breach of contract if the company fails to honour its commitment?
An assurance is not a guarantee. It is just a claim that people will do their best. They give an assurance that something will be all right but that assurance does not provide the sanction of court action, which I should have thought was necessary to ensure that the fishermen had a guarantee, not just for the next five years, but for as long as fishing is to go on in the area. There should be a restrictive covenant on the building of the marina and a means of enforcing the covenant.
As the marina has not been built, I should like to know what provisions will be made. When the hon. Member for Honiton sums up, I should like him to tell us what he means by 'legal, binding assurance'. I do not want the fishermen of Exmouth to be sold short. I am concerned about them.
Mr. Prescott: I refer my hon. Friend to the note that we have been given on behalf of the promoters. In it they say: "the dock walls are unsafe, and could collapse if heavy machinery or vehicles are used at the dockside."
The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) made the point that agreement had been reached with the fishermen who originally were not to continue their activities at the dock. We are all pleased to hear about the agreement. The hon. Gentleman also said that there would be refrigeration work; one assumes that heavy vehicles and machinery will have to be used in that work. There seems to be a conflict. If the fishermen are to continue their commercial activity, presumably lifting machinery and heavy vehicles will be necessary. That seems to be in conflict with the whole point of the debate—that the walls are unsafe for any commercial activity.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important point. I was coming to it in a moment. Of course, there will be the refrigeration facility that the hon. Member for Honiton mentioned. There may be a restrictive covenant on the land on which the refrigeration facility is to be built to ensure access from the estuary and from the land. There must be some guarantee for the future. My hon. Friend is right in his more general point on paragraph 8 of the promoters' statement. If a refrigeration facility is to be provided, heavy plant and equipment will be needed on the dock to provide it. There must be lifting machinery to move the fish from the boats

747
on to the dockside and into the refrigeration plant, and the refrigeration plant must be substantial. All that must mean building, machinery and heavy vehicles on the dockside. My hon. Friend is right to point to the discrepancy.
The engineering report is crucial. It is curious that, just when the planning application was rejected and it was decided that a marina was the way forward, a report was produced which matched the case and helped to support the argument that it would cost millions of pounds to retain the dock facilities and that something else should be established.
That type of procedure helps to convince, among others, trade unionists. When workers are presented with a claim that there is a report and they do not see it, they should always double-check. The lesson for trade unionists is, always check what the employer puts forward. They may have been told that a report has been produced showing that the docks cannot work again because it would cost too much to make them work. The report being so pivotal to the argument, its absence makes me doubt the validity of the company presenting the matter to us. It shows contempt for our procedures and for Parliament.
Mr. Prescott: The more I listen to my hon. Friend and the valid points he is making, the more I am reminded of a further contradiction, which the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) might wish to clarify. Its seems curious that an examination was undertaken which led to the conclusion that the dock walls might collapse.
The company made an application in the mid-1980s to the East Devon district council to modernise the docks so that they could deal with even bigger vessels, plus the construction of some riverside facilities. Surely engineering work must have preceded that application and should have revealed problems with the sea walls. To find those problems being revealed now is a little coincidental.
Mr. Cryer: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is curious that the undertaking of the report, although not its publication, should have assisted the company in presenting its argument. My hon. Friend is right to say that applying for planning permission involves submitting documents about what will be done and where. That should have involved a detailed examination of the circumstances in which the docks would be built. That, in turn, should have brought to light the condition of the dock walls. Apparently, it was overlooked.
One is bound to question the competence of the company in going ahead with a planning application to seek consent, having apparently overlooked a serious engineering defect, yet that defect suddenly comes to light two years later, when it is thought that a marina would be a better alternative. That calls into question the bona fides of the company in bringing the matter to Parliament without providing us with the information we need.
Unsatisfactory though the private Bill procedure may be, when we have discussed other Bills, the promoters have taken the trouble to circulate us with information and deposit plans in the Private Bill Office. No such efforts have been made in this case.
Mr. Skinner: Promoters of private Bills of this type do not always provide the necessary information and plans. We had a similar problem recently, when the promoters of the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill did not even
748
provide a map. This place is treated with contempt because the Tories, having a majority of 150, say, "We will use the private Bill procedure. We will not need every Tory Member to back it. Only perhaps 200 Members will be needed, including 100 for the closure motion."
We now know why the Tory Whip, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), came into the Chamber while my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was speaking. That Whip, an important member of the royal household, must have asked the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), "When will you want me?" He was saying, in other words, "Under the private Bill procedure, forget about free votes and voting according to conscience. When do you want me? When shall I bring the troops in to bring debate to an end?"
That is how the system works, and it is high time we did something about it. Let us stop this farce by which people give the impression that a matter is being brought to Parliament and is being dealt with by us, with every word—
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. That is long enough for an intervention.
Mr. Cryer: Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover makes a cogent, important and relevant point. I noticed the oleaginous figure of the Tory Whip, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), enter the Chamber. As my hon. Friend says, he is organising matters.
We do not have the report of which I have spoken, because somebody has told the promoters, "Don't bother with the report. It could be a bit controversial. Different interpretations could be put on it and it might be said that dock work could proceed at Exmouth. But don't worry. All is organised. We have told the lads that they will be needed at 10 o'clock. They will come in then and vote." That is why the Whip came into the Chamber. Every now and then he comes in to check how things are going.
So my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover hit the nail on the head. This scrutiny is a facade and a formality. The Tories are using their majority as an elective dictatorship, a phrase used by Lord Hailsham when the last Labour Government had a tiny majority, if not a minority.
Mr. Skinner: We had a majority of one—Stonehouse—and we could not find him.
Mr. Cryer: Even though we did not have a majority, Lord Hailsham called us an elective dictatorship. Now that the Conservatives have a majority of 150 over Labour, the noble Lord says nothing.
Private Bills are supposed to have a separate path in Parliament. They are supposed to go through on a free vote, with independent scrutiny. It would be appalling if the Government used the private Bill procedure to impose their wishes on Parliament in contravention of tradition. But that is what they are doing, and the public outside are appalled. That is why they gave a massive thumbs down to the Tories at Mid-Staffordshire and why at the next general election the Tories will be run out of office.
The five petitions deposited against the Bill are detailed in clause 9. I have dealt with the position of the fishermen, and I look forward to the comments of the hon. Member for Honiton relating to so-called legally binding assurances that the marina will be open to fishermen in difficulties. The hon. Member for Honiton seemed to

749
qualify the circumstances in which it would be open to fishermen in trouble. I should have thought that human compassion would have provided that guarantee, but a company that is seeking to convert a dock into a marina cannot be assumed always to have human compassion at the forefront of its thoughts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East spoke about the loss to Exeter of £168,000 a year in dues, due to it as the navigation and river conservation authority. I should have thought that £168,000 in dues suggests a fair amount of traffic. The hon. Member for Honiton said that arrangements are being made by the company to allow the petition of Exeter local authority to be withdrawn. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East then asked him what the present position was. He could not say, because a committee of Exeter council has yet to meet to discuss the position on the closure of the docks and loss of fees. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to correct me, he should intervene.
Sir Peter Emery: I just wish to make certain that the hon. Gentleman understands the position. A recommendation has been made by a committee of Exeter council which has to go forward for confirmation. That will happen on 2 April. But the council is agreed that the petition should be withdrawn. I am simply giving the facts. That is the position with the Labour-controlled Exeter council.
Mr. Cryer: I wanted to confirm that position. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will realise that one of the glories of democratic procedures is that one is never sure of the outcome. We cannot guarantee the position at this stage, but we can expect a certain decision to be made. None the less, my argument is that Parliament should know that decision before it considers the Bill. It is an outrage that we are considering the Bill when committees have yet to meet and decisions have yet to be made. We cannot know the decisions, because the timing is wrong.
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Member for Honiton has put one construction on events, which is not a complete construction. He says that it is a Labour-controlled authority. That is true. I hope that many more areas, including Honiton, will be Labour come the next election.
I chose to speak to Exeter council. It was maintaining an objection to the Bill. It was told that, as East Devon district council had withdrawn the stipulation that the Bill was a first condition before it could agree to any commercial activity on the dock, all that was now required was best endeavours. The legal advice secured by the company was that it did not need the Bill.
Exeter city council was faced with either coming to a deal and obtaining compensation—I believe of the order of £70,000 for one year but it would be left with the bill after that—or proceeding with a legal action against the company. The cost would then fall on the ratepayers. We know that, when anyone goes through the courts to obtain an agreement, it is highly expensive. The agreement arrived at left Exeter with little choice once East Devon district council took its decision.
Mr. Cryer: It sounds as if the agreement is force majeure. It is blackmail, which I shall come to later. It sounds as if Exeter council has virtually been blackmailed into accepting the decision. It is all linked up with these best endeavours—the phrase used to cover the fact that it
750
was just conceivable that the Bill would not slide through the House like a dose of salts. That is an unscrupulous attitude. It makes our procedure simply a facade. Either we have power or we do not. It must be made absolutely clear. Either we are dealing with the granting of powers to close the dock or we are not. If the Bill is superfluous to requirements, it means that there is some skulduggery at work.
Sir Peter Emery rose—
Mr. Skinner: Let skulduggery speak.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Honiton wish to intervene?
Sir Peter Emery: It was just that I heard certain comments which obviously did not reach you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
May I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I read to the House earlier? It is not a matter of best endeavours. The letter from East Devon district council said:
"I can confirm that the Council's Planning Committee has given planning permission for the redevelopment of the Exmouth docks for a marina, together with the associated residential development, subject to formal closure of the docks by the necessary legal process".
That is not a matter of best endeavours. It refers to the Bill currently before Parliament. I read that letter to the House an hour ago. I am sorry if I was not clear, but that was the letter dated 23 March 1990 and signed by the chief executive.
Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for interjecting. The problem is that a statement has been provided by the promoters for Members of Parliament. It says:
"The council is, however, concerned to ensure that the docks will be permanently closed to commercial traffic and, as part of the planning process, is requiring the Company to do its best to procure the enactment of the Bill, which would guarantee that the docks may be so closed."
That is a statement in support of the Bill. I assume that we must take it at face value. It is the basis of at least part of the debate. The hon. Member for Honiton is saying in effect that that statement is otiose and irrelevant because the local authority has said specifically that it requires consent to close the dock from a private Bill process in the House.
Why on earth was a supplementary statement not issued by the promoters, based on the information that the sponsor has given to the House tonight? We are bound to question the whole nature of the statement. What other parts are not quite right? For example, the statement said:
"Consulting engineers have reported that certain of the dock walls are unsafe, and could collapse if heavy machinery or vehicles are used at the dockside."
Will we receive another statement that says, "That is not quite right because we have had a letter from the company that says that the dock walls could be unsafe, but we are not quite sure"?
We cannot ignore phrases in the promoters' statement. We must challenge and examine them. The hon. Gentleman is within his rights to say that the local authority has put a different emphasis on it. We must inevitably put a question mark where we have two conflicting statements from the same source, both of which apparently seek to promote the Bill. The hon. Member for Honiton will at least agree that it is confusing.
Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is confused; he is usually too intelligent to fall into that trap. Best endeavours are being made to put the Bill through the House. That is normal and proper phraseology. If the hon. Gentleman considers it inadequate, I went further, to find out what it really meant to East Devon district council. I see no conflict in best endeavours being used. That is what I am doing. I am doing it not for the company but for my constituents. Therefore, I am making absolutely clear what East Devon district council says. Surely that is the information that the hon. Gentleman wants; it gives him the assurance he requires.
Mr. Cryer: There is clearly a gap here. The promoters could have used words such as "the local authority requires the company to procure the enactment of the Bill." The qualifying phrase, "to do its best" is not needed. If I examine the words carefully, it is because for years I have been a member of the Select and Joint Committees on Statutory Instruments. Words have importance in the delegated powers that Ministers use when issuing rules and orders.
Very often the careless use of words gives rise to court actions. That is why I examine words scrupulously. It is confusing for the promotors to use words in one way and then for a different emphasis to be provided by the Bill's sponsor, the hon. Member for Honiton. We should avoid such confusion, as we need the case to be clear and unambiguous, especially when so much information is not provided to hon. Members, but we are expected to make a judgment.
Mr. Prescott: This point is vital. I pushed the Exeter authority on why it changed its position. It is clear that something material changed in order for it to withdraw its objections. It was not simply that it would receive compensation of £70,000.
I talked to the legal advisers of the authority, who made it clear that things had changed with regard to the East Devon council. I was told that section 52 of a certain planning agreement was important to East Devon council, as it laid down that no more commercial development and housing would be developed on the dock should any plan be proposed. That was a proper concern, and the council wanted to be satisfied about that requirement. Just a couple of weeks ago, however, things changed, and we are now talking about best endeavours.
The information supplied by the promoters relates not only to best endeavours but to the company's ability to procure the Bill
"which would guarantee that the docks may be so closed".
How often have we debated the words "may" or "should"? They are at the heart of our legislative process. There is no doubt about what the promoters mean, as that is consistent with what I was told at Exeter. That information, however, seems to contradict what the hon. Member for Honiton has described as the position of East Devon council.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has thrown some light on a confusing position. We have not yet received a satisfactory answer. The promoters speak of actions that
"guarantee that the docks may be so closed."
We insert the word "shall" in primary legislation if we want something to be mandatory. We are now supposed to be dealing with such a mandatory decision, since we are not talking about a casual alternative to be available at
752
some stage in the future when the company so wishes. The company has made an application to close the docks permanently after the temporary closure which it brought rapidly and arbitrarily to the port of Exmouth.
We are right to question what lies behind this Bill. It is not an inexpensive procedure to come to the House. Why are the promoters not saying that the company shall procure the closure powers? Why are they hedging it? It must be costing them thousands of pounds to come here to do all the preparatory work. Promoting private Bills is an expensive procedure, not a casual hobby. Why should people undergo such a procedure when they do not appear to be convinced of the need to undertake it in the first place?
If the information in the promoters' statement had been widely circulated in the area earlier, there might have been more petitioners. Five petitions alone have been deposited. I have already mentioned the fishermen, and I do not believe that the guarantees that they have received are satisfactory. We have already spoken about Exeter losing £168,000 per annum in dues. It is clear that there is some money connected with the dock, and it is not entirely without trade. The dock handled about half a million tonnes of goods a year, so it has had some traffic, which is important to remember.
Mrs. Susan Winters feels that her livelihood has been taken from her, and she is perfectly entitled to petition. Mr. Stephen Lytton, a former assistant pilot, wants a settlement. It is argued that he cannot be given a settlement different from other employees, as the redundancy terms have already been agreed and the company cannot go beyond them. The Committee stage of the Bill would enable Mr. Stephen Lytton to present his case, but if he is unemployed, how will he be able to afford to get down to London? I do not know the financial position of Mrs. Susan Winters, but she must come down to London to make her case.
Most of the petitioners want to employ a brief, but they do not come cheap. They are much more expensive than people who do useful jobs, such as engineers, social workers, nurses or firemen. They cost a great deal more—we are talking about fees of hundreds of pounds a day for a lawyer.
Mr. Skinner: It could cost thousands of pounds.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right, because if one employs a barrister one must also have a solicitor.
All the lawyers on the Tory Benches—they are not here now, of course, as they are resting after their activities in court, having picked up thousands of pounds in fees—will go into the Lobby after the recess to vote for the continuation of the duopoly between solicitors and barristers. Those self-same lawyers went through the Lobby to attack the trade unions because they claim that they do not like a closed shop. However, they will merrily vote to continue their own closed shop, and seem to be able to satisfy their consciences in so doing.
The people who have made petitions against the Bill will face a considerable expense in coming down here to represent their case. That is unfair.
Mr. Skinner: It is an ill wind that blows no one any good. My hon. Friend has already pointed out that only five petitioners have come forward because the scheme was not well advertised down there. This "Howard's Way" scam has been spread around the harbour and the docks.

753
Given that the Bill might now receive some publicity in the Devonshire press, there is a slim chance that more petitioners will come forward. They might be able to get together to come down to the Committee to petition.
My hon. Friend has performed a useful service tonight, because we are now depending on the local press—no doubt some of them are hostile to the scheme—to use some of my hon. Friend's comments to get the mass army of non-poll tax payers from Devon, who are against the "Howard's Way" scam, to come to Parliament to petition in greater numbers.
Mr. Cryer: I hope that that is the effect of the debate, because it would be a great pity if people living in Exmouth who wish to oppose the Bill lost the opportunity because of a shortage of money. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is right: by emphasising the circumstances, we are hopefully providing those people with a public service.
There was an interesting exchange earlier, when the hon. Member for Honiton talked about a complaint that he had had concerning the dock's activities. Because of the research carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, it turned out that some of the complaints arose because the dock company was not doing very much, for example, to suppress the dust caused by its activities. Is it possible that the same dock company that produced the report—which was so convenient, but which was not sent to hon. Members or published—was not doing very much, because it wanted to create as much strife and nuisance as possible, so that people would say, "For goodness' sake, close the port down, if you can't cover the dust or make the thing more quiet and effective"? That is a real possibility: certainly it has been done before to achieve the desired result.
As for the benefits for Exmouth, I am all in favour of benefits for all parts of the United Kingdom, but we must know who the benefits are for. Will they be for the company—the owners of which we do not know—or for the ordinary working men and women of Exmouth and their families? Will this be simply a device for converting land that has a use to the community and to the nation as a dock to an area where land values can start to soar?
The company directors may feel that grain is not a profitable activity, and decide to go into land. They will sit in their detached houses in the better part of Exmouth—or wherever they live—and watch the price of the land rise, without doing anything.
That is not uncommon. In many areas, local entrepreneurs have established factories making useful products such as lathes, milling machines and diesel engines—there is a long history of it; I can name the companies involved—but their sons decide that they do not like soiling their hands with industry. They then sell out—especially if the factory has an enhanced land value—buy a farm in Sussex and live the life of a country gent. That is not unknown. However, such family businesses—which are much hailed by the Conservatives—may have no sons to carry on the trade, and the daughters may not want to do so. Therefore, they sell up and start another life that they regard as superior to the values that form the basis of employment prospects in our country.
Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend saying that closing down the docks and releasing land is perhaps only partly about building a marina? Is the marina a disguise, enabling the land to increase in price and the owners to sell it off for
754
yuppie houses? If there was a marina, perhaps it would be only a relatively small one that would not take up all the land, and a big killing could be made by selling that land. Is my hon. Friend's interpretation that there is money to be made out of the price of the land, and that the marina is just a hook to hang it on?
Mr. Cryer: That is an interesting development of my thoughts. We are dealing with people who abandon useful activities that benefit the community and the nation. Those activities include providing employment, importing and exporting goods and maintaining the traditions of expertise and handling that have been built up over the years, with sons following their fathers into the docks and maintaining their expertise and knowledge. When all that is swept to one side by people who think only of making money, and not of maintaining a facility that is of great utility and benefit to the community, anything is possible.
The marina may be a sprat to catch a mackerel, and companies may have realised that they have to convince the local authority—even a Tory-controlled one—that they will bring a definite benefit. Therefore, they say "What about a yuppie marina?" There are only a few houses round about—not too many. There are problems with the marina, so they decide to make that tiny, fill in the rest of the land and develop it as a huge housing estate with enormously enhanced land values. I raise those matters simply to point out that we do not have the necessary information to make the sort of informed judgment that we should.
Interestingly, there was an affirmation of the importance of maintaining and developing traditions. Mr. Steven Spielberg, the noted film maker, spends millions of pounds making films which have attracted a substantial following. He invests a lot of money making them. When the closure of Elstree studios was being discussed, I asked Steven Spielberg why he came to this country to make films; after all, Hollywood is the repository of great traditions and expertise which have been built up over the years, provide a large part of television viewing and have a worldwide reputation. He said that it was because the craftsmanship in the United Kingdom at Elstree and Pinewood was better.
Steven Spielberg did not come here because of the dollar-sterling ratio, but because of skill and tradition. The crews in British studios contain an age range because the older members carry on and hand over the expertise to the younger members and the level of experience is maintained. In Hollywood the older members simply leave for other jobs and the average age of camera crews, set dressers and prop builders is much younger.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has a real feel for the subject, does he not?
Mr. Cryer: The answer is yes.
Every job is important, quite apart from the glamorous nature of film and television, although not all of them are given the degree of importance and emphasis that they deserve. However, the same sort of expertise and tradition is necessary to enable them to carry on. There is a real question mark over the pattern of employment available in the area.
The hon. Member for Honiton quoted from paragraph 10 of the promoters' statement which said that new job opportunities would be created. However, he did not say how many, which is crucial. Will they be equivalent to the

755
number of people who worked in the docks—or will there be more or less? What sort of jobs will they be? Will they be in the leisure and tourist industries much beloved of the Government?
The invisible earnings about which the Government so often boast are becoming invisible because there is a deficit in invisible trade. Will the jobs created be in tourism? That sector of employment is badly organised, generally poorly paid and does not have the sort of career development of many other occupations. We have gained our position as a nation, not through subservient jobs such as waiting on tables, but through jobs which added value to materials such as steel and wood.
Mr. Prescott: What is wrong with waiting on tables?
Mr. Cryer: There is nothing wrong with waiting on tables. It is a perfectly good job, as dignified as anything else. But there is a limit to the development of the skill and its application, whereas manufacturing has a much wider range.
Mr. Skinner: You have been in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ever since I have been here for the debate, but we are in some difficulty now because the so-called sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), is no longer present. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has been asking questions from time to time, and that is fair enough. Some the hon. Gentleman has answered, some he has not, some he cannot, and some he has plainly not wanted to answer because they were too difficult. But in view of his absence, can we proceed any longer? He has done a runner. Of whom can my hon. Friend ask questions? Will the Minister take notes on his behalf? If he does, he will turn the Bill into a Government Bill. There is a real problem here, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you have consulted the Clerk on it, but nobody who is in favour of the Bill is in the House to answer the questions that my hon. Friend is asking.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for me, and if he keeps on interrupting he will put the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) off.
Mr. Cryer: It will take a good deal more than my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover to put me off. Members of Parliament have the important job of scrutinising legislation. My hon. Friend's interjections are the result of his anxiety to carry out his duty as a Member of the House to scrutinise legislation. I have been speaking for rather longer than I intended because of the number of interventions.
The hon. Member for Honiton has sought to give me information and my hon. Friend is right. I am deeply dismayed that the hon. Gentleman is not here. I wanted to ask him about the number of jobs that will be provided. That is crucial. When the hon. Gentleman was present I said that I would come on to paragraph 10 in the promoters' document which refers to benefits
"not only to those who have in the past suffered from the effects of the dock's commercial operations, but also to the town of Exmouth as a whole".
Those benefits should be quantified much more accurately. The sponsor's speech was mostly a series of platitudes,
756
claiming that the Bill would be of benefit. If we are to authorise the closure of the docks and their replacement with a marina in which a great deal of money would be invested, we should have much more information about how that would benefit the town. That is one of the most important aspects in obtaining consent for the legislation.
I am sure that if the hon. Member for Honiton had given us an account which, as the lawyers say, demonstrated beyond peradventure that there would be benefits in the form of good jobs with training and prospects which would give satisfaction and pleasure to those who undertook them, we should have been only too anxious to see the Bill through. But we have not even been told how many jobs will be created.
I would have welcomed any proposal from the company to create a number of jobs and to encourage manufacturing. I know that manufacturing is not a high priority in the enterprise culture, except when it is imported from Japan. The Government sit back and say, "We do not have to invest in research and development or factories; we do not have to encourage people to invest, as the last Labour Government did through the ferrous foundries scheme, the wool textiles scheme and half a dozen other schemes, because the Japanese will come over and provide the factories." But the Japanese also provide the design and the technology. It is a step towards an economy in which we shall become a nation of assemblers and warehouse keepers. We need an economy with an important manufacturing component.
The hon. Member for Honiton has not demonstrated that the Bill will provide permanent jobs. There will be building jobs for building the marina. No one would deny that they are important, but there would be building jobs if the company decided to rebuild the dock walls and purchase machinery for the dockside. One would hope that such machinery would be bought in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Skinner: While my hon. Friend has been speaking I have been reading the Bill. It says nothing about providing jobs. My hon. Friend has a document which refers to various jobs, but does it add up to a row of beans? We are considering the Bill. My hon. Friend can have all the documents that have been dished out and the hon. Member for Honiton can make a speech about jobs, but the Bill is about closing the docks. It says nothing about providing jobs. I return to my original point. The chances are that the Bill is about making money out of land, closing the docks, concreting them over and making a big fat killing. The marina has been brought before the House as a possibility and no more. What does my hon. Friend have to say about that?
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. I have in my hand not the Bill but the promoters' statement. I was analysing that statement. My hon. Friend is quite correct to draw attention to the fact that we are not examining the promoters' statement; we are being asked to pass the Bill. The powers are contained in the Bill, not in the promoters' statement. The promoters' statement is designed to encourage us to pass the Bill. My comments on the promoters' statement go back to the Bill.
There is absolutely no reason why the Bill cannot contain a commitment, although that would represent a legal obligation, to provide jobs. That is not extraordinary. In France, under successive Governments, not just that of

757
Mitterrand, which was not very Left-wing, but under Christian Democrat and Socialist Governments there has always been legislation ensuring that no person can be sacked for economic reasons without the consent of the employment Minister. The Labour Government should have introduced such legislation. We should have introduced much more legislation to provide workers' rights. We should have legislation equivalent to that in France, but we have not.
We can have legislation that provides for employment, and my hon. Friend is right to say that the Bill contains no such provision. We are providing the power for closure and concreting over for a range of alternatives about which we are not sure and we have not been provided with much information.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend agrees with me that we are considering the Exmouth Docks Bill which would close the docks and no more. He has a bit of paper that has been passed along from the promoters. It contains a lot of inaccuracies and innuendos. That document could be similar to the Al Fayed document; it could be packed full of lies. That is what they did when they got hold of Harrods. They had a little document—a bit of paper that did not add up to a row of beans. The document that my hon. Friend has must be examined very closely. I reckon that we have to concentrate on the fact that the Bill is talking about losing jobs, not creating jobs.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Bill does not mention jobs—
Sir Peter Emery: Jobs cannot be included in the Bill.
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Honiton says that jobs cannot be included in the Bill. The point that I am making is that legislation in France protects jobs. We could easily follow France's example. Why cannot the docks company set a pioneering trail? People would come from all over the country to see how it worked. Instead of sitting on its backside watching land values increase—Labour Members suspect that that is its intention—it could give a commitment to provide jobs.
Jobs are important. There are almost 2 million people unemployed in this country, according to the Government's dodgy figures, which have been fiddled more than 21 times, and under the old figures probably almost 3 million. It is important to consider legislation that affects jobs.
We may be misjudging the docks company. Tory legislation in 1981 removed grants aimed at ensuring that dock companies kept docks as docks and did not turn them into marinas or other yuppified pursuits. The Harbours Act 1964 provided grant aid for dock work improvement schemes, but it was repealed in 1981. We no longer have a scheme to encourage the company to provide the dock work facilities or career opportunities that must have existed for years in Exmouth.
A number of my hon. Friends wish to express their concerns about the Bill, so I shall conclude by commenting on the speech of the hon. Member for Honiton. He said that if the docks company is not allowed to proceed with the marina and land development it may consider importing coal.
Sir Peter Emery: I did not say that.
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Honiton says that he did not say that, but that was the general tenor of his remarks. It seemed to be an attempt to blackmail the House into giving the Bill a Second Reading. It leaves a rather nasty taste in my mouth that an hon. Member should say to the House, "If you do not pass the Bill, something will happen to which you are deeply opposed." The hon. Gentleman may not have intended to imply that, because he knows that such a threat would be a matter for the Select Committee on Privileges.
Mr. Prescott: Not the Select Committee on Procedure?
Mr. Cryer: No, that would not be fair. I know that the hon. Member for Honiton would not want to become involved in such an argument, so I shall push that to one side. We should not entertain for a moment any threat of that nature from the company, the local authority or the sponsor, who did not really mean it in the first place.
The promoters have not made the case for the Bill. I have great reservations about it. The Bill does not guarantee jobs or anything except the closure of a dock that has already been closed. If the company has to seek authority to close the dock and if it does not receive it at some stage, it must have an obligation to open the dock. If not, why does it not just let the grass grow over and leave things as they are? The Bill seeks to remove an obligation from the docks company and we should be slow to agree to that. The sponsor should take back the Bill and talk to the trade unions to see what they think. He should amend the Bill before it is submitted again so that there is guaranteed employment. It should be decent employment, not routine labouring jobs with no prospect of developing manufacturing enterprise.
The promoters should ensure that they do the job properly, that they consult adequately and that they give guarantees about employment. They should also give a guarantee that Exeter city council does not have to foot the bill resulting from the decision of the docks company to close the dock. The Labour-controlled local authority—about which the promoters probably do not care—should not be left having to make up the money lost from the closure of the dock. It is clear that I have reservations about the Bill and I shall not give it my support.
9.25 pm
The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): It may be helpful for me to give the House the Government's view on the Bill. It is traditional for the Government to take a neutral stance on a private Bill and this Bill is no exception. The Government have considered the contents of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers being sought by the Exmouth Docks company. To obtain the powers, the company has no recourse but to promote a private Bill, as I shall explain.
As the House has heard, there is an alternative procedure provided for harbour authorities to obtain authorisation for the interference with private rights by means of a harbour revision order under the Harbours Act 1964. The Act also makes it possible for harbour authorities instead to resort to the private Bill procedure. The Exmouth Docks company applied in July last year for a harbour revision order under section 14 of the 1964 Act to permit it to close the dock to cargo traffic and to convert it into a marina. It was claimed that the order would have

759
been within the purpose of the Act because the conversion of the dock to a marina would have constituted an improvement.
However, I decided on legal advice last October that that would not be an improvement within the meaning of the Act and thus that an order for the purpose would not be lawful. It may be interesting to note in this context that the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, which has been referred to this evening, recommended that the permitted scope of orders under the Harbours Act 1964 should be broadened to allow general powers to be included for a wider range of developments to be authorised. The Government are considering the Committee's report and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council hopes that it will be possible to announce before long how he intends to take the matter forward.
It is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers that they seek are justified. There are three petitioners remaining against the Bill and they will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Committee. The Committee will be in a far better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill—
Mr. Prescott: The Minister has explained precisely what the Department's role has been in the matter and how it considered whether the company could be given an order under the 1964 Act. As he said, the conclusion was that it would not be lawful under the interpretation of the Act. A Department of Transport press statement on 26 October 1989 said:
"Mr. McLoughlin has decided that an order for this purpose would not be lawful, therefore no public inquiry will be necessary."
The explanatory note to editors makes it clear that the Government and the Minister took the view:
"This would not be an improvement within the meaning of the Act."
Does that mean that the Government do not consider that the change of use from a commercial dock to a marina is an improvement? Will the Minister confirm that? Has he received any requests from the dock company for financial assistance to help with its safety problems?
Mr. McLoughlin: I cannot add to what I have already said. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is not usual for Ministers to disclose legal advice that they have received. If I had pursued the other procedure, there would have been cause for a public inquiry. As the hon. Gentleman said, I announced on 26 October that we could not follow that route, so, as I explained earlier, this private Bill procedure is the only recourse for the company.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading to allow it to proceed in the usual way to a Committee for more detailed consideration.
9.30 pm
Mr. John PrescottMany of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) merit answer; we would want to reflect on them before we vote on the issue.
760
The Minister's response highlights the difficulty that we face with private Bills such as this. We face the ever increasing practice of various port authorities of different kinds coming to the House to request the power to change their constitution in one form or another. The common factor binding those authorities is that they have discovered that a land bank is involved in docks and harbours. They realise that, if the rules and constitutional practices can be changed by closing the dock or changing the trust arrangements, a considerable amount of wealth can be acquired by developing the land.
That is obviously quite a proper consideration. Some people may believe that profit should be made from developing marinas and land. However, the Opposition are worried about port development. We want to ensure that Britain has an adequate port network, particularly as we are an island nation. The central argument is whether it is necessary to accept the judgment of the company that the port is no longer necessary and is unsafe and the company does not have the resources to meet the safety requirements for the port to carry on as a commercial enterprise.
The company's conclusion was not helped by the Government's early actions in port policy in the early 1980s when the Government removed powers to offer assistance to port authorities to make ports safe. The removal of the Government's role in those matters has complicated the issue. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has had the privilege of seeing the consultants' report to which he referred. However, Opposition Members have not seen it and I know that some of the objectors have not seen it either. All they have seen is the three-page statement.
Sir Peter Emery: The report was seen by the East Devon district council and by Exeter city council. Therefore, it is not fair to suggest that the report has been kept secret.
Mr. Prescott: I said that a number of the objectors have not seen it. The hon. Member for Honiton referred to the objectors and referred to the fishing industry and the individuals. I had thought that the Tory party was concerned about individuals. It is the individuals who will be losing their jobs. The council will not be put out of work.
Sir Peter Emery: Only two.
Mr. Prescott: It is all very well for the hon. Member for Honiton to say that there are only two. There were 4,000 objections to the proposal, and there is a dispute. The hon. Member for Honiton knows better than most of us that there is a dispute in his area. He knows that there is a controversy over whether the docks should be closed and changed from a commercial operation as a port to a marina and profitable housing development. That is a matter of contention, as the hon. Gentleman knows; I have visited his constituency, and I am aware of it as well. About 4,000 people signed a petition—
Sir Peter Emery: In Exmouth?
Mr. Prescott: Well, I do not know whether the hon. Member for Honiton has walked along the dockland area—
Sir Peter Emery: I have.
Mr. Prescott: Yes, I am sure he has, but perhaps he met different people from those who came to me to protest. He knows that there has been correspondence complaining about this in the local papers. He knows from his files that there are divided views about the dock. I shall come to that in a moment, because it is an area in which any Member of Parliament has a legitimate interest. We must represent those constituents who live by a dirty dock and who legitimately complain to their Member of Parliament in an attempt to seek redress for those complaints, either through the public health authority, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, or through another forum in the hope of ensuring that better circumstances will prevail.
At the heart of this argument is the mixing of commercial activity and housing, some of which is historical—although much of the housing must have been developed after the dock was opened, because the dock has been around for a long time. As I understand it, East Devon district council had a legitimate concern about changing its position on the laying down of conditions on housing developments in the dock area. It had to be satisfied that it did not have a commercial claim on the operation of the dock. I know that the council was concerned about the files of letters that it had received—no doubt from the hon. Member for Honiton—about whether a commercial dock activity should continue in the area. There are legitimate concerns about that and about the environment that is directly affected.
I stress my earlier point that, over time, I have noticed more and more private Bills being introduced which ask the House for permission to change, for example, the purpose and operation of a dock. Indeed, only two weeks ago we considered the Tees and Hartlepools Port Authority Bill, which sought to change that port authority from a trust authority into a private company. That issue arose because a lot of money was tied up in trust arrangements that had been settled many years before, and, by law, the company was denied the right or the possibility of using that money for other purposes. It therefore decided to change its constitution. Again, that was a controversial matter about which legislation was brought before the House. We have not seen the last of port Bills coming to the House, asking for the privilege either of changing the law—by changing the original legislation—or of introducing a new Bill that would change the obligations of the existing port company.
At the outset, the hon. Member for Honiton asked whether we were concerned about the points raised by the Select Committee on Procedure in relation to the avoidance of planning inquiries. That is a legitimate concern, on which a Select Committee of this House has expressed its view. Those concerns are shared by hon. Members of all parties. However, as the hon. Member for Honiton himself said, that is not the case with this Bill. We are concerned about docks which, in some cases, have been in operation for hundreds of years and about the fact that their owners or operators decide that they want to change the terms of operation. We are concerned to establish whether the House has a legitimate right to examine such Bills and to decide whether the operators are making a legitimate request to change the character of a certain port.
The Exmouth Docks Bill seeks to provide that Exmouth docks will no longer operate as a commercial port. That means that shipowners and others who have access to those commercial port activities will no longer have the rights that were given them under the old
762
legislation. The Bill seeks to change the port into a marina with dock housing. The development will basically be concerned with leisure activities.
However, the hon. Member for Honiton has now pointed out that fishing activities will continue in the area. We should like some answers on fishing, because we now know that those who had fishing rights—and those with trawlers who were allowed to land their fish—will be allowed to continue with those activities. As we have seen some movement on that matter, I am sure that the House will rejoice that some objectors whose livelihoods had been threatened have found some satisfaction.
As I understand it, when the proposals were first put forward, those people were told that they should go to another port if they wanted to continue with their fishing activities. I am sure that, like other hon. Members, the hon. Member for Honiton will welcome that move. We are glad that some satisfaction, however marginal and whatever the circumstances, has now been achieved by some of the objectors.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we welcome the retention of fishing at Exmouth, the legal assurances that the promoters have explained are their guarantee that nothing will change in the future have not been spelt out? We really ought not to be overjoyed until we have been told exactly how the legal assurances will operate.
Mr. Prescott: That is a matter for concern. I see that the hon. Member for Honiton wants to give us some satisfaction on that point. I am delighted to give way to him.
Sir Peter Emery: If we had not had a speech lasting an hour and 33 minutes, I might have been able to give this information earlier.
The fishermen are protected by a condition under the planning consent and by an agreement under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, both of which are legally enforceable.
Mr. Prescott: I hope that that will satisfy the fishermen. After all, they are the best judges, as I think hon. Members will recognise. The memorandum provided by the promoters says that the real concern is the safety of the dock. It is argued that the walls can no longer take the weight of heavy lorries or heavy machinery. But we have been told that freezing operations will be carried out at the dock.
Anybody who has been involved in the fishing industry, especially anybody who knows anything about freezing, realises that this operation involves the use of heavy lorries, heavy equipment and heavy warehouses. Are the promoters satisfied that the walls of this dock are strong enough? Would it be safe to carry out this commercial operation? If the walls are strong enough, I am confused as to the purpose of the Bill. Admittedly, the legislation has been put forward in a rather rushed form. We are told that the dock is no longer safe—so much so that commercial activities could cease at the end of December.
Sir Peter Emery: I shall try to assist the hon. Gentleman, as I have tried to do throughout the debate. Refrigeration operations will not be carried out at the dockside. In fact, the facility will be just away from the dock, in an area that would not be affected by the collapse of the dock walls. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the

763
equipment required for unloading small fishing vessels is very different from that which is needed to unload commercial bulk cargoes. The fishermen are satisfied that the guarantees that have been given, which are legally enforceable, are adequate.
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. As I come from a fishing port, I am a little troubled. I assume that the situation in Exmouth must be similar to that in Hull.
Sir Peter Emery: No.
Mr. Prescott: In the respect that I have in mind, the docks are similar. I refer to the fact that trawlers tie up alongside the walls. I do not know that trawlers could tie up in any other way. The hon. Gentleman says that the warehouse will not be at the dock, and that the walls will not have to withstand the weight of heavy lorries, but it is admitted that the walls are not safe. They might collapse under the weight of a heavy lorry, or they might collapse anyway. It is generally admitted that the walls are unsafe. I assume that that is still the position.
Sir Peter Emery: I have no wish to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that the reinforcement that will be necessary for the marina will make Exmouth suitable for small fishing vessels. The hon. Gentleman's reference to trawlers shows that he does not understand the offshore fishing industry at Exmouth.
Mr. Prescott: I have been on that part of the coast, sailing and diving, and I have seen the vessels to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As he knows very well, I have actually been photographed on the dock. I have talked to the fishermen and looked at the facilities. That does not alter the fact that the central point is that the dock is unsafe. That is why it has been closed, why people have been made redundant and why the port authority says that it cannot continue commercial operations.
I take the point that apparently the dock authority is prepared to carry out the necessary work, but it only wants to do the work that is necessary to make the dock safe to build a marina and housing. I understand that 440 houses are planned. I read in the press that they are to cost £120,000 each; I do not know whether that is true. We are talking about a lot of money. It seems that money can be provided for work on the docks to provide a marina and housing, but not for commercial activity. It is not that the company has not got the money; it just wants to use the money for a different activity.
Each time we go through the argument, different conditions are made. I was under the impression that it was difficult to improve the dock and that the company did not have the money. Now we learn that it will come out of the leisure development. As is often the case, leisure developments provide more money than commercial activity. That is the argument here, that people want to make more profit from a marina and housing instead of carrying out the dirty work of a commercial port.
Mr. Cryer: There is an interesting thought. Perhaps the repairs should have been carried out under the legislation that established the dock, or under the Exmouth Docks Act 1870. Perhaps the company should have done the repairs and should be carrying on work as a dock. If the
764
company has come to us for approval of closure, it must have been incorrect in closing the docks without our approval.
Mr. Prescottcausing confusion. The argument is that the company suddenly discovered that the walls were unsafe, despite the fact that it made an application in 1985 to extend the dock for more commercial activity. One would have thought that the weakness in the dock walls would have been discovered then. The assumption is that the company has only discovered the weakness in the walls; how convenient that the discovery was made after the Minister told the company that it could not pursue its proposals by order under the 1964 Act.
It is interesting to note that, if the change in activity could have been pursued by an order rather than by a private Bill, it would not have cost the company anything. The Government can bring in an order to change the use from a commercial dock to a marina. One can see why people want to pursue that course. They do not need lawyers; they just ask the Government to do it and it does not cost them a penny. It costs plenty to bring forward a private Bill, involving legal advice and a parliamentary agent. Everyone knows that it is an expensive business. We have read about it in the reports of the Select Committee on Procedure.
I hope that the hon. Member for Honiton is listening. I know that he is being pressed on all sides by people seeking his advice—
Mr. Skinner: He is trying to organise two tellers.
Mr. Prescott: I do not know whether tellers are involved. We will have to wait and see whether the Government will organise support, as they do in so many of these cases.
Is the hon. Member for Honiton aware of the information that I have received from people in the area, that an application to develop housing was made not only just after the company found that the dock walls was unsafe? According to the information given to me, the company has made applications over the years for housing, but they have been refused. If that is correct, it did not happen when the company found that it could not operate a commercial dock because the walls were unsafe. It always wanted to develop housing.
The company which owns the dock has its own development company. Some of the directors on the board of the dock company own the development company which is making the bid for the development. The general view is that they have always wanted to change from dock activity.
Continuing that theme, it is possible within a few years, if there is a refusal to allow housing development, to make a public nuisance of the dock, so that eventually people demand that the dock be closed. The owners in that situation do not tidy up the dock but leave it scruffy, with the maximum dust and dirt. Lorries are allowed to stand around the dock area, so that people complain about them. That is not unique to Exmouth. Action of that kind is taken in many dock areas in Britain.
In other words, we are not discussing the fact that it cannot eventually be used as a commercial dock. The owners want to develop it for houses and so on, and they have wanted to do that for some time. I am sure that the hon. Member for Honiton has files about that, spanning a

765
number of years. I thought that it was a dirty terrible dock. The fact that the company was prosecuted shows that it was not too concerned to clean it up.
The company wants it to become a public nuisance. It wants the public to clamour for the dock to be closed, because it is more profitable to develop a marina and housing. It is more profitable for the yuppies in London than for people who want to live and work there, dockers and others involved, such as shipping agents. I am talking of the ones and twos, as the hon. Member for Honiton contemptuously described them. We are talking not of ones or twos but of thousands of people who have protested and written about this matter.
The facts that I have given put a different complexion on the application that is before the House. Should the dock be closed because it is unsafe? It always was the considered intention of the family who owned it to close it. They wanted to do that not simply for the development of the dock. Apparently they wanted to use it for a massive development, of which there have been reports, involving much more than we have heard.
I am told that the dock company wishes to sell the dock to invest the rollover money in a golf course, a restaurant and a leisure complex on Woodbury common. May we be told more about that? This is the first stage of a massive development in the area, and it has always been the intention to undertake such a development. All the arguments about it being an unsafe dock and so on have the objective of making more money from the development of a marina and housing.
Sir Peter Emery: If the hon. Gentleman is making a serious rather than a nonsensical point, he might have examined the capital expenditure and repairs and renewals expenditure over the period to which he is referring. In the last four and a half to five years, over £1,593,000 has been spent—hardly the expenditure of people who are planning to waste the dock or put it into a useless situation. Please let us leave emotion out of this. The people of Exmouth want the improvements, and the hon. Gentleman should remember that.
Mr. Prescott: It is not unknown for me to become emotional. On this matter, the hon. Member for Honiton is clearly emotional. He is talking of people who are planning a development that will cost £63 million, so £1 million is chickenfeed compared with the money that will be made out of the development. In any event, it might take the sum he mentioned to keep the dock legally in line with work that must be done.
We have been told that the company wanted to do additional development, and that is a legitimate point to make. The company asked for permission to develop the riverside facilities almost opposite what is known as Shelley beach. East Devon district council was not prepared to permit plans that mixed housing and dock development, which is a reasonable point of view.
Is it suggested that that meant the end of the dock because it would be closed to traffic? The hon. Member for Honiton said that trade had been stabilised and that it was not a growing dock. If he knew anything about dock traffic, he would know that it fluctuates. The figures of movements must be taken over a number of years. He made a good point when he said that, over five years, the movements had stabilised at 500,000.
766
The trend of what has been happening to the docks shows that in 1978 it had 279 vessels going through it. By 1988, it had achieved 532 vessels. An awful lot of vessels were coming in. In 1978, the total traffic was 158.000 tonnes. The hon. Member for Honiton gave even later figures than I had; he gave figures for 1989. By his own admission, the total traffic had grown to 523,000 million tonnes by 1989. We cannot accept his argument that somehow the increase in traffic was due to the coal imported during the miners' strike. Presumably, the dock does not import as much coal as it did. The port is growing, with ever more ships coming into it and more trade.
What alarms me is that, for the first time, an application has been made by a port authority to close a port that is growing, not one that is dead. We often have legislation to close ports that are dead. We have far too much port capacity in this country, and we have to close some of it. Sometimes it is necessary to come to the House and apply for permission to do so. That is not the case here. We are faced with property developers who want to close an expanding port, not a declining one. Many people in the area feel that the port is absolutely necessary.
When the hon. Member for Honiton gave us some explanations earlier, he said, "Why should Exeter be an objector?" He said it almost with contempt, because, as he threw in, it is a Labour council. He did not want to consider the arguments. He did not seem to be aware that Exeter city council is the navigation authority. It has responsibility for maintaining navigation lights and all the facilities on the river. That is why it imposes a levy on the ships. The levy that it received—the hon. Gentleman said it was £160,000—goes towards financing that.
If the council loses that money, as it clearly will next year, where will it find the extra money? Either it will take it from Exeter residents or from yachts that ply up and down the river or it will increase the charges or cut the costs. Either way, Exeter is not in a happy position.
All that Exeter has done is obtain an agreement that half the money—about £70,000—will be paid over to it. It is a raw deal for Exeter. Someone will have to pay for the navigational lights; they must be maintained even if only one yacht goes up and down the river. Exmouth port authority has relieved itself of the burden by simply shifting it on to the Labour council. That does not seem to worry the hon. Gentleman, but even in that area there will be Tory ratepayers, and they will pay the difference. I hoped that he might be worried about that because they will have to finance the charges.
Sir Peter Emery rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 16.

Division No. 149]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Arbuthnot, James

Carrington, Matthew

Atkinson, David

Chapman, Sydney

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Dorrell, Stephen

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Dover, Den

Boswell, Tim

Durant, Tony

Bowis, John

Emery, Sir Peter

Brazier, Julian

Favell, Tony

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Burt, Alistair

Fishburn, John Dudley

Butcher, John

Fookes, Dame Janet

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Forth, Eric

767

Freeman, Roger

Norris, Steve

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Patnick, Irvine

Gill, Christopher

Patten, Rt Hon John

Gorst, John

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Squire, Robin

Hunter, Andrew

Stern, Michael

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Stevens, Lewis

Irvine, Michael

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Jack, Michael

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Janman, Tim

Thurnham, Peter

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Lawrence, Ivan

Walker, Bill (T'Side North)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Warren, Kenneth

Lightbown, David

Wheeler, Sir John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Widdecombe, Ann

Mills, Iain

Wood, Timothy

Moate, Roger

Yeo, Tim

Morrison, Sir Charles

Neubert, Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Nicholls, Patrick

Mr. Roger King and

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Mr. Jacques Arnold.

768

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Beckett, Margaret

Murphy, Paul

Boateng, Paul

Pike, Peter L.

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Prescott, John

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

Sheerman, Barry

Dewar, Donald

Vaz, Keith

Dixon, Don

Home Robertson, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Livingstone, Ken

Mr. Bob Cryer and

McFall, John

Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Mr. Speaker: Fewer than 100 Members having voted in the majority in support of the Question, I declare that the Question is not decided in the affirmative.
Debate to be resumed on Thursday 19 April.

Exmouth Docks Bill (By Order)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
  New clause 1

    PART IIA: SEIZURE AND DETENTION OF DRUG TRAFFICKING CASH
    `(1) A customs officer or constable may seize and, in accordance with this section, detain any cash which is being imported into or exported from the United Kingdom if its amount is not less than the prescribed sum and he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that it directly or indirectly represents any person's proceeds of, or is intended by any person for use in, drug trafficking.
    (2) Cash seized by virtue of this section shall not be detained for more than forty-eight hours unless its continued detention is authorised by an order made by a justice of the peace or in Scotland the sheriff; and no such order shall be made unless the justice or, as the case may be, the sheriff is satisfied—

    (a) that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion mentioned in subsection (1) above; and

    (b) that continued detention of the cash is justified while its origin or derivation is further investigated or consideration is given to the institution (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) of criminal proceedings against any person for an offence with which the cash is connected.

    (3) Any order under subsection (2) above shall authorise the continued detention of the cash to which it relates for such period, not exceeding three months beginning with the date of the order, as may be specified in the order; and a magistrates' court or in Scotland the sheriff, if satisfied as to the matters mentioned in that subsection, may thereafter from time to time by order authorise the further detention of the cash but so that—

    (a) no period of detention specified in such an order shall exceed three months beginning with the date of the order; and

    (b) the total period of detention shall not exceed two years from the date of the order under subsection (2) above.

    (4) Any application for an order under subsection (2) or (3) above shall be made by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or a constable if made to a justice or magistrates' court and by a procurator fiscal if made to the sheriff.
    (5) At any time while cash is detained by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this section—
    (a) a magistrates' court or in Scotland the sheriff may direct its release if satisfied—

    (i) on an application made by the person from whom it was seized or a person by or whose behalf it was being imported or exported, that there are no, or are no longer, any such grounds for its detention as are mentioned in subsection (2) above; or

    (ii) on an application made by any other person, that detention of the cash is not for that or any other reason justified; and

    (b) a customs officer or constable, or in Scotland a procurator fiscal, may release the cash if satisfied that its detention is no longer justified but shall first notify the justice, magistrates' court or sheriff under whose order it is being detained.
    (6) If at a time when any cash is being detained by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this section—

    (a) an application for its forfeiture is made under section (Forfeiture) below; or

    (b) proceedings are instituted (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) against any person for an offence with which the cash is connected,
    770
    the cash shall not be released until any proceedings pursuant to the application or, as the case may be, the proceedings for that offence have been concluded.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 2

    FORFEITURE
    '(1) A magistrates' court or in Scotland the sheriff may order the forfeiture of any cash which has been seized under section (Part IIA: seizure and detention of drug trafficking cash) above if satisfied, on an application made while the cash is detained under that section, that the cash directly or indirectly represents any person's proceeds of, or is intended by any person for use in, drug trafficking.
    (2) Any application under this section to a magistrates' court shall be made by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or a constable and to the sheriff by a procurator fiscal.
    (3) The standard of proof in proceedings on an application under this section shall be that applicable to civil proceedings; and an order may be made under this section whether or not proceedings are brought against any person for an offence with which the cash in question is connected.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 3

    INTEREST
    '. Cash seized under this Part of this Act and detained for more than forty-eight hours shall, unless required as evidence of an offence, be held in an interest-bearing account and the interest accruing on any such cash shall be added to that cash on its forfeiture or release.'.—(Mr. John Patten.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 4

    PROCEDURE
    `(1) An order under section (Part IIA: seizure and detention of drug trafficking cash)(2) above shall provide for notice to be given to persons affected by the order.
    (2) Provision may be made by rules of court with respect to applications to any court under this Part of this Act, for the giving of notice of such applications to persons affected, for the joinder, or in Scotland sisting, of such persons as parties and generally with respect to the procedure under this Part of this Act before any court.
    (3) Subsection (2) above is without prejudice to the generality of any existing power to make rules.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 5

    INTERPRETATION OF PART IIA
    `(1) In this Part of this Act—
    "cash" includes coins and notes in any currency;
    "customs officer" means an officer commissioned by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise under section 6(3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979;
    "drug trafficking" has the same meaning as in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 or, as respects Scotland, in Part I of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987;

    771
    "exported", in relation to any cash, includes its being brought to any place in the United Kingdom for the purpose of being exported;
    "the proceeds of drug trafficking" has the same meaning as in the said Acts of 1986 and 1987 respectively and includes proceeds received by any person before as well as after the coming into force of this Part of this Act.
    (2) In section (Part IIA: seizure and detention of drug trafficking cash) above "the prescribed sum" means such sum in sterling as may for time being be prescribed for the purposes of that section by an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and in determining under that section whether an amount of currency other than sterling is not less than the prescribed sum that amount shall be converted at the prevailing rate of exchange.
    (3) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that notwithstanding sections 8 and 9 of the Isle of Man Act 1979 references in this Part of this Act to importation into or export from the United Kingdom include references to importation into the United Kingdom from the Isle of Man and exportation from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  Clause 4

    UNITED KINGDOM EVIDENCE FOR USE OVERSEAS
    Amendment made: No. 1, in page 4, line 29, at end insert—
    `(2A) Where it appears to the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Lord Advocate that the request relates to a fiscal offence in respect of which proceedings have not yet been instituted he shall not exercise his powers under subsection (2) above unless—

    (a) the request is from a country or territory which is a member of the Commonwealth or is made pursuant to a treaty to which the United Kingdom is a party; or

    (b) he is satisfied that the conduct constituting the offence would constitute an offence of the same or a similar nature if it had occurred in the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 25

    EXPENSES
    Amendment made: No. 2, in page 18, line 20, at end insert—
    `(2) Any money representing cash forfeited under Part IIA of this Act or accrued interest thereon shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

  Title
  Amendments made: No. 3, in line 2, leave out second `and' and insert
  `; to enable the United Kingdom'.
  No. 4, in line 5, at end insert
  '; and to provide for the seizure, detention and forfeiture of drug trafficking money imported or exported in cash'.—[Mr. John Patten.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: I have no wish to delay the House on this important Bill. I sometimes wonder whether, now that the House is televised, we should have a barometer of the cost of keeping the House running at this time of night and evaluate speeches in terms of the cash that it costs the taxpayer to pay for keeping the House running. That would probably have a good influence on our speeches.
  It is important for us to make one or two points on Third Reading. First, the Government have—this is quite a change from usual—acceded to several requests that we made in Committee. That is a mark of the fact that the Bill received all-party support and, for a change, in Committee received a positive response from the Government. The tightening up of legislation, as represented by the new clauses, has been a result of the Government listening to the Opposition case which was made reasonably cogently in Committee. We are pleased to have the changes to the Bill and new clause 1 is of particular relevance and importance.
  We have supported the Bill for the simple reason that it will help the forces of law and order in Britain to combat international criminality of every kind, whether it be drug traffickers, money launderers or violent gangsters. They are serious matters. If it allows us to accede to two important international conventions and makes it easier for the Government and for future Governments to chase international criminals wherever they may be and bring them to justice, this small Bill, which has all-party support, will be worth while.
  However, we would have liked the Government to have taken a firmer line on one aspect. The Government still seem to believe that the City of London and, to some extent, the international banking community based in London, is a sort of gentleman's club with values and principles in accordance with which everyone acts.
  We said in Committee, and we remind the House tonight, that completely unscrupulous forces are at work in the City of London and in the international banking community. I do not make that charge about every banking institution, nor even about most banking institutions, but the Government should wake up to the fact that a marginal group of people in the banking industry do not care from where the money comes or where it goes. The laundered money that keeps this wicked business going internationally is still moving round the City of London.
  In the coming months, scandals about international involvement in money-laundering schemes in the City will come to light and the Government will have to come back to the House to take more measures to deal with them. I make that point in all seriousness. When that happens I hope that my remarks on Third Reading will be remembered.
  When the Bank of England gave evidence to the Select Committee it was asked what measures it would introduce further to curb the ability of banks to launder international drug money, to which the Bank of England said that it did not have any positive ideas. The Select Committee said that that was not good enough and that it was the Government's job to tell the Bank of England that they knew what was going on, that they wanted it stopped and that they wanted the mechanisms by which that could

  773
  be done to be introduced quickly. The Bill gave us the opportunity to tighten up even more on such trade, but it has not been taken.
  I reiterate that the Opposition believe that in the near future scandals and revelations will make us take seriously what is going on in some institutions, albeit marginal ones. These are serious matters in terms of the amount of money involved and we shall have to take further steps to control those institutions.
  As I said, if we had a barometer to show how much each speech cost, we might make shorter speeches. I do not intend to detain the House any longer on a Bill which has the Opposition's full support and which will lead to the apprenhension of more criminals and international drug traffickers.
  10.19 pm
  Sir John Wheeler: I, too am glad to give the new amendments to the Bill a very warm welcome. Like the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I hope to be brief.
  The new amendments will certainly help to bring the United Kingdom law into line with article 5 of the Vienna convention. The new amendments are most timely as the ministerial conference on drugs takes place in April, when I am sure that the United Kingdom intention to strengthen the law will he regarded as a welcome example by other countries and their delegates attending that conference.
  My Select Committee is always pleased when its recommendations find currency in legislation so speedily. The House will know that the Home Affairs Select Committee reported on 8 November last year and I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his willingness to follow the Select Committee's recommendations and amend the Bill.
  During its visit to the United States last year the Committee was most impressed by the evidence from the officials of the various services concerned with drug trafficking and money laundering. The United States customs service argued persuasively that there was a serious loophole in British law, which enabled cash to be moved in and out of the United Kingdom. Evidence from the United Kingdom customs, the Metropolitan police and the national drugs intelligence unit confirmed that loophole.
  For those reasons, the Select Committee made clear recommendations to make it illegal to import or export the proceeds of drug trafficking or other serious crimes and to allow customs officers to detain money entering or leaving the country if they knew or suspected that it arose from the proceeds of such crime.
  I am glad, therefore, that the Government's new clauses seek to deal with those loopholes. We shall have to experience the exact way in which the legislation will be enforced, and it would be helpful if my right hon. Friend made some comment on that.
  Tonight's proposals apply to the proceeds of drug trafficking and not to cash or money from other offences that can be seized within the United Kingdom under part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I invite my right hon. Friend to consider extending those provisions to non-drugs money laundering. I congratulate the Government on introducing the new clauses, which I warmly welcome.
  10.22 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I, too, congratulate the Minister on accepting the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who is the Chairman of the Committee. The Committee's work on drugs and the evidence that we took, particularly in America because of the problems there, were extremely valuable in terms of our recommendations.
  However, I want to sound a couple of notes of caution. The first concerns the relationship between the police and the customs service. In paragraphs 103 to 105 of our report, we emphasised the need for close co-operation between the police, the customs and the regional drug squads. It is extremely important that we monitor carefully the way in which those provisions operate.
  I am concerned at the number of complaints that I have received from constituents about the way in which some customs officers operate. Constituents who go abroad wearing gold jewellery and return wearing the same gold jewellery are then told by customs officers that they had that jewellery made abroad, particularly in India or Pakistan. I hope that customs officers, having been given this new power, will exercise it particularly carefully.
  I should like to bring to the Minister's attention the need to ensure that we place more emphasis on preventive work. The Bill is about international co-operation, but on its visit to America the Select Committee discovered that the American enforcement agencies made several mistakes, through no fault of their own, but simply because it was the first time that they had dealt with drugs such as crack. Our services made similar mistakes. The Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) have said that preventive work is being emphasised, but it is no good merely catching the international criminal and seizing the proceeds of his crime—we must work to ensure that demand reduction is a reality.
  I have just returned from a brief visit to India. The governor of Gujarat, which, as I am sure hon. Members know, has a long coastline and a common border with Punjab, is concerned that the international drugs trade is increasing from that area. Gujarat would like assistance from the British Government. We can offer our expertise in dealing with such problems and the lessons that we learned from the mistakes made by the Americans. It would be useful if the Minister mentioned to the Minister for Overseas Development the need to provide aid to support Governments who are trying to stop the flow of drugs.
  I should like to see more emphasis placed on exchange visits for police and customs officers to America and the sub-continent so that expertise, which is vital in the fight against the drugs trade, is developed.
  I read the Committee's proceedings on the Bill with much interest. The Committee stage was quick, but it showed that hon. Members are committed to doing all that they can to stop the spread of this obnoxious international crime.
  10.26 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: For some considerable time, the subject of drugs has been of much interest to the Council of Europe. On 29 January, a joint meeting of several committees in Strasbourg was

  775
  addressed by Margaret Anstee, who is the director-general of the United Nations' office in Vienna and is in charge of the war against drugs. It was one of the most fascinating but terrifying meetings that I have attended. Coldly and dispassionately, she told us of the growing drugs problem, which stretches way beyond the bounds of what any rational person would have thought possible. It certainly persuaded the Council of Europe to do more than it had already done.
  Margaret Anstee's talk prompted me to table a question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which she answered on 9 February. I asked whether we will be able to ratify the 1988 United Nations convention. It is extremely important that we do so as rapidly as possible.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) said, a ministerial conference with a somewhat longer than necessary title—the world ministerial summit to reduce demand for drugs and to combat the cocaine trade—is being held in London on 9–11 April. My right hon. Friend the Minister knows that the Bill has received all-party support. The amendments that have been made tonight should command the full support of the other place. Does my right hon. Friend believe that it will be possible for Britain to ratify the convention before that conference takes place? It would be an enormous boost if we were able to do so, and a tribute to that dedicated servant of the United Nations, who is also a British subject.
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to consider the future operation of the legislation in the context of 1992. The aim of the Common Market, which is not recognised here, but is recognised in the Strasbourg Assembly, is for the complete removal of barriers. Reservations have been expressed in the Trevi group of Home Office Ministers, but there is pressure from the Common Market to remove customs barriers. There is a group known as the kangaroo group because it wants to leap over barriers. Prominent members of the Conservative party support the kangaroo group. [HON. MEMBERS: "Kangaroo group?"] It is a suggestion of leaping over barriers. I know that it seems a strange description to the House of Commons, but it is a sign of the dedication to federal solutions which looms large inside the Common Market.
  There is no point in passing legislation—with which we agree—to attempt to control drug trafficking while there are pressures to dismantle the very apparatus that helps to control that trafficking. New clause I, which provides the power for customs officers to seize cash which is believed to be the proceeds of drug trafficking or to be intended for use in drug trafficking, will, of course, be rendered null and void if we are not allowed to give those powers to customs officers in traffic between ourselves and the other 11 member states.
  It is a matter of grave concern. The Government's reservations to the Trevi group of Ministers have never been spelt out. I fear very much that the insidious power of federalism will lead to the diminution of important safeguards for our country. I have always taken the view, and expressed it in the Common Market Assembly, that the notion there that a strong barrier round the 12 is in
  776
  some way a substitute for a number of barriers inside the Common Market is inadequate. A number of barriers around the member states are a far better deterrent than one big barrier.
  I assure the House, without equivocation, that there is pressure for the single unitary customs union of the Common Market.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington)indicated dissent.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Cryer: I see that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are showing that they agree with maintaining barriers. I am pleased by that assurance, and I shall continue to seek such assurances whenever the subject is raised because it is important.
  The seizure of even more dangerous items than drugs and associated facilities, such as the seizure of nuclear triggers by Customs and Excise yesterday—on which they are to be congratulated—is a sign that vigilance is required. I know that the triggers were destined for a country outside the Common Market, but the principle of surveillance and examination is the same and must be retained if the Bill is to be enacted properly.
  10.33 pm
  Mr. John Gorst: The Bill's intention, which is wholly laudable, is to enable the United Kingdom to co-operate with other countries. We shall co-operate especially by serving other countries' legal processes, by obtaining evidence and by facilitating the appearance of British witnesses at court hearings. Those are unexceptionable objectives, but the ends must always be in harmony with the means taken towards their achievement and the ends do not justify the means in this case.
  I have a crucial question for my right hon. Friend the Minister which hinges on the meaning of the word "person" in paragraph 4 of schedule 1. The paragraph says:
  "A person shall not be compelled to give in the proceedings any evidence which he could not be compelled to give … in … the United Kingdom".
  However, that provision would not apply unless the claim of the person was conceded by the court in the foreign country. Can a certain type of Crown servant in this country, perhaps a police officer, be compelled to give evidence or, perhaps more pertinently, can he be prevented from doing so?
  The reason why I am concerned about that will become apparent if I describe what happened about three years ago in the case of Captain Simon Hayward, who was arrested on a drugs trafficking charge. That example will show that I am not voicing a simple theoretical concern.
  In the criminal proceedings brought against Hayward in Sweden, the Swedish authorities sought to call two British police officers who were working at the time for the national drugs intelligence unit. They were to have given evidence on information that they had received from an unnamed criminal source in this country. However, the officers had visited Sweden earlier to collect intelligence. During their visit, they passed on certain police-to-police intelligence to the Swedes, and before they left the country, they lodged it with the Swedes in a signed memorandum.

  777
  Thereafter, the British authorities received a request from Sweden asking for the officers to give evidence at Hayward's trial.
  I am glad to say that the then head of the national drugs intelligence unit, Assistant Commissioner Colin Hewett, took a highly responsible attitude. He informed the Swedes that he was not prepared to allow his officers to give evidence, because it was clearly hearsay. Moreover, it was evidence that would not have been admissible in proceedings if they had been brought in this country. To put an end to it, Mr Hewett added that neither of his officers could vouch for the truth and accuracy of their information.
  Notwithstanding that, the Swedish authorities were still able to use the intelligence handed to them by the two officers. They merely informed the Swedish court that the officers would have said what was in their statements had they been called. As a consequence of those events, I am glad to say that the previous Home Secretary was sufficiently disturbed by what had happened to order an inquiry by the chief inspector of constabulary, which resulted in new guidelines for the police.
  However, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State replies to the point about schedule I, can he tell me whether the changes that have come about with new advice to the police are reflected in the Bill, or can such disquieting anomalies be repeated? With the advent of much closer co-operation in international crime today, everyone applauds efforts to facilitate international co-operation in the investigation and prosecution of international criminals. Equally, no one would wish to make provisions in this country, about the admissibility of evidence in another jurisdiction. However, are proper safeguards incorporated in this Bill? Will they enable abuses to be stemmed in Britain before they can be enacted in other countries over which we do not have control?
  Does schedule I ensure that, before complying with a request for assistance, British courts will have to satisfy themselves that the witness from whom evidence is to be taken will only be providing evidence that would be admissible in our courts? Will the Home Secretary be able to get an agreement from a requesting state that the only evidence sought from witnesses from this country will be first-hand evidence and not, as happened in the Hayward case, second-hand evidence given by one person about what another witness might have said had that other witness turned up to give that evidence?
  Furthermore, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the provisions of the Bill will not become a charter for unscrupulous criminals to make wholly unfounded and, in this country, inadmissible allegations in front of foreign courts with the blessing, so to speak, in ignorance, of our own British courts? If so, they will effectively be turning a blind eye to what may happen afterwards, outside their jurisdiction.
  Allegations could then easily be made against an innocent individual in the hope that those allegations might be relayed to a third party, who could then give evidence with impunity under the protection of foreign jurisdiction. Unless we are vigilant, there could even be the temptation for the authorities, on an international scale, to steer international prosecutions to those countries that are none too choosy about their methods, as long as they get convictions.
  778
  I should like my right hon. Friend to assure me that that will not be possible and that the Bill contains provisions to ensure that it cannot happen.
  10.40 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Some time ago it became apparent to the Government and to the Prime Minister in particular that they should do something about drugs. We all know that in this modern world the drugs problem has grown at a tremendous pace in some countries. In America, with a population of 200-odd million, the problem has grown much faster than here in Britain. It is now feared that the situation obtaining in America could occur on these shores; so it became a political issue.
  Although I understand the motives behind it, I believe that the Bill is little more than cosmetic. I have no doubt that the Minister of State will explain all those good motives but, for the life of me, I cannot see how this kind of cosmetic can play a significant part, although I should like to think that it could.
  I was talking to someone recently about the American situation. Its drugs problem has grown at a geometric rate. That person came over here only last week. He had retired after working in a college and was 60-odd years of age. When I asked him what the drugs problem was like, he said that as many as 30 per cent. of young people were on hard drugs. I asked him what was happening about that. He said, "Politicians stand up and make a lot of noise about doing something about it."
  The United States of America is almost equivalent to the Common Market in terms of population. What is being said today is that, if we join those other western democracies, we can somehow or another wave a magic wand and control all the laundered money that is made from drugs. Do not get me wrong—I think that that is a sound idea, but I need to be convinced about how, in a free enterpreneurial society, such as is rammed down my throat by Tory Ministers every day, those freebooted entrepreneurs who do not believe in controls of any kind can control the drug money when they do not even know where it is coming from.
  It is a bit odd that that massive contradiction has not crossed the mind of the Minister of State, who reckons to be such a logical thinker. He is well endowed in the classics and all the rest of it—
  Mr. John Patten: That is a smear.
  Mr. Skinner: I am trying to get the Minister deselected.
  Let us face it: if the Prime Minister says that she does not believe in controls of any kind, but on another day she tells her Ministers, "We'll control the drug money flow," that is a total contradiction. Much as I should like to see that happen, it can be achieved only if the Government have control of the banks. If the Prime Minister is going to come along and say, "We have a big drugs problem; it is not as big as in America, but we are going to control it and stop the money, and the only way of doing it is by controlling the banks first"—
  Mr. Greg Knight: That is not in the Bill.
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member, who, I understand, is prevented by convention from speaking, says that it is not in the Bill. I am not talking about what is not in the Bill;

  779
  I am talking about what is in the Bill. As it is a weak, cosmetic Bill, it is incapable of doing all the wonderful things that it is supposed to do.
  Then there is the question of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS. Eventually the Government will decide to join the ERM. I want to make it abundantly clear that I shall vote against joining. I am not in favour of the free movement of capital and labour in the Common Market. Joining the exchange rate mechanism will not improve the lot of people who believe in collective action.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. This Bill does not say anything about the exchange rate mechanism. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that a Third Reading speech must be confined to the actual contents of the Bill.
  Mr. Skinner: I do not want to teach grandmothers to suck eggs, but I have to point out that this Bill attempts to control the flow of money made in the business of drugs. The point that I am making is that this is a cosmetic exercise. Such control cannot be exercised in an entrepreneurial society. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will accept the logical extension of that point.
  If the supporters of this Bill travel further down the entrepreneurial road of money exchange in a greater Common Market, the ability to control drug money will be diminished. I understand that contradiction, as do some of my hon. Friends. It may be that some Conservative Members agree with me about the exchange rate mechanism. Do not let anyone tell me that loosening the bonds, allowing money to flow even more freely, will make it easier to control drug money. That is a total contradiction. Let nobody try to tell me that this Bill has no bearing on these matters.
  If it is possible, in this fairyland society, to control the flow of drug money, why do the Prime Minister and the other Ministers tell us that credit cannot be controlled? The reason is that, with the lifting of exchange and other controls, money is flowing here, there and everywhere. Let nobody, at this time of the night, tell me that, if credit cannot be controlled without such high interest rates, it will be possible to control this drug money. We cannot buy what the Government are trying to sell.
  If this Bill is passed, it will not harm anyone, but it will not bake any bread either. Let that be understood. Some time ago the Prime Minister said, "We've got to do something about drugs. We'll control the money." Suppose that some Tory financier is found to have laundered or used money made from drugs, even if he did not actually make it himself. Does anyone really believe that, if the trail led to a Cabinet Minister, or to the friend or husband or wife of a Cabinet Minister, it would be admitted that the money had come out of a laundered drug fund? Does anyone believe that this Government would slap on proper controls? No, that would not happen. The authorities in the United States could not do anything about Noriega's money, so they captured Noriega. They had to abandon the idea of controlling the flow of money. They had to do something physical.
  It is not the first time that such a Bill has been introduced. The Bill is based on a knee-jerk reaction. The Government want to tell the nation that they are doing something about the problem—"We are all in favour of apple pie and motherhood and against sin, so we will
  780
  introduce a Bill and tell the world that it will change everything." We all know that in a free, entrepreneurial society, where there are no controls, it is not possible to control the drug money. Let the Government get on with the Bill and get it carried in their quaint little way, but they should not expect anything serious to develop.
  10.49 pm
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: When the Bill was published, concern was expressed in some quarters about its effect on tax offences in other countries. When my right hon. Friend the Minister of State heard about the concern, he dealt with it as we have come to expect of him—with promptitude and helpfulness. I express my gratitude to him for doing so.
  10.50 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The title of the Bill is the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill. An equally apposite name might have been the Criminal Justice (Inter-party Co-operation) Bill. I think that almost all hon. Members are in favour of it, perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who feels strongly about the matter; of course, I respect his strength of feeling. Apart from him, every hon. Member who has spoken in the House and in another place has done so warmly in favour of the principles of the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover that one cannot expect legislation to change human nature and to work wonders, but I think that this Bill will do many useful things.
  Parliament has already been united in support of measures to combat the evils of drug trafficking and international crime. The Bill has been no exception. It is important that that should be so because the problems caused by international criminals, including drug traffickers, are very serious. It would be wrong if people who prey on society could feel that they had friends in any part of the House.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for their support of the Bill, which has been scrutinised properly in Committee. I am also grateful for the advice that we received over some months from the Select Committee on Home Affairs, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler). We have benefited much from that advice.
  I am pleased that we were able to respond so quickly to the report of the Select Committee, to which my hon. Friend and others gave such distinguished service. The report was published on 8 November. With all-party co-operation, I do not think that we have done badly in managing to include some elements of the report in the Bill. We try as a Government to respond quickly and constructively to points made by Select Committees.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North about the loophole in the movement of cash connected with drugs. We have acted on it. However, he raised an issue that goes beyond the scope of the Bill and, indeed, the scope of my remarks on Third Reading if I am to stay within order—what we can do about the increasing amounts of cash derived from the proceeds of serious crime apart from drugs. The House will probably want to consider that matter over the next

  781
  couple of years. It may be raised, although not necessarily by the Government, in a forthcoming criminal justice measure. I think that we are on a rolling frontier. I welcome the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House are keen to develop ways of dealing with international crime, be it drugs or other serious crimes, which debauches the financial markets in the way to which the hon. Member for Bolsover referred.
  Mr. Iain Mills: Will my right hon. Friend include in his comments the concern that has been expressed about industrial counterfeiting?
  Mr. Patten: I know my hon. Friend's longstanding interest in that subject, a matter that we shall have to continue to consider in the Home Office and in the Department of Trade and Industry. I shall bear his point in mind.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr Vaz), who served on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, spoke about Customs. I shall draw his remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend. Plans are already in hand to train and instruct Customs officers in the operation of the new provisions, and there are plans to give greater advice to the general travelling public.
  I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about people who travel always wearing a gold chain and the problems that can arise. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr Forth), is always impeccably dressed and adorned. I will brook no criticism of his sartorial standards, including the chains he wears.
  In dealing with the preventive point of the hon. Member for Leicester, East, I must not stray too far on Third Reading. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Minister for Overseas Development in relation to the Gujarat coast. In the next three years, the United Kingdom's overseas aid for all drug-related purposes will be about £21 million.
  Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East made a telling point. The Minister will recall that in Committee we discussed the training of Customs officers. Although my hon. Friends and I have given great support to the Bill, we have expressed concern about Customs officers who are ill-trained and who might pick on people taking cash through and hold that money. I appreciate that a new clause will allow interest to be paid on money that is held for some time, but we must consider the reputation of Customs officers in dealing with the people to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East referred, in terms of jewellery and so on.
  We have commented on the way in which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs likes gold jewellery. It is no joking matter when a Customs officer can say, without good reason, at any time to somebody coming through Customs with a large amount of money that it could be drugs money. We could be embarking on a dangerous precedent. The Select Committee had a better suggestion, which was declaration.
  Mr Patten: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern for the proper training of Customs officers, men and women who sometimes have a difficult and sensitive task. I am happy to tell the House that plans for training, and for giving advice to the public, are well advanced.
  782
  My answer to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) is that, alas, we are unlikely to be able to ratify in the time available, not because we do not want to do so but because for ratification we shall need equivalent provisions for Northern Ireland. That will have to be done by way of an Order in Council, which the Government intend to bring forward as soon as possible.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Was it beyond the bounds of possibility for the drafting and introduction of that Northern Ireland instrument to have proceeded at the same time?
  Mr. Patten: I am advised that even with the best endeavours it would not have been possible. I share my hon. Friend's disappointment. These matters are sometimes difficult, when we are translating provisions made on this to the other side of the water. I served as a junior Minister in the Northern Ireland Office and remember the complexity of translating the one to the other.
  I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) found it unnerving to have the Home Secretary and I broadly agreeing with him. However, we did not say anything, so it is not on the record and will not affect his chances of reselection.
  The anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) on schedule I perhaps go much wider than most other anxieties that have been expressed. But they are proper anxieties and I welcome the fact that he made those points to the House this evening. They relate more generally to the use that can be made overseas of evidence taken in this country or obtained from people who have travelled from this country to act as witnesses. His points were connected with the case of Captain Simon Hayward, in which my hon. Friend has taken such a notable interest.
  The Bill cannot affect the law on admissibility of evidence in another country. Unfortunately, we can do nothing in this jurisdiction about the law in another country. In the normal course of events, people from Britain who are asked to travel abroad to give evidence in criminal proceedings will probably have a reasonable idea of the ground that they will be expected to cover when they appear in court. If they conclude, for whatever reason, that they do not wish to give the evidence sought, nothing in the Bill will permit them to be compelled so to do. I pondered carefully on what my hon. Friend has said about the matter in the past. But that is about as far as it is possible for the Bill to go. If someone travels voluntarily to another country to give evidence, he or she will naturally become subject to that country's laws. If he fails to respond to what, under the law of the country, may be a perfectly legitimate question, he may render himself liable to be penalised, in exactly the same way as if someone came here to give evidence in our courts.
  Mr. Gorst: At the heart of my right hon. Friend's reply is the problem of which countries we are dealing with. If the country has a legal system that we respect—I mention no country by name—the fears do not arise in practice. However, if we find in practice that certain countries are guilty of abuses, will it be possible to revise the arrangements with those countries?
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend makes an important point. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and future Home Secretaries will have substantial powers of discretion over whether to admit requests for evidence or to allow prisoners to be sent, with their consent, to give evidence. After all, if someone came to give evidence in our courts, we would expect him to abide by our law. If he refused to answer a question for some reason which was not acceptable on our terms, it would be open to the court to take action for contempt. I stress again that none of this is affected in any way by the Bill.
  However, I was affected by the kind remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot). Several strong fears were put forward by the financial community. I tried to respond as swiftly as possible to make sure that the Bill satisfied the anxieties of the banking community and others in international accountancy and other contexts.
  This is an important Bill. It will not in itself solve the problem of drug trafficking or international crime—it would be foolish to suggest that—but it will enhance our ability to co-operate with our friends and neighbours overseas in tackling these serious evils. As such, it is an important arrow in our legislative quiver.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

CONSUMER GUARANTEES BILL [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Consumer Guarantees Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(i) any expenses incurred or compensation payable by a Minister of the Crown or Government department in consequence of
784
the application by the Act, in relation to its enforcement, of Part IV of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and

(ii) any increase attributable to the Act in consequence of such application in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act; and

(b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Forth.]

Statutory Instruments, £c.

  RATING AND VALUATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That the draft Gas and Electricity Industries (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.

  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.

  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.

Gynaecology (Privacy)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick]
11.3 pm
Miss Emma Nicholson: My previous Adjournment debate might have been the shortest on record. I cannot claim that I shall break that record tonight, but I shall be as brief as possible as the Minister for Health has already dealt by letter with one of my two requests from that earlier Adjournment debate, which was reflected in its title.
Following my attempt to speak during my previous Adjournment debate and the Opposition's determined and successful efforts to ensure that women's health care issues were discounted at their pleasure, the Minister kindly wrote to me to state that she was altering the method of scrutinising hysterectomy data so that the women concerned could not be identified. I express not just my gratitude for her action, but that of the Royal College of General Practitioners, whose president, Dr Pereira Grey, practises in Exeter at the university.
Tonight I ask the Minister only to consider a particular aspect of the new contract for general practitioners. The contract contains many excellent features, but, as it is not yet in place, it naturally has some sharp edges. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health always listens and I am grateful to him for his thoughtful help on several issues during more than five years, war widows to name but one, and I know that he will listen to and think about what I say.
The cause of my concern is the new system of target payments for cervical smears. We have moved from stepped sessional payments to a steep incline. If a doctor reaches up to 50 per cent. of his target list—in England and Wales the target list is women between 25 and 65; in Scotland between 20 and 60—he will receive nothing. When he hits 50 per cent. and reaches up to 79 per cent. he will receive £760. For reaching 80 per cent. plus of his target he will receive the handsome sum of £2,260. Is that too steep an incline? I believe that it may have unexpected and possibly unwelcome results.
I do not question the importance of preventive medicine. During my time with the Save the Children Fund I launched the "Stop Polio" campaign. Several years ago I found to my abhorrence that, in Lambeth, children had a 37 per cent. uptake of immunisation against polio, but once the fund had established the campaign in Malawi, we managed to achieve a 95 per cent. success rate there. It is galling that in a developed country such as our own we should have such a low uptake of immunisation. The same is true of cervical smears.
Cervical smears represent intrusive preventive medicine and, although the GP has a crucial role to play, the final right to respond lies with the patient. The effectiveness of cervical smear has also been questioned—a subject into which I do not intend to delve. An article in The Lancet of 22 June 1989 questioned:
"Do cervical smears reduce mortality and morbidity?"
It asked whether there are some harmful effects from such smears. The case for smears is not quite as clear cut as that for immunisation against childhood diseases such as polio. I shall not explore that interesting matter, but I commend the article to the Minister. I am sure that he has seen it. I
786
believe that it contains some analysis, which, on reflection and once the cervical smear programme has continued, may prove to be more important than we now realise.
Tonight I want to draw attention to the steepness of the targeting. I want the Minister to consider the data that I offer in terms of lists from GPs, which demonstrate their difficulties in reaching their targets in an acceptable manner. The Minister should reconsider the way in which we can assure women that their preventive health care in this matter will be best looked after.
I believe that there should be a case for informed dissenters—women who are educated of the need to have a smear, are well informed, but who take the conscious decision not to have it. I should like such a woman not to be dominated by the knowledge that she may be disadvantaging her GP financially by a large sum of money. Consider the woman who might represent the 79 per cent. target rather than the 80 per cent. attainment, who believes that she is withholding that large sum of money from her doctor. I should like to find a way of allowing her to opt out without affecting the doctor's income.
The test is not thought to be relevant to certain categories of women—for instance, those who have never been sexually active, those who are severely mentally or physically handicapped, nuns, ethnic minorities, women who have had hysterectomies, the terminally ill and those undergoing treatment for long-term conditions. Let us take the example of ethnic minorities: given the clustering of different groups in the United Kingdom today, many women on the target list might well belong to a religion which would cause them to feel unhappy about being treated by a male practitioner in any event. I know that the Minister shares my concern about the shortage of women GPs. Younger women, in particular, will feel very distressed if the test is pressed on them as a matter of urgency and priority, but women in their early 60s,—whether or not they belong to ethnic minorities—will also feel unhappy if they are continually pressed to take the test, perhaps many years after they have ceased to be sexually active.
This is not an attempt to pretend that some GPs are unscrupulous and will be unpleasant. In the very best practices there may be an over-zealous receptionist. I received a letter from a widow of 64 who was deeply distressed. She had visited her GP and found that he was away; she saw a stand-in doctor, who, although delightful, "targeted" her fiercely, saying that if she did not have the test his income—or that of her own GP—would be at risk. She went home. Since then, the receptionist has telephoned her a number of times.
My constituency contains a higher-than-normal proportion of mentally handicapped people. I hasten to add that that is not caused by any inborn genetic error, but is due to exceptionally good provision of medical care and social welfare. Parents bring their children to live there, because they know that they will receive the best possible treatment. That has skewed the lists of some GPs—as has the fact that the constituency contains more than one convent: nuns and virgins are at almost incalculably low risk. A male doctor will be admitted to an enclosed convent only in extremis, and it would be extremely distressing if the sisters were subjected to such pressure.
At the other end of the spectrum, I was talking this morning to a GP in Glasgow who has an unusually high turnover of young women because of the local student

787
population. She has an annual "handover" of 12 per cent., but manages to target only 46 per cent. She is a very determined woman, and is keenly aware of the necessity involved. There is a good deal of social deprivation in her area, and she finds the pattern interesting. She writes letters to all the previous smear patients, and to all eligible women. I know that the Minister will be very interested to hear that the response rate from those eligible women, who are not normally seeing her, is as low as 5 per cent. I must admit that I am puzzled as to how a keen and eager woman GP with a large socially deprived population in the east end of Glasgow, who through her best efforts is reaching only 46 per cent. of the target, can do any better.
I have a batch of material from different areas, which I shall show the Minister after the debate, if I may. It contains letters from general practitioners telling me of their particular difficulties and why they find this a daunting target. One GP from Middlesex has an over-large number of special patient groups on his list, including a convent, two homes and five community hostels for the mentally handicapped. Another practice in the north-east reached 75·6 per cent. of its cervical cytology target in 1987–88. However, the GP does not believe that the practice can reach the 80 per cent. requirement for the higher target payment because of the resistance to smear tests encountered in women in the 60-64 age group. That is a prevalent feature in areas such as mine, where there is an unduly high age profile.
I have several other examples of where difficulties arise, including inner cities. A GP practising in Manchester states:
"I am working in an inner city area where it's difficult enough to motivate people to come along anyway. If you do your patients' smears or vaccinations and then they move on"
he also has an area where the mobility rate is high—
"you find that you are doing work and not being paid for it."
The mobility of the British population causes great problems for GPs. The latest survey shows that we each move, on average, once every five years. The slowness with which medical records follow the patient makes it difficult for the GP to have an up-to-date and accurate register to obtain the payment. It is probable that only 45 per cent. of GPs have an accurate age, sex register.
If doctors have this steep target payment, it is difficult not to believe that at least a few of them will be intrusive and invasive, which may upset many women. I should be unhappy if that happened. While nearly all the doctors to whom I spoke were totally in favour of cervical screening for all sexually active females, they were also in favour of a woman's right to say no, without being afraid of upsetting her GP or even, in extreme cases, being asked to leave his or her list. Will the Minister consider those points?
11.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and convey to her the apologies of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health who cannot be with us tonight. My hon. Friend the Minister was hoping to have replied to an earlier attempt at this Adjournment debate, and I am a poor substitute to deal with this subject.
788
I welcome my hon. Friend's support for the screening programme. She describes it as invasive, which I can understand. It is an important programme for women between the ages of 25 and 64, who should be screened at least once every five years. We should not forget women over the age of 64, who should also benefit from regular screening, although they are not part of the more formal programme to which I referred. I am also grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the measures on anonymity of information which we have introduced, in terms of statistics passing from general practitioners to the family practitioner committee. That was an important step to protect information about individual hysterectomy becoming, at least in patients' minds, too widely known.
Some 2,000 deaths a year can still be attributed to cancer of the cervix, which is 2,000 too many. Screening can undoubtedly reduce that number. Experts in the Department of Health estimate that an effective screening programme could reduce that number by 80 per cent.
To illustrate our belief that we can do better, my hon. Friend might be interested in two recent reports, one from the Association of Community Health Councils of England and Wales, and the other from the department of epidemiology and social oncology in Manchester. They have published data based on their respective surveys of community health councils and district health authorities. Among community health councils, take-up has varied between 16 per cent. and 75 per cent. Of the 99 out of 185 community health councils which responded to the questionnaire, 34 gave an indication of take-up. The majority, 24, reported take-up ranging from 46 per cent. to 75 per cent.
Of the 178 out of 190 district health authorities which responded to the surveys, only 66 provided information on take-up; 22—33 per cent.—reported take-up of between 51 per cent. and 75 per cent., and 28–42 per cent.—reported take-up of between 26 per cent. and 50 per cent. My hon. Friend will agree that we can and should do better to save the lives of as large a proportion as possible of the 2,000 or so women who die each year. Those statistics suggest that we can do better.
The present position is as my hon. Friend described it. It might be helpful to put it on the record that for the lower base payment to be made there must be a 50 per cent. take-up. If that is achieved, on each quarter day after 1 April one quarter of £760—the amount payable per annum for the average practice—will be paid. The average practice will have 430 women. If the practice is larger, the payment will be commensurately larger, and vice versa. The figures that my hon. Friend quoted were for average practices.
If at the end of the quarter in question more than 50 per cent. of the available patients who fall to be screened have been screened, the payment will be made, and the same applies to successive quarters. If the percentage arising on the quarter day is 80 per cent. or more, the sum will be three times higher. My hon. Friend referred to £2,280, and a quarter of that will be paid on the quarter days.
Health authority clinics can do the screening. If they do, they contribute to achieving the target, but the doctor does not receive the proportionate payment for what the clinic achieves. The same is true for immunisation and vaccination.
It is important to note that we have increased the capitation payments which apply whether or not the

789
doctor achieves either the lower or the higher targets. As my hon. Friend will recall, that has been increased from £8·95 to £12·40 per head per annum.
It might be helpful if I try to set down four basic aims of the screening programme. First, we want to try to reach all categories at risk. I have to part company with my hon. Friend at this point because the Department has received medical advice that all women, except those who have had hysterectomies, whatever their status or professional calling in society and whatever their history of sexual activity, are in theory liable to catch cancer of the cervix. We want to reach all categories.
Secondly, we believe that reaching the 50 per cent. target should be achievable for all doctors. It is interesting to note that the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body, in its calculation of the average award for next year of an 11·5 per cent. increase in remuneration, assumed that all doctors would achieve at least the basic 50 per cent.
Thirdly, the higher target—the 80 per cent. target—should be seen as a real bonus and challenge. The nub of the problem that my hon. Friend described is the pressure that may arise through seeking to achieve a higher bonus. However, we have so structured it that it presents an additional 0·8 per cent. in doctors' remuneration, so that if a doctor achieves the higher target, his remuneration is increased by 12·3 per cent. for the year 1990–91.
My hon. Friend cited certain categories for potential exclusion. I am not suggesting that we should act on her proposals, but if we did, logically we should aim for 100 per cent. target payment. If we excluded all those categories, including those who refused screening as a matter of conscience and those who failed to respond to two or more letters, instead of the 80 per cent. target which is an attempt to recognise that some women may not wish to enter the screening programme, we should increase the target figure.
Our fourth aim is to reach all geographic areas of the country. My hon. Friend referred to inner city problems. She must have been thinking of the Asian community where social or religious pressures might be involved in any consideration of taking up the screening programme. She might be interested to know that we have recently funded four cancer screening development workers at Kirklees, Camberwell, Liverpool and north-west Thames. I have seen the link workers working with the Asian community in Leicester—particularly the women—to explain the benefits of screening. It is vital to make sure that women doctors are available to provide the screening.
We also provide an extra incentive for those working in the inner cities who may have difficulty reaching the higher target figures by providing a special inner city supplement of £8·80 per head. That is the maximum, so with an average patient list of 2,000 patients in a practice in an inner city deprived area, the doctor could earn £17,000 over and above the remuneration that would be payable in my hon. Friend's constituency or mine which do not suffer from inner city deprivation.
I am not suggesting that that is a substitute for achieving the higher target figure, but it must be remembered that it is a relatively generous programme that will affect 10 per cent. of the population.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: There is a serious question of interference with civil liberties and individual freedom. Nobody would challenge the well-meaning nature of what
790
the Government are doing and the desirability of it, but I hope that my hon. Friend will keep in mind that in some areas, such as my constituency, substantial numbers of Muslim ladies do not want to subject themselves to the screening programme; nor do the doctors wish to impose it on them. I have heard of a doctor who has 600 nuns on his list of patients. In those circumstances there are considerable problems. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about these matters, and I ask him to bear in mind the strength of feeling. There comes a time when the nanny state should not go too far and invade people's freedom.
Mr. Freeman: The hon. and learned Gentleman re-emphasised the main and final point that my hon. Friend raised—
Mr. Lawrence: I am the Minister's hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Freeman: The hour is late and this is the third Adjournment debate that I have dealt with in the past 48 hours.
Members of the Muslim community are as liable to cancer of the cervix as are those in any other section of the community and it is our responsibility to make sure that there are proper incentives, and no more, for the general practitioners involved to educate and encourage members of the Muslim community, as well as nuns and virgins, to have screening. The medical advice that we have received is that all except people who have had hysterectomies could be susceptible to cancer of the cervix and it could be beneficial for them to have regular screening.
I look forward to studying the cases presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West. It is most unprofessional for a doctor to place pressure on a patient over and above explaining the benefits of screening. Such pressure is unnecessary and reprehensible, and where it occurs the Department will ensure that family practitioner committees pursue it.
It is not our aim that pressure should be placed on women. If they decide, for whatever reason, not to take the screening test, that is their right and no further pressure should be brought to bear. That should not entail a penalty for doctors. I have already said that achievement of the higher target will bring a bonus—an increase in average remuneration of 11·5 per cent. We do not want doctors to give up once they have reached the 50 per cent. base target and to say, "I shall never reach the target of 80 per cent., so I will make no further effort." They should remember that a capitation payment is offered, and that it is their duty to draw to patients' attention the benefits of the screening programme.
May I give my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West five assurances? First, I shall report directly what has been said tonight to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who is concerned about the matter. Secondly, the Department will carefully monitor the outcome of the new doctors' contract and whether pressure is brought to bear on patients. Thirdly, we shall give careful thought to the national campaigns and to the campaigns aimed at explaining to the ethnic minority communities the benefits of screening in a sensible and balanced way. Fourthly, the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body will monitor carefully the remuneration of doctors to ensure that they suffer no financial penalties if, after hard endeavours, they

791
are unable to reach the higher target. Fifthly, I look forward to reading the dozen cases that my hon. Friend mentioned. I shall pursue them and write in detail to her.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Ferries (Safety)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken to improve the safety of existing roll on/roll off ferries since the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have taken a number of steps to improve ferry safety since March 1987. Firstly, new legislation and guidance—including eight sets of regulations—have been introduced. The control of operational procedures which the new regulations have ensured has been fully supplemented by increased numbers of random and unannounced inspections by Department of Transport marine surveyors. Secondly, we have required all United Kingdom flag ferries, irrespective of year of build, to meet the United Kingdom residual stability standards introduced for new vessels in 1980. All but a handful of the older United Kingdom ships, which are at present being phased out, now meet these standards, which exceed current international stability standards. Thirdly, a wide-ranging research programme to examine the capability of roll on/roll off passenger ships to survive after sustaining collision damage has been undertaken. Its findings will be made public shortly.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether all roll on/roll off ferries now comply with the passenger ships regulations in respect of stability in the event of an incident at sea.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  All United Kingdom registered roll on/roll off passenger ships comply with the United Kingdom and international passenger ship regulations which include requirements in respect of stability in the event of an incident at sea.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call for a report from the chairman of London Underground Ltd. about plans to refit the automatic ticket barriers on the London underground and as to what is proposed, for what reason and at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  This is an operational matter for London Underground Ltd. I am not aware of any plans to refit the gates, but I understand that a new touch-and-pass system of operating automatic ticket gates will be adopted at certain stations for a trial period of six months.

  I am sure that London Underground would be happy to provide the hon. Member with full information on how the system works and what its benefits are.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call for a report from the chairman of LRT on the 240
  policy of extending one-person operation of trains on deep tube lines of London; what assessment has been made of the risk to passengers of such a policy; whether this policy has been approved by the railway inspectorate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The decision to extend one-person operation on any part of the underground is for London Underground. I understand that it commissioned an independent assessment before introducing one-person operation on the Bakerloo line last year.

  Although the railway inspectorate has no statutory role in approving one-person operation, there is full consultation with London Underground over all safety aspects. The inspectorate observed a recent exercise, which simulated an emergency caused by incapacitation of a one-person-operation train driver. The chief inspecting officer of railways has assured me that he regards the arrangements as acceptable in safety terms.

  "Marchioness"
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received to set-up a full public inquiry into the sinking of the Marchioness; and what has been his response;

  (2) whether he will publish in full his Department's inquiry into the sinking of the Marchioness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Several requests have been made for a formal investigation into the sinking of the Marchioness. The present preference of my right hon. Friend is to publish in full the report by the chief inspector of accidents as soon as possible.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Bowbelle and other sand dredgers are working on the Thames outside daylight hours; and what changes in their operation since the Marchioness sinking his Department had required of them.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Bowbelle, other sand dredgers and other ships operate on the Thames at all hours provided that they follow the general directions for navigation issued by the Port of London Authority. These directions have been reconsidered and amended since the Marchioness tragedy, in consultation with the Department of Transport, to improve safety on the river.

  Jubilee Line
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) at what stage of the Jubilee line project Olympia and York will pay its contribution to the cost of the extension;

  (2) what was the financial contribution that Olympia and York was going to make to the Jubilee line under the terms of the provisional contract or orginal agreement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Under the agreement reached last November Olympia and York will make a cash contribution of £400 million to the Jubilee line extension. Of that sum, £100 million will be paid within the next three years with the balance to be paid in the years following the opening of the line.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his practice from time to time
  241
  to travel on the Jubilee line of London Underground between St. John's Wood and Charing Cross stations in order to experience for himself the conditions undergone by regular passengers.

  Mr. Portillo
  No, but I have travelled on many parts of the underground at peak times and I am aware that congestion can be severe. London Underground is investing record sums, with Government support, to bring about improvements. St. John's Wood station will be renovated this spring at a cost of about £1 million.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which developers other than Olympia and York will be contributing to the extension of the Jubilee line.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Gas and Regalian.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether there has been any change in the level of the net contribution which Olympia and York will be making for the Jubilee line extension.

  Mr. Portillo
  No.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any options are being considered to reduce the number of intermediate stations in the Southwark stretch of the Jubilee line extension.

  Mr. Portillo
  Powers are being sought in the Bill for stations in the Southwark stretch of the Jubilee line extension at Waterloo, Southwark, London Bridge, Bermondsey and Canada Water (Surrey Quays). The case for providing stations at Southwark and Bermondsey, where patronage is expected to be light, is still being considered.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether a provisional contract or agreement for the funding of the Jubilee line has been signed by his Department or London Regional Transport with Olympia and York.

  Mr. Portillo
  A schedule of terms setting out the agreement reached last November has been initialled by the Department and Olympia and York. The final agreement will be executed by London Regional Transport and Olympia and York.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether Olympia and York will be taking a share of the ticket revenue from passengers after the opening of the Jubilee line extension.

  Mr. Portillo
  No.

  London Assessment Studies
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he received by 28 February relating to each of the four London assessment studies; and what percentage of the total(a) supported and (b) objected to these proposals.

  Mr. Atkins
  The number of responses received from local authorities, national and local organisations, pressure groups and individuals was approximately as follows:242

  Number

  South London

  9,700

  East London

  9,500

  West London

  4,600

  South Circular

  2,600

  An analysis will be published shortly.

  "St Columbia"
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the marine accident investigation branch has investigated the role of the radio officer in maintaining vital radio communications with the emergency services during the fire which left the roll-on roll-off passenger ferry St. Columbia adrift without power in the Irish sea on Wednesday 31 January; and what conclusions have been drawn from the investigation.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The purpose of an investigation carried out by the marine accident investigation branch is to determine the circumstances and causes of an accident. To this end, the inspector who carried out the investigation into the fire on board the St. Columbia on 31 January interviewed several of the ship's officers—including the radio officer. The inspector found that the fire occurred when fuel oil escaped from a pipe and sprayed onto a hot exhaust manifold, causing the oil to ignite. A report will be published to apprise the shipping industry of the lessons to be learnt.

  Sprinter Units
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the safety of sprinter units; and what steps are being taken to ensure that the doors on such units lock securely.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have received a small number of representations. Problems with the door-locking mechanisms of class 155 sprinters developed towards the end of 1988. After modification, the doors have worked satisfactorily. The railway inspectorate is now examining at design stage all proposals for new BR rolling stock.

  St. John's Wood Underground Station
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call for a report on the safety aspects of the closure of both the up and down escalators at St. John's Wood underground station.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to his question on 27 March.

  Clyde Port Authority
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the names of the chairman, chief executive and directors of the Clyde Port Authority; what are their periods of office and their annual remuneration; and from which organisation they were recruited and appointed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has appointed the following non-executive members of the Clyde Port Authority:
  243

  Name

  Organisation

  Expiry date of appointment

  Sir Robert Easton CBE (Chairman)

  Chairman and managing director of Kvaerner Govan, Shipbuilders

  31 March 1992

  L. McGarry

  Chairman of Strathclyde regional council's economic and industrial development committee

  31 March 1991

  W. K. Mackay

  Partner in Jamieson & Mackay Partners, consulting civil, structural and transportation engineers

  31 March 1992

  G. S. Milne

  Managing Director of Scottish Metropolitan Property plc

  31 March 1992

  T. O'Connor

  Chairman of the local port workers branch of the TGWU

  31 March 1992

  C. S. Paterson

  Chief Executive of Caledonian McBrayne Limited

  31 March 1992

  J. M. Young

  Former joint general manager and member of the management board of the Bank of Scotland

  31 March 1991

  The executive officers who are members of the board and whose appointments are at the discretion of the authority are:

  J. Mather—managing director

  G. P. Johnston—director and secretary

  Captain D. B. McMurray—director marine and operations

  According to the authority's accounts for 1988, the annual remuneration received by the chairman was £10,000 and by the other non-executive members was £3,500. The highest paid executive on the board received £44,385 and the other two received between £20,000 and £35,000.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions have been reached, as a result of the trial carried out by his Department, about conducting driving tests on Saturdays.

  Mr. Atkins
  The trial was very successful and confirmed that Saturday testing is a practical proposition at many

  1978–79

  1989–90

  Number of dwellings1

  Rent income2

  Number of dwellings1

  Rent income2

  £ million

  £ million

  Ashford

  9,637

  2·962

  7,607

  10·393

  Canterbury

  8,039

  2·578

  6,375

  7·386

  Dartford

  7,882

  2·643

  5,971

  6·979

  Dover

  9,209

  3·172

  6,564

  8·123

  Gillingham

  5,090

  1·490

  3,935

  5·142

  Gravesham

  9,425

  3·163

  7,642

  8·562

  Maidstone

  10,158

  3·854

  8,354

  7·789

  Rochester

  13,850

  5·202

  38,880

  11·274

  Sevenoaks

  7,855

  2·389

  61

  0·075

  Shepway

  4,868

  1·475

  4,149

  5·279

  Swale

  9,989

  3·176

  7,440

  7·995

  Thanet

  8,302

  3·240

  47,162

  46·802

  Tonbridge

  7,697

  2·416

  6,450

  7·099

  Tunbridge Wells

  7,352

  2·269

  5,650

  6·128

  1 Average of start year and end year stock.

  2 Gross of rent rebates.

  3 Stock at beginning of year, authority planned complete stock disposal at year end.

  4 Figures for 1989–90 not available; 1988–89 figures given.

  244
  centres. In the first year the service was used by some 30,000 candidates, and contributed three to four days to the reduction in waiting times. I have decided to continue the service on a permanent basis, and to extend it to all centres where it is feasible to do so.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing, Kent
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the number of council houses, flats and sheltered accommodation owned by each local authority in Kent in 1978 and 1989, together with the amount collected in rent.

  Mr. Chope
  Local authorities provide estimates of their housing revenue accounts on their second advance subsidy claim returns. The latest available information for local authorities in Kent for 1978–79 and 1989–90 is as follows:

  Disabled People (Housing)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to ensure a more even spread and consistent provision of improvement and disabled facilities grants to disabled home owners across the country.

  Mr. Chope
  When the main provisions of part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 are implemented on 1 July, mandatory disabled facilities grants will be available from all local authorities for a much wider range of adaptation works than the current home improvement grant system allows. Authorities will also be able to give discretionary grants for other works, which will vary according to local needs and priorities.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to ensure that local housing authorities address the housing needs of disabled people in their area.

  Mr. Chope
  Local housing authorities are required by Section 3 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to have regard to the special housing needs of disabled people when considering the housing needs of their district.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department will make a supplementary credit approval available for local housing authorities to adapt their own properties for disabled people.

  Mr. Chope
  Resources for local authority capital expenditure on housing are allocated through the annual round of housing investment programme (HIP) allocations. The distribution of these allocations reflects the entire spectrum of needs for local authority capital expenditure, including the adaptation of council housing stock for disabled tenants. There is no need, therefore, to issue supplementary credit approvals for this purpose.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department will take steps to ensure that landlords taking over local authority property under the Housing Acts 1986 and 1988 address the housing needs both of disabled tenants and of future disabled applicants for housing.

  Mr. Chope
  Purchasers of council housing, whether acquiring under tenants' choice or by a large scale voluntary transfer from a local authority, will be expected to subscribe to the tenants' guarantee, which requires landlords to pay special attention to the specific housing difficulties experienced by particular groups, including disabled people. Purpose-built housing for the disabled which has special facilities, such as a warden, is excluded from transfers under tenants' choice.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department will update the guidelines contained in HDD occasional paper 2/74 "Mobility Housing" and HDD occasional paper 2/75 "Wheelchair Housing".

  Mr. Chope
  I am satisfied that the guidelines contained in these papers are sound and have no plans to update them.
  246
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to encourage the provision of wheelchair and mobility housing by general needs housing associations.

  Mr. Chope
  The Housing Corporation requires new build and, where possible, rehabilitation schemes by housing associations to be built to mobility standards, and the cost criteria used by the corporation in assessing schemes and calculating grant make due allowance for this. Where associations wish to provide new housing designed specifically for tenants confined to wheelchairs, grant is available to cover the extra costs involved.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to ensure that local authorities' action on providing housing for homeless people addresses the housing needs of homeless disabled people.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  A revised code of guidance is being prepared which will provide advice to local authorities on meeting their statutory duties to the homeless. This will include the need to recognise special requirements, such as those of the disabled, when securing permanent accommodation for homeless households.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to make supplementary credit approvals available to local housing authorities to provide housing for disabled people leaving residential care.

  Mr. Chope
  We have no proposals to issue supplementary credit approvals to local authorities for this purpose in 1990–91. The Department takes account of the housing needs of disabled people in the distribution of local authorities' housing investment programme (HIP) allocations each year. In addition, the Housing Corporation plans to maintain the output of their special needs programme in 1990–91 at no less than current levels, and disabled people are one of the groups helped by this programme.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department will take steps to ensure that all private developers build to mobility standards with a minimum percentage of dwellings to wheelchair standards.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department fully supports the initiative by the National House-Building Council, in association with other interested bodies, to encourage private developers to design housing convenient for disabled people to live in or visit. We consider that voluntary action and good practice are the best way forward for private dwellings.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department is taking to ensure that local housing authorities work with social services departments on the new community care initiatives being developed as a result of the White Paper, "Caring for People".

  Mr. Chope
  My Department has been in regular contact with the Department of Health in the preparation of the
  247
  White Paper and of the ensuing legislation. Clause 43 of the Bill as now amended will require social services departments to consult local housing authorities and other housing providers in the preparation and revision of communtiy care plans.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the financial arrangements will be for the remaining social homes, after taking account of the Winsor Park development, of the London Docklands development corporation programme of 2,000 new rented homes in the docklands area of the London borough of Newham.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The memorandum of agreement between the London Docklands development corporation and the London borough of Newham has the objective of producing 1,500 social housing units. The London Docklands development corporation's grants towards schemes at Winsor Park and North Beckton have secured 434 of these. The London Docklands development corporation is considering the arrangements for further schemes in consultation with the Housing Corporation and Newham.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the Government's estimate of the number of households excused from paying rates in the current financial year because of insufficient income and the number who paid a reduced rate for the same reason; how many in each case were estimated as liable to pay more and how many less under the poll tax in identical circumstances; and how many who were not eligible for a reduction in rates on income grounds, will be eligible for a reduction under the poll tax.

  Mr. Chope
  No such estimates were made when it was decided that the community charge offered the best alternative to domestic rates.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will exclude expenditure on education from relevant expenditure for rate-capping purposes;

  (2) if he will exclude expenditure on maintenance of council housing from relevant expenditure for rate-capping purposes;

  (3) if he will exclude expenditure on public libraries from relevant expenditure for rate-capping purposes;

  (4) if he will make it his policy as part of his charge-capping proposals to indicate the areas of the capped budget in which he proposes each authority should make reductions.

  Mr. Chope
  It would not be right for me to speculate on the detailed operation of community charge capping, were my right hon. Friend to use his capping powers for 1990–91.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's current estimate of the number of households paying the full rate whose occupants would contribute less under the poll tax, and the average amount saved in each case.
  248
  Mr. Chope
  Had local authorities set community charges at the levels contained in the Community Charge Transitional Relief Report (England), I estimate that 55 per cent. of households with no entitlement to rate rebates in 1989–90 would pay a lower proportion of their net income in community charges in 1990–91 than they did in rates in 1989–90. The average amount paid in rates for these households in 1989–90 was £516 compared to £503 in community charge in 1990–91. These estimates are based on simple survey data taken from the family expenditure survey and are consistent with the analysis of the distributional impact of the community charge placed in the Library on 15 February.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the estimate of the numbers who would have (a) gained and (b) lost if the level of poll tax had not exceeded the Government's targets.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government have not set targets for the level of the community charge in each area. An analysis of the effect on household finances of moving to the community charge was placed in the Library on 15 February. This showed 60 per cent. of households gaining.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to exempt from poll tax women residing in refuges who have been the victims of domestic violence and have been forced to leave the marital home.

  Mr. Chope
  A period of residence within a women's refuge does not confer exemption from the community charge unless it is a night shelter or hostel. But, in general, women will not be registered at refuges for the community charge unless, exceptionally, they are solely or mainly resident there. In almost all cases, women stay in refuges for short periods, during which they will be registered for the personal charge at their previous address.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the total figures for 1990–91 local government finance for(a) the distributable amount, (b) the distributable amount per adult, (c) net total standard spending, (d) revenue support grant and (e) population of England.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is as follows:

  the distributable amount: £10·4 billion

  the distributable amount per adult: 292·51

  net total standard spending: £29·8 billion

  revenue support grant: £9·5 billion

  sum of the relevant populations of English charging authorities: 35·7 million.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, with reference to paragraph 2.5 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), what definition is used for(a) relevant populations as used in the explanation of distributable amount per adult and (b) relevant population, as used in the subsequent sub-paragraphs; and if he will list the relevant population for each authority.

  Mr. Chope
  The rules for calculating relevant population are set out in the Population Report (England) approved by this House on 18 January. Figures for each authority were placed in the Library on 11 January, with other details of the 1990–91 settlement.
  249
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, with reference to paragraph 3.7 of his Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), if he will list the results for each authority of applying formulae to indicators in section(a) and multiplying by the area cost adjustment for education, but not scaling to control.

  Mr. Chope
  I have today placed in the Library a table which shows the standard spending assessment for primary education for each authority, prior to scaling to the control total for this sub-block.

  Rateable Values
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what figures he has for the proportion of people living in properties of above average rateable value who have below average incomes.

  Mr. Chope
  I estimate that 40 per cent. of houses with above average rateable value are lived in by households who have below average incomes.

  Toxic Wood Preservatives
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the regulations for the storage of toxic wood preservatives of the type which have polluted the River Bourne in Woking.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am satisfied that the existing controls over the storage of toxic wood preservatives are extensive and sufficiently comprehensive in most circumstances. In the case of the incident on the River Bourne at Woking, the cause is still under investigation by the local constabulary.

  The storage of wood preservatives is covered by the general provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, 1974. More specifically, wood preservatives are subject to the Control of Pesticides Regulations (COPR) made under the Food and Environment Protection Act, 1985. Certain timber treatment activities are also subject to the requirements of the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations, 1984, which aim to prevent and mitigate the consequences of major accidents to people or the environment. These regulations are due to be amended later this year to comply with the second amendment to the "Seveso" directive (82/501/EEC) to include additional premises storing toxic substances such as wood preservatives.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish from the English house condition survey 1986 information on the means of heating the bathroom tabulated(a) by income and (b) by tenure;

  (2) if he will publish from the English house condition survey 1986 information on the main form of heating in the living room tabulated by (a) income and (b) tenure;

  (3) if he will publish from the English house condition survey 1986 information on the form of heating used in kitchen and hall tabulated by (a) tenure and (b) income;

  (4) if he will publish from the English house condition survey 1986 information on the means of heating for other
  250
  (5) if he will publish from the House condition survey 1986 information on the main form of heating used in the interviewee's bedroom tabulated by (a) income and (b) tenure.

  Mr. Chope
  As I indicated in the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 18 January,Official Report, Column 366, information on these topics will be included in a supplementary report on the English house condition survey which will be published later this year.

  Bathing Waters
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to require the sampling of bathing waters to be undertaken during specified conditions.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The National Rivers Authority is the competent authority for the purposes of the bathing water directive. It is for that authority to sample waters in accordance with the directive's rules.

  Partnership Programme, Newcastle
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the environment what was the capital allocation for the 1989–90 partnership programme for Newcastle city; what has been the actual spend to date; what is the planned real outturn for 1989–90; and what will be the amount spent on projects within the parliamentary constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne, East.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The urban programme capital allocation to the Newcastle-Gateshead inner city partnership for 1989–90 is £12·3 million of which £6·14 million is allocated to Newcastle city. A total of £3·3 million of the Newcastle city allocation had been spent by 31 December 1989. The city council has recently informed my Department that there will be a £500,000 underspend on their capital allocation producing an estimated outturn figure of £5·64 million for Newcastle city for 1989–90. This underspend, however, has been contained within partnership through a transfer of resources to Gateshead MBC. My Department's regional office does not record urban programme expenditure by parliamentary constituency and therefore this information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Brighton Aquarium
  Mr Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make it his policy to institute an inquiry into animal welfare and safety conditions at the Brighton aquarium and to suspend its operating licence pending the outcome of the inquiry;

  (2) what educational purpose is served by the Brighton aquarium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Brighton aquarium is licensed by the local authority, Brighton borough council, under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. The Act gives local authorities the powers, inter alia, to carry out special inspections and to withdraw licenses, in certain circumstances. Animal welfare, safety conditions and educational value are among the factors which are taken into account in the issue of a licence.

  Dolphinaria
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what action he expects to take to review the operating licences of dolphinaria which have not replied to requests or reminders for details from United Kingdom dolphinaria of their operating plans for implementing new standards;

  (2) what enforcement action he proposes to take in the case of operators of dolphinaria failing to respond to his Department's requests for the submission of operators' plans or implementing new standards for dolphinara, pursuant to the 1986 Klinowska report;

  (3) when he expects to receive operators' plans for implementing new standards for dolphinaria from all four United Kingdom operators;

  (4) whether he proposes to review the operating licences of United Kingdom dolphinaria.

  Mr. Trippier
  The steering group report makes it clear that display exemption licences will only be renewed by my Department in August 1991 if satisfactory progress has been made towards attainment of the revised standards by August 1993. All four dolphinaria operators are aware of this deadline and three have now responded to our requests for information about their plans.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take regarding the implementation of the steering group's recommendations on the Klinowska report on revised criteria for licensing dolphinaria in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  My officials have undertaken consultations with all interested parties on the basis of the draft standards of modern zoo practice annexed to the steering group report. We will issue the additional standards once any outstanding technical questions have been resolved.

  County Hall
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider the use of County Hall for hon. Members' offices or other public use; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make it his policy in considering any planning appeals to ensure that in the event of development of County Hall the war memorial and inscribed marble detailing the offices of previous leading figures of the London county council and Greater London council will remain in situ;

  (2) if he will make it his policy, in considering any planning appeal relevant to County Hall, to ensure that the council chamber is not affected by any development proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend cannot prejudge the outcome of any planning appeal.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of money he estimates will be made available to London boroughs from the disposal of County Hall.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I cannot give an estimate in advance of the completion of a contract.
  252
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision regarding the future of County Hall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend will announce his decisions on the planning appeals which were the subject of a public inquiry last autumn when he has considered his inspector's report.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution was made by Her Majesty's Government to the CITES secretariat ivory unit in the year 1989–90 to date.

  Mr. Trippier
  In the year 1989–90, the United Kingdom contributed £5,000 towards the running of the CITES monitoring unit for trade in raw ivory.

  Local Authority Properties
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about inefficient use of resources in respect of local authorities completely reroofing properties in their ownership in place of reinstating them with a longer expectation of life at less cost.

  Mr. Chope
  None.

  Heritage Organisations
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grants will be available in 1990–91 for voluntary heritage organisations.

  Mr. Trippier
  The table gives the voluntary organisations to which grants will be made in 1990–91 in support of the work they do to promote and protect parts of the national heritage.

  Applicant

  Grant

  £

  Architectural Heritage Fund

  23,616

  Cathedral Camps

  21,500

  Centre for Environmental Interpretation

  8,666

  The Insite Trust

  3,900

  The Garden History Society

  10,700

  The National Council for the Conservation of Plants and Gardens

  5,000

  Heritage Education Trust

  16,000

  Pennine Heritage

  18,000

  Theatres Trust

  15,375

  International Council on Monuments and Sites

  12,000

  The Ancient Monuments Society

  16,810

  The Council for British Archaeology

  16,810

  The Georgian Group

  16,810

  The Victorian Society

  17,336

  The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings

  24,810

  A separate announcement will be made about the amount of grant to the Civic Trust.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1989 on management and computer
  253
  consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that his Department has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 28 March 1990]: Central records are collated annually after the end of the financial year. The latest readily available information therefore covers 1988–89.

  The total amount spent was £6·3 million and the contracts awarded to management or computing consultants, excluding consultancies in connection with water privatisation, by the Department of the Environment (excluding PSA) in the financial year 19988–89 were as follows:

  Firm and subject of consultancy
  Admiral Management Services—Review of BRE Computing Needs.
  Aspinwall and Co.—Data Management System for HMIP.
  D. E. Barnard Systems Ltd.—Water Services Office: IS Strategy.
  Bickerdike Allen and Partners—Review of Fire and Building Regulations.
  BIS Applied Systems Ltd.—H. C. Geotechnical Data Computerisation.
  Building Design Partnership—Study of New Arts Building.
  Business Statistics Office—Collection of data on Minerals by Annual Survey.
  Claygate Services Ltd.—Large Colour Foils.
  Coopers and Lybrand—East Thameside Housing Study.
  Coopers and Lybrand—Extension of Merseyside Development Corporation.
  DPM Design Consultants Ltd.—Colour Photography.
  Downing White Project Management—Local Economic Issues—Private Sector Quantity Surveyors.
  Halcrow Fox and Associates—East London Rail Study.
  Halifax Building Society— Estate Action Consultancy.
  Harwell Laboratory—Initial Development of a Universal Waste Classification System.
  Healey and Baker—Advice on disposal of New Town Assets.
  ICI—Radiochemical analysis Specification L.
  Institute for European Environmental Policy—Assessment of Implications for UK Environmental Policy of the Single Market.
  Institute for European Environmental Policy—EC Legislation and Implications for UK Policy.
  ITEC—Waste Management Papers 4 and 27.
  L G Management—Contact with Estate Action.
  MVA Systematica—Migration model.
  National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service Ltd.—Energy Surveys.
  N.E.R.C.—Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986.
  P A Computers and Telecommunications Ltd.—Press Advice on Communications Links.
  P A Computers and Telecommunications Ltd.—Local Government Finance Payment System.
  Peat Marwick McLintock and Pic Ltd.—Housing Action Trust (Sunderland).
  Pieda Ltd.—Leeds Housing Action Trust.
  Price Waterhouse—Sandwell Housing Action Trust Main Study.
  Price Waterhouse—Study of the Private Rented Housing Market.
  Primagraphics—Preparation of Graphics for the 1986 English House Condition Survey Report.
  Roger Tym and Partners—Study into Financial Aspects of Local Authority Building Control.
  Stoy Haywood Associates—Urban Developmental Grant Appraisal.
  Technical Writing Service Ltd.—Manual of Acidic Emission Technologies.
  Travers Morgan Landscape—Advice on Community related Assets at Warrington.
  Tree Conservation Ltd.—T.P.O. Appeals Site Inspections
  254
  and Reports.
  Willis Wrightson Ltd.—Professional Liability Review.
  Sir Owen Williams and Partners—Assistance with consideration of Derelict Land Reclamation Schemes.
  My Department's estimate of expenditure on computing and management consultancies in the financial year 1989–90 is £10·1 million.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount spent by the Property Services Agency in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts; excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awareded by the Property Services Agency in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that the Property Services Agency has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Forecast expenditure by the Property Services Agency in the financial year 1989–90 will be £13·035 million. The planned expenditure for 1990–91 financial year is £9·5 million. This will be kept under review in the light of changing circumstances. The following consultancies were let in 1989–90:

  Consultancy Firm and Subject of Assignment Management Consultancy
  W.S. Atkins Management Consultants—To review the information systems supporting the business objectives of PSA Fuel Branch.
  P.A. Consulting Services Ltd.—Advice and support to PSA Projects Marketing Unit.
  Micromoney Ltd.—Advice and Support to Financial Controller, PSA Specialist Services.
  W.S. Atkins Management Consultants—Business study at Parliamentary Works Office.
  Leads International—Development and Implementation of Project Services's Business Plan.
  P.A. Consulting Services Ltd.—Advice and guidance to the Agency's Information Strategy and Planning Processes.
  P.A. Consulting Services Ltd.—Assist in co-ordinating Agency's Business Plan.

  Computer Consultancy
  Cadvert Scanning Bureau—Conversion of 6 No Standard M&E Drawings.
  Compsoft—Assistance in reconstituting corrupt data as Faslane.
  Powerhouse Resources Ltd.—Assistance in drawing up a specification for the development of Digital computer interface system.
  Myriad Computer Services Ltd.—Assistance in drawing up a specification for the development of ICL-Digital computer interface system.

  Computer Consultancy
  Amtec Consulting—Assist in development of procedures for configuration management.
  Oracle Corporation (UK) Ltd.—Preliminary work for Professional Information Systems Project.
  KPG Computer Support Systems Ltd.—Development of Oracle Applications progress from detailed specifications.
  Elan Computing Ltd.—Support within IT Directorate for resolution of system management queries.
  MDA Computer Group plc—Support within IT Directorate for resolution of system management queries.
  DHP Consulting Group—Support for revised computer based management and cost accounting system for PSA Specialist Services.
  Mouncey and Partners Ltd.—Assistance in National Implementation of Strategic Infrastructure for Building Management Business.
  Peat Marwick McLintock—Assistance in National Implementation of Strategic Infrastructure for Projects Business.
  Applications Development Group—Advice on transferring data between PCs and Digital computers.
  Computastaff (UK) Ltd.—Programming of various applications from detailed specification.
  Cyril Sweet and Partners—Support for introduction of

  255
  computer facilities to Quantity Surveyors in PSA. Sophitscom Computer Services— Operational support to computer systems handed over from Crown Suppliers.

  Computer Consultancy
  Aptree Ltd.—Support for Computer Services help desk in Ashdown House, Hastings.
  Mouncey and Partners Ltd.—Assist the introduction of Office Automation facilities in PSA.
  P.A. Consulting Services Ltd.— Support to National Implementation of Strategic Infrastructure for Projects Business.
  Vistec Business Systems Ltd.—Advice on use and imple-mentation of Autocad software package into PSA.
  P.E. Computer Services Ltd.—Assist design and installation of Government Car Service IT system.
  Elan Computing Ltd.—Support within IT Directorate for resolution of system management queries.
  Wocad Ltd.—Assist in the development of Autocad software package.
  MDA Computer Group plc.—Managing hardware/software and telecommunications network.
  GECS Ltd.—Training in use of Reinforced concrete CAD software package.
  Loadplan—Conversion of document-based Airfield Pavement specification to computer disc.
  Oracle Corporation (UK) Ltd.— Provision of Oracle Programming Support.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local government unions and professional bodies are being consulted about the provision of nuclear, biological and chemical defence clothing and equipment to local authority staff with a civil defence role.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have been asked to reply.

  No formal consultations are being held with these bodies in regard to protective clothing for civil defence purposes. A current working party, including representation from the Society of County Emergency Planning Officers, is concerned with the possible use of radiation survey equipment in wartime.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food (Value)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the proportion of the value of food which has gone to(a) the producer and (b) the processor, wholesaler and retailer in each year since 1973.

  Mr. Curry
  Figures for the period 1973 to 1987 are as follows. However, this series was discontinued due to doubts about the validity and meaningfulness of the calculations and the difficulty of making the necessary estimates given the increasing complexity of the food chain.

  Percentage of the price of food going to the producer or to the processor, wholesaler and retailer

  Producers

  Processors, wholesalers and retailers

  1973

  51·9

  48·1

  1974

  52·6

  47·4

  1975

  49·9

  50·1

  1976

  52·2

  47·8

  1977

  52·5

  47·5

  1978

  49·2

  50·8

  1979

  40·0

  51·0

  1980

  43·9

  56·1

  1981

  44·0

  56·0

  256

  Producers

  Processors, wholesalers and retailers

  1982

  45·8

  54·2

  1983

  44·1

  55·9

  1984

  46·6

  53·4

  1985

  44·1

  55·9

  1986

  42·0

  58·0

  1987

  40·5

  59·5

  Notes:

  1. The producers' share is derived from estimates of agricultural products produced in the United Kingdom for home consumption valued at farmgate prices and imported food valued at shipside prices.

  2. The share of processors, wholesalers and retailers is derived from estimates of household expenditure on food at retail plus the estimates of the wholsale value of food used in the catering sector. The retail price of food is valued less taxes but including subsidies.

  3. More detailed figures are given in CSO's Annual Abstract of Statistics, 1988 edition, Table 9.16.

  Farms
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the proportion of total capital grant expenditure that is given to each category of small, medium and large farms.

  Mr. Curry
  Information on total capital grant expenditure is not available in the form requested. However, the proportion of grant expenditure in England and Wales under the agriculture improvement scheme is identifiable by size of farm holdings as measured in British size units (BSUs). The latest year for which data are available is 1988 and the proportions of total grant expenditure of £25·4 million for that year are as follows:

  1988 Size of Holding (BSU)

  Per cent. of Total Grant Expenditure

  0–8

  14·8

  8–24

  35·7

  24–100

  43·3

  100 plus

  6·2

  Marine Coastal Eutrophication
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why his Department decided not to be represented at the international conference on marine coastal eutrophication from 21 to 24 March.

  Mr. Curry
  The conference was principally concerned with the problems which are experienced in shallow, static, warm seas such as the Mediterranean. These issues are not relevant to the colder, well mixed waters round the United Kingdom.

  Salmonella
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many samples from live poultry of all types have been examined by Ministry laboratories for the presence of salmonella during 1988 and 1989; and how many samples from other animal species were similarly examined.

  Mr. Maclean
  From 1 January to 31 December 1989, a total of 131,472 samples were submitted to the Department's veterinary investigation centres in England
  257
  and Wales for testing for the presence of salmonella in poultry. It is not possible to say how many of these samples came from live birds, carcases of birds or the environment of live birds or how many were examined in 1988 from live birds or other animal species.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times in 1989 his Ministry's laboratories have misidentified or misreported the serotypes of salmonellas they have examined.

  Mr. Maclean
  There have been no occasions in 1989 when a salmonella serotype was misidentified by the Ministry's veterinary laboratories. However on four occasions misreporting occurred, primarily due to clerical-typing errors.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to restrict the spreading of manure from calves and pigs infected with salmonella on to farmland in line with his restrictions on the spreading of manure from infected poultry flocks.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of whether intact grade A eggs, derived from flocks infected with salmonella enteritidis, delivered to egg producing plants and pasteurised immediately after breaking out, would introduce such heavy contamination into the pasteurisation process that it would overwhelm the process and cause it to fail.

  Mr. Maclean
  As I explained to my hon. Friend in my answers to earlier questions, only a moderate heat treatment can be applied to liquid egg during the pasteurisation process otherwise its functional properties are destroyed. It is also important in processing to prevent salmonella contamination of the plant environment which would put the final pasteurised product at risk. For these reasons, processing plants cannot accept raw product from infected flocks which may be contaminated with salmonella enteritidis.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his assessment of the possibility of domestic wild birds infecting farm animals with salmonella typhimurium and enteritidis through their droppings.

  Mr. Maclean
  Salmonella organisms are widespread in the environment and the potential for the infection of farm animals through wild birds exists.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provisions apply to the slaughter of laying flocks found to be infected with salmonella enteriditis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The provisions relating to the compulsory slaughter of poultry laying flocks are contained in the Animal Health Act 1987 as applied in respect of salmonella through the provisions of the Zoonoses Order 1989.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether there is a difference in multiplication rates between salmonellas introduced into eggs and those introduced naturally into intact grade A eggs.
  258
  Mr. Maclean
  Little information is available to indicate whether differences exist in the multiplication rates between salmonellas introduced into eggs and those introduced naturally into intact grade A eggs and research continues to investigate the factors which govern the multiplication rates of salmonella in shell eggs.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will define the terms egg and egg product as used by his Department.

  Mr. Curry
  An egg is a poultry egg in shell and an egg product is whole egg—a mixture of yolk and albumen—or its constituent parts, not in shell.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current financial position of the egg producer industry and his assessment of the likely impact on it of the refusal to issue licences to producers with flocks subject to infected place notices under the Zoonoses Order 1989.

  Mr. Curry
  The market for eggs is firm and packer to produce prices are currently at high levels.

  In granting licences for the removal of material from premises subject to an infected place notice under the Zoonoses Order 1989, the Government's priority is to protect public health. The reply given to my hon. Friend on 5 February, Official Report, column 499, explains why eggs from an infected flock cannot be removed for processing. But it was announced on 26 March, Official Report, columns 54–55, that carcases from infected flocks may be sold for processing under carefully controlled conditions and subject to stringent safeguards.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial contributions are intended to be made from former eggs authority funds to the British Egg Industry Council and the British egg information service during the financial year 1990–91; and what part of that sum is intended to support the recently announced British lion scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  Subject to the approval of the European Commission it is proposed to make up to £350,000 available to the British Egg Industry Council (BEIC) for the 1990–91 promotional campaign. In the financial year 1989–90, a total of £107,000 was made available to the BEIC for programmes previously approved by the European Commission. These sums include the cost of work carried out by the British Egg Information Service on behalf of the BEIC.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his response to the recent report sent to him by the Secretary of the United Kingdom Egg Producers Association.

  Mr. Maclean
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to a letter from the Secretary of the United Kingdom Egg Producers' Association dated 6 February to which officials replied on my behalf on 28 February.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) why it has been decided not to make residual Eggs Authority funds available to organisations representing the majority of egg producers;

  (2) why the Government provide funding to the British Egg Industry Council only; and if he will make a statement.
  259
  Mr. Curry
  The Argriculture Act 1986 requires the Agriculture Ministers to dispose of the net assets of the Authority for the benefit of persons engaged by way of business in the production, marketing and processing of eggs.

  When the egg industry was consulted in 1986 on how the net assests should be used the National Farmers Union of England and Wales, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the Ulster Farmers Union, the Scottish Egg Producer Retailers Association, the British Egg Association, the British Poultry Breeders and Hatcheries Association, the National Egg Marketing Association and the British Egg Products Association all urged that the Government should disburse these assets through the British Egg Industry Council. UKEP Association Ltd was the only association to dissent from that view.

  The Government considered that it would be appropriate to follow the advice tendered by nearly all the industry associations which between them clearly represented the majority of those engaged in the production, marketing and processing of eggs.

  Poultry Industry
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in light of his proposals to restrict the spreading of manure from infected broiler flocks, whether he intends to introduce compulsory testing of broiler flocks to enable identification of potentially contaminated manure.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans to restrict the spreading of manure from infected broiler flocks or to introduce the compulsory testing of these flocks. Isolations of salmonella by laboratories are required to be reported to MAFF under the Zoonoses Order 1989. Flock owners are advised to stack and disinfect manure removed from houses where salmonella infected broilers have been kept.

  Wild Birds (Infection)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to restrict the access of wild birds to sewage works and refuse tips.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans to do so.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what information he has concerning the research currently being undertaken in Reading university on the toxicity of pesticide mixes; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what research he is undertaking into the toxicity of approved pesticides when ingested in combination.

  Mr. Maclean
  Research into this subject has been carried out jointly by Reading university and the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, part of the National Environment Research Council. One of the Reading team, Dr. Colin

  Hourly earnings less than:—

  per cent.

  £2.80

  £3.00

  £3.20

  £3.60

  £4.00

  £4.50

  Females

  Great Britain

  14

  19

  25

  36

  46

  57

  South West

  16

  21

  28

  41

  52

  64

  260
  Walker, is a member of the environmental panel of the advisory committee and a proposal for the funding of follow-up studies is currently lodged with the Department of the Environment.

  Dairy Crest (Redundancies)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many jobs are to be lost in the latest round of Dairy Crest creamery closures; how many redundancies are expected in Derbyshire; what are the levels of redundancy payments arising directly, or indirectly, from European Economic Community funds; what steps he is taking to prevent the closures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Dairy plant closures are a matter for the firms concerned. Dairy Crest Limited has announced a rationalisation programme involving the loss of 450 jobs, of which 153 are at the company's Alfreton creamery which will close at the end of December 1990. There are no Community funds for redundancy payments, but the company's own arrangements provide for payments which exceed the statutory minimum. In addition, the company is setting up job shops at the various sites and is confident that most of those looking for new jobs will be successful.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held this week in Luxembourg.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Agriculture Council from 26 to 29 March together with the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). Discussion concentrated on the 1990 price fixing. Detailed and intense discussions over several days resulted in two presidential compromises. However, a qualified majority could not be found. Discussion is expected to resume at the next meeting of the Council beginning on 25 April.

EMPLOYMENT

  Earnings
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the proportion of female and male full-time workers in the United Kingdom, the south-west and Avon, respectively, whose hourly earnings, exclusive of overtime, fell below(a) £2·80, (b) £3·00, (c) £3·20, (d) £3·60, (e) £4·00 and (f)£4·50 in April 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The estimated percentages of full-time adult female and male employees earning below specified amounts in the new earnings survey sample in April 1989 are provided in the table. Figures for Great Britain are given as the equivalent information for the United Kingdom as a whole is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  261

  £2.80

  £3.00

  £3.20

  £3.60

  £4.00

  £4.50

  Avon

  10

  14

  21

  33

  46

  59

  Males

  Great Britain

  5

  7

  10

  17

  24

  35

  South West

  5

  8

  12

  20

  28

  39

  Avon

  4

  6

  9

  15

  21

  31

  Hourly earnings excluding overtime, earnings not affected by absence.

  YTS Allowances
  Mr Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will arrange for YTS allowances to be increased to cover community charge payments for young people who have never paid rates and who are on a scheme living away from home.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no plans to do so. YTS non-employed trainees who need to live away from the parental home in order to benefit from a training course receive a lodging allowance to cover their lodging costs.

  Wakefield TEC
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the names of the business people who are involved with the Wakefield training and enterprise council; and if he will give information as to their business interests.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Wakefield TEC is currently drawing up its corporate plan which will list the board of directors.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what date the Wakefield training and enterprise council was established; what consultations took place with interested organisations including the trades councils and local authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  An employer-led group was awarded development funding to establish a training and enterprise council in Wakefield on 25 January 1990. It is now preparing its corporate and business plans and I expect it to consult all relevant local interests in drawing up these Plans.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what amount of funds has been allocated to the Wakefield training and enterprise council for the current year.

  Mr. Eggar
  Development funding of £109,000 has been awarded to an employer-led group in Wakefield to set up a training and enterprise council for the area.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total amount spent by the Training Commission in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Training Commission in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that the Training Commission has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 28 March 1990]; The Training Agency estimate, that expenditure in the financial
  262
  year 1989–90 will be £3.4 million on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases. No management consultancy contracts were awarded during 1989–90. The total budget for 1990–91 has not yet been agreed. The list of computer consultancy contracts awarded during the financial year 1989–90 is as follows:

  Consultants and Subject of Assignment
  Arthur Young—Consultant to review a payment system.
  MFT Computer Systems—Amendments to the file registry System.
  RTI—Consultants to establish the environment within the field system.
  Computer People North—SSADM System Analyst.
  Telfast Computer Service—Analyst for development work.
  Softel—Oracle Project
  PA—Head office configuration technical study.
  Arthur Young—A consultant to assist in developing the accounting structure of training and enterprise councils.
  PA—To examine implications of procuring terminals and keyboards capable of supporting X-Windows.
  AMP Systems Ltd.—Support for small firms.
  D. England—Assistance with the Cimetrics package.
  BIS Applied Systems—Consultancy support for the local area network project.
  RTI—Consultancy to resolve problems when trying to run ingres on NCR computer.
  Yale Data—Technical assurance co-ordinator.
  CCTA—Financial and management accounting post-implementation review.
  Easams Ltd.—Ingres application developers for the field system.
  RTI—Training access point scoping study.
  Yale Data Management Consultants—A consultant to assist the stage manager.
  Relational Technology—Supply of Ingres training.
  Ernst and Whinney—Consultant to advise on the field system and training and enterprise councils.
  Relational Technology—Assisting with the setting up of accounts, directories etc.
  CSL—Review of system methodology.
  Price Waterhouse—Ingres developers/testing.
  Yale Data—Ingres developers/testers.
  SEMA Group—Ingres support.
  Telfast Computing—Ingres application developer with accountancy experience.
  CCTA—Service agreement hardware/software.
  CCTA—Migration study X25 1980 to X25 1984.
  Level 7—Network names and addressing.
  CCTA—Telecommunications section—study to look into staffing needs.
  FM—Provide software support to regional and HQ systems.
  CCTA—CCTA support agreement.
  MFT—Contract programmer (`C') for 4 weeks.
  RTI—Consultant to assist in setting up Ingres database.
  Yale Data—Ingres application developer (4 weeks).
  Scientific Business Systems—Applications developers to work on the record trainee system.
  PA—Assistance with the Mascot operational requirement.
  Hoskyns Group—Project management for privatisation of the Skills Training Agency.
  Meridan Systems Management Ltd.—Online access to a Polis database.
  Yale Data Management—Applications developer to help on trainees volume system.
  Skills Training Agency—Training in Q-office development.
  RTI—Application developers to assist with development work.

  263
  Logica—Consultants to assist in system testing.
  RI—To assist with benchmarking.
  Coopers and Lybrand—Support to project manager in the development of plans and progress measurement tools to monitor the status of the training and enterprise councils implementation project.
  SBS—Ingress application developer.
  The Instruction Set—Development of system standards.
  Ernst and Young—Design review.
  Yale—Assistance with system testing.
  SBS—Applications developers.
  RTI—Application developer.
  Digitus Applications developers.
  LBMS—System Testing.
  Yale Data—Applications developers.
  Yale—System testing.
  Easams—Applications developer.
  Yale Data—Unix and Ingres support for field systems.
  RTI—Ingress development.
  System Reliability—Application software for call logger.
  Ernst and Young—To advise training agency on support to training and enterprise councils after April 90.
  Yale Data Management—Systems analyst record trainee volumes.
  Oscar Communications—Marketing.
  Novatek—Manuals.
  Digital—Linking training and enterprise Councils to the network.
  NCC—Communications consultancy.
  The Instruction Set—Consultant to discuss report on system management.
  Computer Search and Select—Analyst/developer.
  Marketing Perspective—Marketing the field system.
  Ingres—Ingres training.
  Yale Data—Analyst/developer.
  Lorien—Analyst/developer.
  Marketing Perspective—Account manager training.
  P-E International—Analyst/developer.

THE ARTS

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on British Telecom's forthcoming A-Z business and services phone book as it affects reference to access for people with disabilities to arts and leisure venues, and the role played by Arts Access in encouraging this and other provision of facilities for disabled people.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 28 March 1990]: I welcome the initiative to include a reference guide for disabled people in the London business and services phone book. I was pleased to be present at the launch and to be able to congratulate Arts Access and British Telecom for putting this simple but effective idea into practice. It will certainly help to improve access to the arts for disabled people.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the total amount spent by his Department in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by his Department in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that his Department has budgeted to spend in the current year.
  264
  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 28 March 1990]: The Office of Arts and Libraries had no management and computer consultancy contracts in 1989–90, and has no present plans for any in 1990–91.

  Works of Art
  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if there have been any items accepted in lieu of tax or allocated since he last made an announcement on the subject to the House.

  Mr. Luce
  Since my announcement on 14 February Official Report, column 239, I am pleased to announce that three further offers have been accepted in lieu of tax: a woodcut by Edward Munch, "Two People—the Lonely Ones" and two paintings, one by Corot entitled "Richmond pres Londres", and one by Jan van der Heyden, "The Westerkerk". The tax satisfied was £57,539, £361,500 and £2,800,000 respectively. The acceptance of the van der Heyden painting was made possible by a call on the Reserve.

  No decision has yet been taken on the allocation of the Corot painting, but in accordance with the conditions on which they were offered the Munch woodcut will go to the Whitworth art gallery, Manchester and the van der Heyden painting will be allocated to the National gallery. Finally, I would like to inform the House that because of a change in the tax liabilities due on the estate concerned, the cost of the acceptance of the Kirckman harpsichord, announced on 14 February, has been reduced to £25,276·95.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing tax and national insurance contributions, less child benefit, where appropriate, for 1990–91, and comparable figures for 1989–90 and 1978–79, with the multiples of average earnings of half, two thirds, one, five and 10 times for(a) a married couple with part-time working spouse, (b) a married couple plus two children with part-time working spouse and (c) a single person.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested for a single person is given in the table. Figures for married couples with part-time working spouse will depend on how much the part-time worker earns.

  Payments of income tax and national insurance contributions by a single person (£ per week at current prices) Multiples of average male earnings1

  ½

  ⅔

  1

  5

  10

  1978–79

  10·93

  17·04

  29·25

  242·17

  625·97

  1989–902

  32·71

  48·60

  80·31

  506·61

  1,066·61

  1990–91

  33·98

  51·23

  85·62

  553·05

  1,160·65

  1 Full time males on adult rates (all occupations), using illustrative assumption of 8½ per cent. growth in earnings between 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  2 Financial year average of pre- and post-October regimes for employees national insurance contributions.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any ivory is currently being held by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Ryder
  Yes. Quantities of ivory are regularly seized by customs and held pending disposal.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to produce records of ivory seizures since 12 April 1989.

  Mr. Ryder
  No. As I said in my reply of 23 October 1989,Official Report, columns 286–87 to an earlier question on this topic, detailed information about such seizures is compiled only periodically. Customs will be doing so in connection with publication of the commissioners' annual report for the year ending 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the fate of the five consignments of ivory held at Heathrow airport and referred to in his reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on 6 June 1989,Official Report, column 118.

  Mr. Ryder
  All five consignments have now been seized. No further details can be given at this stage because court proceedings in relation to forfeiture of the goods are in prospect.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many consignments of ivory were detained or seized by customs officers in 1989 and 1990 to date.

  Mr. Ryder
  Records of detentions which do not result in seizure are not maintained centrally and information about them could be obtained only at disproportionate expense. Information about seizures is compiled only periodically. Customs will be doing so in connection with publication of the commissioners' annual report for the year ending 31 March 1990.

  Income Tax
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the revenue from income tax in Scotland, broken down by district and islands authorities, in(a) the period between April 1987 and April 1988 and (b) the period between April 1988 and April 1989;

  (2) what was the total revenue from income tax raised in Scotland in (a) the period between April 1987 and April 1988 and (b) the period between April 1988 and April 1989.

  Mr. Lilley
  The latest information is for the 1987–88 tax year and covers the income tax liabilities of residents of Scotland. The estimates in the table are based on samples, which places limitations on their reliability, particularly in the case of smaller districts.

  Income tax liability of residents—1987–88

  Districts

  £ million

  Borders

  90

  Central

  192

  Dumfries and Galloway

  121

  Fife

  231

  Grampian

  351

  Highland

  150

  266

  Districts

  £ million

  Lothian

  559

  Strathclyde

  1,410

  Tayside

  224

  Island Authorities

  59

  Scotland

  3,380

  Banking Services
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to publish the Government's response to the report of the review committee on banking services law and practice.

  Mr. Major
  The Government's full response to the report of the review committee is published today in a White Paper "Banking Services: Law and Practice" Cm1026.

  The review committee was commissioned by the Government, jointly with the Bank of England, in January 1987 to undertake a full review of the legal framework for banking services. The committee was chaired by Professor Robert Jack CBE, and the other members were Mrs. Liliana Archibald and Mr. Geoffrey Taylor. Their report, which was published on 23 February 1989 (Cm622), provided a very clear and comprehensive critique of the existing law. The Government are extremely grateful to the committee for all its work in producing the report.

  The committee found that the legislative framework had stood the test of time remarkably well, despite the very rapid changes seen in banking in recent years; there were no major deficiencies or gaps, but the committee indentified a number of areas where banking practice could be improved and where they felt the law might be usefully clarified or tightened up. The Government made it clear when the committee's report was published that in considering their response to its recommendations, they would wish to take full account of the views of those who would be affected by the proposals, and would, therefore, consider carefully the implications for bankers, their customers and the general public interest. This the Government have done. The names of those who submitted comments on the review committee's report are set out in the White Paper.

  The Committee's central recommendation was, in fact, addressed to the banks and building societies, rather than to the Government. It was that they should prepare and adopt a code of banking practice, aimed at ensuring that customers were made fully aware of the basis on which banks or building societies would conduct their dealings. The code would, for example, specify that customers should be given information in clear and simple language about the terms of their contract with the banker and the rights and obligations that apply on both sides; customers would be told of their rights to privacy under the law and the very limited circumstances in which any information about their personal finances may be passed on; customers would be told how to lodge a complaint if that proved necessary, how such complaints would be dealt with, and how matters might be referred to the relevant ombudsman; they should be told what banking charges might be levied in what circumstances; and they should be given a simple explanaton of the timing of the clearing cycle and when they might normally expect funds from a cleared cheque to be available.
  267
  The Banking Information Service announced on I March 1990 that an independent committe under the chairmanship of Sir George Blunden (former deputy governor of the Bank of England) had been set up to oversee the preparation of such a code by the British Bankers' Assocation, the Building Societies Association and the Association for Payment Clearing Services. The aim would be to get the main sections of the code in place by early 1991. The Government warmly welcome this initiative, and in particular welcomes the fact that the banks and building societies have undertaken to consult the consumer interests fully before the code is introduced. The White Paper comments on a number of issues which the Goverment expect the banks and building societies to wish to consider in the preparation of the code, in line with the recommendation of the review committee. These include notification of bank charges, credit marketing and customer privacy.

  The review committee made a large number of other recommendations, some of them on highly technical points of banking law, and some involving codification of existing case law or consolidation of existing legislation. In drawing up their response, the Government have carefully considered the comments of interested parties and proposed legislation only where some change is justified and where the intended effect cannot be achieved in another way, such as through the proposed code of banking practice. In general, the Government have accepted the spirit, if not the detail, of most of the committee's recommendations.

  The points on which the Government will legislate in due course are set out in annex 9 of the White Paper. They include extending to all payment cards the present £50 limit on customer liability for losses and the ban on unsolicited mailing of cards and PINs which at present applies only to credit cards; tightening up banks' liability for the failure of electronic funds transfer equipment; clarifying the legal status of the various crossings and markings such as "account payee" on cheques; allowing for the "truncation" of cheques (that is, allowing banks to exchange electronic information about cheques and not the actual pieces of paper); amending and updating the Bills of Exchange Act; and dealing with a number of other detailed points raised by the Committee. These proposals will be implemented when other pressures on the legislative timetable permit.

  The review committee made the key point in their report that in considering any proposals in the field of banking services it is important, above all, to preserve flexibility, and to avoid cramping competition and innovation by excessive regulation. The Government wholeheartedly endorse that view. In recent years, it has been competition within a flexible regulatory framework that has benefited the customer most. It is from this source that further improvements are most likely to come; and that is the primary principle underlying the Government's response to the review committee's report.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the savings would be of taxing the child benefit for taxpayers at the 40 per cent. tax rate in 1990–91.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 26 March 1990]: The direct revenue yield for 1990–91 from taxing child benefit—which is paid to the mother—at 40 per cent. for those married
  268
  women and single parents liable to higher rate tax is estimated to be about £20 million. If child benefit were taxed at the higher marginal rate of either spouse the yield, including that from single parents, is estimated at £175 million.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the total amount spent by Her Majesty's Treasury in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by Her Majesty's Treasury in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consultancy firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that Her Majesty's Treasury has budgeted to spend in the current year;

  (2) what was the total amount spent by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency in 1989 on management and computer consultancy contracts, excluding hardware and software purchases; if he will list each management or computer consultancy contract awarded by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency in 1989, giving in each case the name of the consulting firm and the subject of the assignment; and what is the total amount that the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency has budgeted to spend in the current year.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 28 March 1990]: We estimate that our expenditure in the financial year 1989–90 will be some £5·1 million, including some £4·7 million by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. Figures given include the cost of development studies, which in turn include the cost of associated hardware and software; the latter items are not separately indentifiable.

  The budget for the financial year 1990–91 is some £6·9 million, including some £6·3 million for the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency.

  Firm and subject of assignment:
  Roger Tym & Partners—Freeports study.
  Transtech Consultancy services—Preparation of seminar on Transport and Distribution; production of technical guidance on car contract hire and model contract and employee agreements.
  KPMG Peat Marwick—Contribution to the development of the Treasury's initiative on policy evaluation.
  Coopers & Lybrand Assoc—Contribution to the development of the Treasury's initiative on policy evaluation.
  Arthur Young—Contribution to the development of the Treasury's initiative on policy evaluation.
  Moody International Developments—Materials handling.
  Brian Farrington Ltd—Preparation of CUP guidance on purchasing procedures.
  Linzey Associates—Advice on strategic and practical aspects of purchasing and supply.
  C. D. Boylan—Advice on issues relating to project sponsorship and "untying" of services from PSA.
  P. N. Parry—Preparation of CUP guidance on the management of works projects.
  R. W. White—Advice on the implementation of the new recruitment and personnel management arrangements for the Purchasing and Supply Function in Government.
  Logica (UK) Ltd—Consultancy Support for Government IT Infrastructure Management Methodology.
  National Computing Centre—Consultancy for GOSIP Support.
  Robert Wilmot—Consultancy for GOSIP Support.
  Security and Standards Consultancy Ltd—Consultancy for GOSIP Support.
  PA Consulting Group—Consultancy Support on IS (Information Systems) Guide.

  269
  Ashpier Ltd—Consultancy Support to Government Telecommunications Network (GTN).
  Eosys—Consultancy Support to Government Telecommunications Network (GTN).
  Butler Cox—Consultancy for GDN-SIGNET.
  Kermon Associaties—Consultancy for GDN-SIGNET.
  Touche Ross & Co—Consultancy for GDN-SIGNET.
  Ernst and Young—Consultancy for GDN-SIGNET.
  Fastcharm Ltd—Provision of Consultancy Support.
  Rollstest Ltd—Provision of Consultancy Support.
  Grafton Dale Associates—Provision of Consultancy Support.
  GSB Computer Projects Ltd—Provision of Consultancy Support.
  Yale Data Management Consultants Ltd—Provision of Consultancy Support.
  Coopers and Lybrand—Provision of Consultancy Support.
  Quality Business Systems—Consultancy assistance with development of IT Infrastructure Library.
  M Davighi—Consultancy assistance with development of IT Infrastructure Library.
  Protocol International—Consultancy assistance with development of IT Infrastructure Library.
  DJH Consultancy Services Ltd—Consultancy Assistance with development of IT Infrastructure Library.
  Civil Service College—Consultancy assistance with development of IT infrastructure Library.
  Crown Suppliers—Consultancy assistance with development of IT Infrastructure Library.
  Babelease Ltd—Development of PROMPT and Configuration Management Method.
  Kermon Associates—Development of CCTA Telecommunications Guide.
  Kermon Associates—Scoping Study on Automation of CCTA Standing Arrangement Procedures.
  Logica (UK) Ltd—Development Study into NSAP Address Allocation Requirements in Government.
  Praxis—Technical Authorship of CT5 Procurement Manual.
  Rede Group—Development of CT3 Quality Management System for use within Government organisations.
  Logica (UK) Ltd—Development of CT3 Quality Management System for use within Government organisations.
  BIS Applied Systems—Development Study for phase 1 of CRAMM software.
  Electronic Facilities Design—Review of Procurement Process.
  Ingham Partnership—Assistance with User Interface Work.
  Husat Consultancy—Production of Reference Model for I.S.E.
  CSM—University of Durham—Survey of Software Maintenance.
  Computer Sciences Co Ltd—Specialist technical support for Computer Supported Co-operative Working Study (CSAW).
  Sunderland Polytechnic—Development of an SSADM and SDM Interface.
  Metier Management Systems Ltd.—Enhancement to ADEPT Version 2.
  J. Chittenden (FORMAT)—Assistance with Desktop Publishing for SSADM Version 4.
  Ipsys Software plc.—Assistance with Process Logic Definition (PLD) Project.
  Calyx—Consultancy for Computer Operations Management Module.
  Logica (UK) Ltd.—Office Document Architecture (CODA) Scoping Study.
  DMW Group Ltd.—Value Added Data Services (VADS) Security Development System.
  Deuce Systems—Amendments to the CRAMM User Guide.
  Admiral Management—Feasibility Study into the use of ISO9000 in connection with a Quality Management System.
  DJH Consultancy Ltd.—Development of IT Infrastructure Management Codes of Practice.
  Systems Assurance—Review of Guidelines for top management on Human Factors.
  Systems Concepts—Review of Guidelines for top management on Human Factors.
  270
  Morrell Media Services—Production of IT Security Library documents.
  DB Services—Production of a document on the fundamentals of magnetic media.
  Chris Makenson Ltd.—Virtual terminal work in GOSIP.
  Oval Computer Consultancy Services—Upgrades and reconfiguration of demonstration suite equipment.
  Pensus Ltd.—Production of IT Infrastructure Library Module on Availability Management.
  Data Systems—Development Stage 3 of Cursive Script Recognition Demonstrator.
  Science Systems—GTN Network Management—performance improvement and management
  Datasystems—reconfiguration of REOS Pad
  Civil Service College—Development Study on Case Study for the Department of Justice
  Services Sound Vision—Production of a "Strategic Planning" video
  Office Workstations Ltd—Hypertext Project—Stage 1
  Logica (UK) Ltd— Development of a detailed method for drawing up Contingency Plans
  Format Desk Top Publishing—Review of desktop publishing techniques for KBS and DBMS book
  Birmingham Polytechnic—Development Study on SSADM Support Tools Conformance
  X-Tel Services Ltd—CSCW Concept Demonstrator development
  Data Systems UK Ltd—Development of CSCW Demonstrator Remote Meeting Support System
  KPMG, Regis McKenna & Co—Development of Government IT Marketing Copy
  Kermon Associates—Development of Standing Arrangements Automation
  Coopers & Lybrand—Development of Object Orientation

  Savings Accounts
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the availability of savings accounts which pay a 20 per cent. or higher rate of interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 28 March 1990]: We do not keep information centrally on the full range of savings accounts that are available.

WALES

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will(a) state the number of people in employment in Wales for each quarter of 1979 and for the latest available date and sub-divided for males and females in employment and (b) provide an estimate of the extent of double-counting in (a).

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Civilian workforce in employment1

  (thousands)

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1979

  March

  711

  429

  1,140

  June

  716

  441

  1,157

  September

  720

  440

  1,160

  December

  712

  443

  1,155

  1989

  September

  692

  521

  1,213

  1 Defined as employees in employment, the self-employed and, from 1983 onwards, participants on work-related government training schemes.

  Labour force survey estimates of the number of people in employment and with a second job for Wales, which are

  271
  subject to large sampling errors, suggest that in 1979 there were about 17,000 such persons. The corresponding estimate for 1989 was 45,000.

  Agricultural Land
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the loss of agricultural land for urban development for each of the last 10 years in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information on land use changes in Wales from 1985 to 1988 is included in appendices 3 and 4 of the "Environmental Digest for Wales, No. 4, 1988–89", a copy of which is in the Library. It should be noted that since changes are recorded by Ordnance Survey as part of its work on map revision, they are not necessarily recorded in the year they occur. Comparable data for earlier years are not available.

  Myodil
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to take to ensure that patients in Wales who are suffering as a result of the side-effects of myodil are able to receive compensation rapidly.

  Mr. Grist
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Clinical Regrading Review
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appeals under the clinical regrading review are still outstanding in each health authority; and when the appeals procedure will be completed in each area.

  Mr. Grist
  Latest information on the number of outstanding clinical regrading appeals made at local level to employing authorities is as follows:

  Number

  Mid Glamorgan HA

  760

  South Glamorgan HA

  630

  West Glamorgan

  166

  Gwent HA

  392

  East Dyfed HA

  214

  Pembrokeshire HA

  88

  Powys HA

  298

  Gwyedd HA

  131

  Clwyd HA

  258

  It is not possible to predict when the appeals procedures will be completed at the local level.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, how many registered hearing aid dispensers there are in each health authority area.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is not available centrally.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each county education authority the number of teachers employed who are(a) able to undertake Welsh language teaching at the primary and secondary levels, as required by the national
  272
  curriculum and (b) in possession of the appropriate subject qualifications to ensure the national curriculum is properly delivered in all Welsh language secondary schools.

  Mr. Roberts
  The number of teachers who have a qualification in Welsh as either a first or second language, and who will thus be able to contribute to the teaching of Welsh as part of the national curriculum is shown in the table:

  Teachers with a qualification1 in Welsh

  All teachers (full-time and part-time)

  Primary (1987)

  Secondary2 (1989)

  1st language

  2nd language

  1st language

  2nd language

  Clwyd

  400

  90

  110

  50

  Dyfed

  540

  60

  170

  40

  Gwent

  30

  10

  10

  10

  Gwynedd

  580

  40

  240

  40

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  —

  120

  70

  Powys

  90

  10

  40

  20

  South Glamorgan

  110

  30

  60

  30

  West Glamorgan

  260

  90

  100

  40

  TOTAL

  32,010

  3330

  850

  300

  1 Refers to all teachers with a post A-level qualification in Welsh. All teachers with a qualification in Welsh as a first language will be capable of teaching Welsh as a second language.

  2 Secondary figures are drawn from the 1989 secondary school staffing survey and are provisional estimates. The results of the survey will be published later in the year.

  3 Excludes Mid Glamorgan.

  More detailed analyses including those of subject qualifications of teachers in Welsh secondary schools will be available later this year when the 1989 secondary schools staffing survey results are published.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his reply of 22 February,Official Report, columns 861–62, if he is now in a position to publish for each county education authority the number of teachers needed to deliver all national curriculum subjects in Welsh secondary schools by teachers with the appropriate subject qualifications.

  Mr. Roberts
  A statistical model of the number of teachers needed to deliver the national curriculum in Welsh secondary schools is currently being produced. The model and assumptions which underlie it will be the subject of consultation with local education authorities later this year.

  Nuclear Waste (Transport)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much nuclear waste is transported, by road, through Clwyd via the AS.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department does not collect data of the kind requested.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  CERN
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received in the last 12 months on the funding of CERN.
  273
  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has received no specific representations about CERN funding in the last year.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the United Kingdom funding for CERN in 1979, 1985 and 1989.

  Mr. Jackson
  The United Kingdom contribution to the CERN budget in these years was as follows:

  United Kingdom contribution

  Calendar year

  Percentage of CERN budget

  Cash £ million

  1979

  15·8

  25·2

  1985

  16·1

  36·9

  1989

  16·1

  50·3

  Complaints
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report for each of the last 10 years (a) the number of complaints made against his Department to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, (b) the number of complaints upheld and (c) the action he took on (b).

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The number of complaints(a) made and (b) upheld for the last 10 years is as follows:

  (a)complaints made

  (b)complaints upheld

  1989

  1

  1

  1988

  11

  —

  1987

  10

  —

  1986

  12

  1

  1985

  20

  —

  1984

  12

  1

  1983

  12

  2

  1982

  11

  —

  1981

  18

  1

  1980

  31

  1

  1979

  20

  —

  1 Figures not yet available.

  When the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration upholds a complaint it is departmental practice to provide an appropriate remedy.

  Devon County Council
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science pursuant to the oral answer given to the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West from the Under-Secretary of State on 27 February,Official Report, column 125, if he will specify how the Devon county council capital expenditure priorities differ from those of the Government.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In formulating annual capital guidelines for education for local education authorities for 1990–91, priority was given to items in LEAs' plans for committed expenditure flowing from projects covered in earlier capital allocations, new projects to meet population growth, new projects to remove surplus places, and to new major building projects at colleges. Any remaining resources were distributed by formula for improvement work in schools. Annual capital guidelines are, however,274
  only indicative: local authorities are free to spend above the level indicated if they choose to finance such expenditure from receipts or other sources. Most of Devon LEA's plans were in respect of commitments over and above those allowed for in the department's previous allocations, and of improvement work in schools for which available resources fell well short of LEAs' plans.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will deposit in the Library copies of the approved schemes for local management of schools for each local education authority.

  Mr. MacGregor
  It is the responsibility of local education authorities to publish their approved schemes by distributing copies to their schools and to the Department, and by making copies available for reference in their local public libraries and education offices. I am asking authorities to consider making copies available to the Library of the House.

  Examinations
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many people sat(a) GCSE and (b) A-level examinations in (i) politics, (ii) British constitution and (iii) political history in 1989.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Figures for 1989 are not yet available; neither is information available specifically for the subjects requested. In 1988, there were 11,000 GCSE attempts in England in politics and British constitution by candidates in schools and colleges. Comparable information is not available in respect of A-levels, but in 1987–88, nearly 2,500 school leavers in England attempted an A-level in British constitution.

  Art Students
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total cost to the Exchequer and local government of educating a student at art college who completes the course.

  Mr. Jackson
  The data requested are not available centrally.

  College of Europe
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether there are any plans to increase the number of bursaries offered to United Kingdom students at the college of Europe.

  Mr. Jackson
  The college of Europe at Bruges offers postgraduate courses in administrative, economic and legal studies, in preparation for employment in European Community institutions and similar fields. The Government wish to enable more United Kingdom students to take advantage of these valuable opportunities. We therefore intend to increase substantially the number of bursaries we offer, from four currently to 21 in the academic year 1990–91. Of these, 17 will be provided by my Department for students from England and Wales. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland will increase their provision to two bursaries each. The additional cost will be met from within
  275
  existing public expenditure plans. We envisage further increasing the United Kingdom total bursaries offered to 30 in 1991–92. Existing arrangements for selecting students will continue.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  South Africa
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on how British companies have complied with the European Community code of conduct for companies with interests in South Africa during the 12-month period to 30 June 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  By 6 March 1990, a total of 111 companies had submitted reports to the DTI under the code of conduct. Copies of the reports and of the Department's analysis and summary have, as in previous years, been placed in the Library of each House. These documents may also be inspected at the Department's export market information centre, at the British embassy in Pretoria, at the British consulate-general in Johannesburg, and at the British consulates in Cape Town and Durban.

  The analysis and summary is the fourth since the adoption of the revised code of conduct by EC Foreign Ministers in November 1985. Reports were received from all British companies whose interests are known or believed to warrant a full report under the code, with only one exception. This particular company has been undergoing reorganisation in South Africa and should be in a position to provide a report for next year's analysis and summary.

  The reporting period under review has seen a further reduction in the number of black employees of British subsidiaries being paid below the code's recommended minimum level, with companies reports indicating that now over 98 per cent. were paid above this level. Companies' reports also indicated that the level of their involvement with trade unions representing black workers increased, with the majority of companies reporting formal involvement with the trade unions. In addition, companies continued to report impressive levels of involvement in projects benefiting not only their employees and their families but also the wider communities from which their workforces were drawn. Companies also continued to encourage the growth of black businesses.

  The Government are once more grateful to companies for their continued co-operation in providing reports, and urges them to maintain this performance and to comply fully with the code.

  Baltic States
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his latest assessment of trade opportunities with Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

  Mr. Redwood
  No assessment is possible at present. Above all, we need to know whether the Baltic republics will have control of their own production and its distribution. If they become free to trade their own products with the west there could be many opportunities for increased business.

  Stock Exchange
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet the chairman of the stock exchange; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Redwood
  Ministers meet the chairman of the stock exchange whenever appropriate to discuss topics of mutual interest.

  Company Audits
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times in 1988 company auditors filed a statement in respect of section 390 2(a) and 2(b) of the Companies Act 1985.

  Mr. Redwood
  During 1988 the registrars of companies for England and Wales and for Scotland received copies of 9,167 auditors' notices of resignation under section 390 of the Companies Act 1985. These have been placed on the public files of the companies concerned. No information is readily available about the number of these notices which fall within the scope of section 390(2)(a), indicating that there were circumstances connected with the resignation which the resigning auditor considered should be brought to the notice of the members or creditors of the company.

  Electricity Supplies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reply he has sent to the letter from the chairman of the Electricity Consultative Council (South Wales) dated 14 March regarding the different treatment between the domestic and commercial markets.

  Mr. Redwood
  My reply was sent to the chairman of the Electricity Consultative Council (South Wales). It is a matter for him to decide whether to make the contents public.

  Electricity Supply (Consumer Protection)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he anticipates being in a position to answer the letter to him of 14 March from Tom Keen, the chairman of the Electricity Consultative Council (South Wales), on consumer protection in the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have already replied to the letter.

  Business Inquiries
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many major inquiries were made by business under the market information inquiries scheme for each month from September 1988 to date;

  (2) how many substantive inquiries were made under the market information inquiries scheme for each month from September 1988 to date.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 21 March 1990]: Following is the information.

  Market information enquiry service (MIE) June 1989— February 1990

  Month

  Number of enquiries billed

  June

  37

  July

  72

  August

  87

  277

  Month

  Number of enquiries billed

  September

  103

  October

  108

  November

  135

  December

  104

  January

  97

  February

  182

  Total

  925

  The market information enquiry service (MIEs) was introduced as a chargeable service on 1 April 1989. The information available is set out above. A breakdown of MIEs which are "major" and those which are "substantive" could be made available only at disproportionate cost. Figures were not collected prior to the introduction of charges.

  Africa (Exports)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to reinstate Export Credits Guarantee Department cover for United Kingdom exports to Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone and the Gambia; and if he will list the present value of exports and imports between the United Kingdom and those countries.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 27 March 1990]: ECGD cover for exports on cash or short terms of payment—up to 180 days credit—is already available for these countries.

  Cover for exports on longer terms of payment is in principle available for Ghana subject to ECGD's normal underwriting judgment being satisfied. The possibility of reinstating ECGD cover for longer payment term business with Gambia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone will be considered when this is justified by improvements in the economic situation in these countries and progress has been made in clearing past payment arrears.

  The value of exports and imports between the United Kingdom and those countries, for the year ending December 1989, is as follows:

  United Kingdom imports £ million

  United Kingdom exports £ million

  Nigeria

  129·406

  388·777

  Ghana

  92·208

  121·076

  Sierra Leone

  15·899

  20·402

  Gambia

  2·340

  16·563

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has considered any changes in the multi-fibre arrangement in the light of the changes in central and eastern Europe.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 28 March 1990]: The multi-fibre arrangement (MFA) lays down a multilateral framework for trade in textile products. The EC is already committed in the current Uruguay round to negotiating the phase out of the MFA on acceptable terms on its expiry in 1991. This commitment is unaffected by developments in central and eastern Europe. However the EC has a number of bilateral agreements with east
  278
  European countries within the current MFA framework and changes to the agreements with Poland and Hungary have recently been agreed.

  Cable Television
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many franchises have been granted for the issuing of licences by his Department for the establishment of television cable stations in the United Kingdom since such licensing started; and if he will list(a) the geographical location of such stations, (b) the name of each company which has been granted a franchise, (c) the name of the principal shareholder or parent company of such franchise holders, specifying whether such principal shareholder or parent is of United States of America, Canadian, United Kingdom or other origin and (d) how many applications are outstanding to the latest convenient date and still awaiting decision by the Cable Authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Cable Authority is responsible for awarding cable franchises under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. A total of 71 cable franchises have been awarded since 1983 (including 11 pilot franchises awarded by the Home Office before the passage of the 1984 Act). Of these 20 have been licensed, of which 17 are operational. A further 63 franchises have been advertised by the Cable Authoritiy. The authority is considering a total of 139 applications, in respect of the 44 franchises for which the closing date has now passed. It intends to make its decisions known during the course of the summer. I have placed in the Library a list of the other information requested, where this is not commercially confidential.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hong Kong
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government are now ready to publish their proposals for legislation concerning the provision of United Kingdom passports for certain citizens of Hong Kong.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government intend to do so shortly.

  Fast Germany
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the implications for United Kingdom foreign policy of the recent elections in East Germany.

  The Prime Minister
  We welcome the holding of democratic elections in the German Democratic Republic. We believe that the establishment of genuine democracy in the German Democratic Republic, as elsewhere in eastern Europe, will strengthen confidence and understanding between east and west.

  Prisons
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to one of Her Majesty's prisons.

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

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her future visit to Turkey, she will discuss with the Turkish authorities the urgent need for a settlement in Cyprus; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I look forward to discussing Cyprus and other matters of mutual concern with the Turkish Government during my planned visit to Gallipoli next month for the 75th anniversary of ANZAC day.

  German Unification
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the implications for the net contributions of member states of the proposed reunification of Germany; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We hope that the informal summit to be held in Dublin on 28 April will agree a framework for detailed negotiation, by the Council and the Commission, of all the consequences for the Community of German unification. Germany is likely to remain the largest net contributor to the Community budget.

  Cabinet Responsibility
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps she is taking to strengthen collective Cabinet responsibility.

  The Prime Minister
  None is needed.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Prime Minister what measures she will take to improve the performance of Government Departments in answering letters from hon. Members.

  The Prime Minister
  There are nearly 250,000 replies a year from Ministers to letters from hon. Members and replies are sent at official level to several million letters received direct from members of the public. It is clearly in the interests of Members, the public and Ministers that this correspondence is conducted speedily and efficiently. I have therefore asked the efficiency unit to conduct an interdepartmental scrutiny into the methods and costs of handling this correspondence, and to seek the views of hon. Members and others who receive replies, so as to identify good methods of operation and recommend them for adoption by all departments. Departmental performance will be monitored and a Minister in each Department will be given responsibility for overseeing progress. In appropriate cases, Members of Parliament are encouraged to write in the first instance to civil service agencies, or the local offices directly concerned.

  Engagements
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.
  280
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 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 am speaking at the Anglo-German Konigswinter conference held in Cambridge.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Land Registry
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Attorney-General what is for each of the last three years(a) the minimum length of time and (b) the maximum length of time that Her Majesty's Land Registry has taken to deal with a first registration application.

  The Attorney-General
  No statistical information is available on either the maximum or the minimum processing times. The minimum processing time can be as low as one or two weeks for expedited applications and those where no queries arise. Some complex applications, involving clarification from an applicant's solicitors, take a considerable time to process.

  The average time taken to process a first registration application is currently 27 weeks, compared with 30 weeks in 1989, 34 weeks in 1988 and 32 weeks in 1987.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Attorney-General on what date the Land Registration Act 1988 will come into force.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor hopes to bring the Land Registration Act 1988 into force in December 1990. An announcement of the exact date will be made in due course.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Attorney-General what action he is taking to reduce the delays at Her Majesty's Land Registry in dealing with applications to register title.

  The Attorney-General
  Since 1 March 1987 the Land Registry has increased its work force by over 3,000 staff. In order to move work away from the south-east of England, where the recruitment and retention of staff is difficult, four new district registries have been opened and two more are planned in the near future. Computerisation of the application processing system will have been introduced at a total of eight district registries by the end of this year and by 1993 all district registries will operate the computerised system. Average completion times on all types of application to register title are improving steadily, unit cost targets are being met and productivity is at record levels.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has recieved regarding the delays at Her Majesty's Land Registry in dealing with applications to register title.

  The Attorney-General
  A total of 128 representations about delay were received by the Lord Chancellor between January and December 1989.

  Marconi
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent developments have taken place into the inquiry being carried out by the special fraud office into fraud in the Marconi company; and if he will make a statement as to general progress of that inquiry over the last six months.

  The Attorney-General
  A case in which the defendents are Marconi Company Limited, Marconi Space Systems Limited, Marconi Secure Radio Systems Limited and various former employees of those companies is pending before Winchester crown court. It results from inquiries carried out by the Serious Fraud Office. The remaining inquiries concerning Marconi companies are being carried out as expeditiously as possible.

ENERGY

  Oil Companies
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to require all oil companies to deposit a bond with his Department that can be immediately used to finance clean-up operations in the event of an oil spillage around the British coast.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Primary responsibility for clean-up, following an oil spill from an offshore installation, rests with the operator. To ensure that operators have sufficient funds available to discharge any liability attributable to such an incident, the offshore pollution liability agreement (OPOL) was set up by the oil industry in 1975 at the request of the Department of Energy. This agreement ensures that funds are available, up to $60 million per incident, to meet claims for remedial measures and pollution damage from an offshore oil spill incident.

  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the output of North sea oil and gas for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  North Sea oil and gas production in the period 1980 to 1989 was as follows:

  Crude oil (thousand tonnes)

  Natural gas liquids thousand tonnes)

  Gas (Million cubic metres)

  1980

  78,680

  1,550

  37,290

  1981

  87,714

  1,534

  37,186

  1982

  100,058

  2,908

  37,832

  1983

  110,566

  4,078

  38,690

  1984

  120,961

  4,759

  38,520

  1985

  122,069

  5,150

  42,961

  1986

  120,734

  5,815

  45,289

  1987

  117,030

  5,693

  47,623

  1988

  108,641

  5,004

  45,726

  19891

  86,505

  4,407

  44,705

  Source: Figures for 1980 to 1988. United Kingdom Digest of Energy Statistics 1989. Figures for 1989. February 1990 issue of Energy Trends.

  1 Provisional

  Electricity Consumers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will amend the part of the draft electricity licence dealing with domestic consumers in default, on the terms submitted to him by the National Consumer Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Electricity disconnections are currently standing at the lowest level since records began in 1976. Careful consideration has been given to the NCC's proposals but we believe that the combination of protections we have provided for, including the role of the director general and the consumers committees, will give the best degree of protection to consumers and ensure that the downward trend continues.

DEFENCE

  Community Charge
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received regarding the community charge and its effect on service personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Ministers have received about 85 such written representations or inquiries.

  Trident
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will be ordering a fourth Trident nuclear submarine.

  Mr. Neubert
  We expect to issue an invitation to tender for the fourth Vanguard class submarine later this year.

  WE177 Free-fall Bomb
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will reassess the basis for envisaging a requirement for a replacement for the WE177 free-fall bomb.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We keep our requirements for all weapons systems under review. As the WE177 free fall bomb approaches the end of its service life we are studying options for its replacement.

  "Statement on the Defence Estimates"
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the 1990 "Statement on the Defence Estimates".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We expect to publish the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" on Monday 2 April.

  School of Peace Studies
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any serving members of the armed forces are currently studying at the School of Peace Studies in Bradford.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A serving WRNS officer is currently undertaking a one-year defence fellowship at the School of Peace Studies in Bradford. I am not aware of any other serving members of the armed forces who are studying at the school.

  Warsaw Pact
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent contacts members of his Department have had with Warsaw pact countries.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There have recently been regular meetings with representatives of Warsaw pact nations at ministerial and official level. In the past month the Ministry has hosted visits by Colonel General Morocz, Hungarian State Secretary for Defence, Colonel General Stanculescu, Romanian Defence Minister and Colonel General Omelichev, Soviet Deputy Chief of General Staff. These contacts are a valuable means of building mutual confidence and improving understanding.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the accountancy firms used by his Department.

  Mr. Neubert
  The two outside accountancy firms currently employed by the Ministry of Defence on accountancy-type tasks are:

  Ernst and Young

  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Leicester (IRA Bomb)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the consequences of statements made after the recent explosion of the Irish Republican Army bomb in the city of Leicester for the fight against terrorism.

  Mr. Waddington
  The statements made by the police following the incident provided the public with information about what happened in order to reassure them that the matter was under control, to learn of any possible further threat and to seek their help in identifying those who had planted the device. The public response once again has been of great assistance to the police in pursuing their investigations.

  Rehabilitation of Offenders
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those organisations which sought inclusion in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975.

  Mr. John Patten
  The following organisations sought exceptions under the 1975 exceptions order:

  The Association of British Adoption Agencies

  The National Deaf Children's Society

  The National Council for Social Services

  The National Association for Deaf/Blind and Rubella Children

  The National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children

  The Ockenden Venture

  The NSPCC

  The Church of England Children's Society

  The Girl Guides Association

  The National Institute for the Deaf

  The National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations

  The National Association of Boys Clubs

  284

  The Church Army

  The National Association of Youth Clubs

  The General Synod Board of Education

  Christians Abroad

  The Baden Powell Scout's Association

  The Scout Association

  The Methodist Church Division of Education and Youth

  The Local Authority Associations (and individual local authorities)

  The GLC and ILEA

  The General Medical Council

  The General Dental Council

  The General Nursing Council

  The Central Midwives Board

  The General Optical Council

  The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

  The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

  The Law Society

  The Senate of the Inns of Court and the Bar

  The Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom

  The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

  The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

  The Police

  The British Bankers Association

  The Building Societies Association

  The London Diamond Bourse

  The Committee of Magistrates for Inner London

  The Fire Service

  Representatives of the Press

  The Bank of England

  The Retail Distributors Association Incorporated

  Augustus Barnett and Sons Ltd

  The Museums Association

  The London Diamond Club Ltd

  The National Supervisory Council for Intruder Alarms Ltd

  The National Supervisory Council for Intruder Alarms Ltd

  The British Security Industries Association

  The National Freight Corporation

  The Association of British Investigators

  The British Shipping Federation

  The British Casino Association

  The Betting Office Licensees Association

  The British Bingo Association

  The National Association of Licensed Bingo and Social Clubs

  The Continental Oil Company Ltd.

  Johnson, Matthey and Co. Ltd.

  The Accepting Houses Committee

  The British Jewellery and Giftware Federation Ltd.

  The Wellcome Foundation Ltd.

  Members of the London Gold Market

  The British Museum

  The Civil Aviation Authority

  The British Insurance Association and Lloyd's

  The Royal Commission on Historical Monuments

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on 8 January,Official Report, column 474, he will provide a list of accountancy firms.

  Mr. Waddington
  The accountancy firms employed by the Home Office were:

  Touche Ross

  Peat Marwick and McLintock

  Deloitte Haskins and Sells

  Coopers and Lybrand.

  RTL Astra Channel
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority, and for what reasons, the Cable Authority ceased taking the RTL Astra channel.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Cable Authority is responsible under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 for the regulation of programme content on cable television. Section 10 of the 1984 Act places the authority under a duty to do all that it can to ensure that all licensed services comply with a number of requirements, which are codified in the authority's programme codes and guidelines. I understand the Cable Authority concluded that RTL Plus was in breach of these requirements and that it was therefore no longer acceptable.

  Thorp Arch Prison
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been allocated to Thorp Arch prison and are now awaiting transfer at the latest count.

  Mr. Mellor
  On Friday 23 March, 275 inmates were allocated and awaiting transfer to Thorp Arch prison.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been transferred to Thorp Arch prison in the last three months.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 19 March, 27 of the 134 inmates held at Throp Arch had been received since 19 December 1989. The numbers of inmates who may have been transferred to Thorp Arch in that period, and subsequently moved elsewhere, cannot be readily identified.

  Firearms
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many compensation claims have been received in relation to the Firearms Amendment Act 1998; how many of these claims have been(a) paid, (b) refused and (c) are still pending; and when such outstanding claims will be settled.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 2,906 claims have been received from applicants in England and Wales for payments under the Government buy-in scheme for weapons newly prohibited under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. Of these claims, 2,727 have had payments authorised and 73 have been refused as ineligible under the scheme. A further 106 claims have yet to be determined. These will be resolved as soon as we are able to determine their eligibility.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firearms were handed into police stations under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 bringing-in scheme since its commencement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 2,906 applicants in England and Wales have submitted claims in respect of 3,607 weapons, surrendered to the police or otherwise disposed of, for a payment under the Government buy-in scheme. Separate figures on the number of weapons surrendered to the police and the number otherwise disposed of are not collected centrally.

  Young Persons (Police Charges)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children and young persons, having been charged by the police, were transferred to the care of the local authority or detained by the police in pursuance of section 38(6) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in the last two years for which figures are available; and how this total figure is subdivided by police force area and local authority area.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Police (Protective Clothing)
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is considering issuing to police forces nuclear, biological and chemical defence clothing and equipment.

  Mr. John Patten
  The need for specialist clothing and equipment is kept under review.

  Deportation
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many defendants found guilty of a criminal offence, during the last five years, have been recommended for deportation by the court; and how many of these recommendations the Home Secretary has supported;

  (2) in how many cases where there were no court recommendations for deportation after conviction of a criminal offence the Home Office has served notice to deport on grounds conducive to public good over the past five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information for 1985 to 1988 is published in table 24 of the Home Office Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 1988" (Cm. 726), and for 1987 to 1989 in table 14 of the Home Office statistical bulletin 8/90 "Control of Immigration: Statistics—Fourth Quarter and Year 1990". Copies of both publications are in the Library.

  The numbers of notices of intention to deport served on grounds conducive to the public good include a small number where there was no criminal conviction.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Refugee Camps, Thailand
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he is doing to ensure United Kingdom food aid to the Cambodian camps on the Thailand border is not going to the Khmer Rouge.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 19 February, Column 486.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether human rights matters, including the situation in East Timor and the recent execution of six political prisoners in Jakarta and in
  287
  Medan, will be included on the agenda of the 1990 meeting of the intergovernmental group on Indonesia, scheduled for June.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Her Majesty's Government have not received the proposed agenda for next June's meeting of the intergovernmental group on Indonesia. The meeting will be chaired by the Dutch Minister for Development Co-operation and no doubt he will be discussing the draft agenda with the Indonesian Government and the World Bank in the coming weeks.

  Czechoslovakia
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals Her Majesty's Government have to assist economic, social and educational development in Czechoslovakia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 21 March, during the visit of President Havel to Britain, that the know-how fund for eastern Europe had been extended to cover Czechoslovakia. The aim will be to provide advice, skills and training to aid Czechoslovakia's transition towards democracy and a market economy. We shall be discussing an overall strategy for the use of the fund with the Czechoslovak authorities.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring is being undertaken by his Department of elephant conservation schemes funded by Her Majesty's Government, following the decision to allow Hong Kong ivory to be traded.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We regularly monitor all development projects funded by Her Majesty's Government, including those in the wildlife conservation sector.

  Zaire
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice the Overseas Development Administration has given to Grindlay's bank about financing Babcock Electric in its logging projects in Zaire.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No advice has been sought or given.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UNESCO
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to complete his review of the progress the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation is making in resolving the difficulties which prevent the United Kingdom from rejoining.

  Mr. Maude
  We are currently reviewing comments received from a large number of organisations consulted as part of our review of policy towards UNESCO. We will also be taking into account the views expressed in the report on UNESCO by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House.
  288
  We hope to be able to announce the outcome of the review during the course of the next few weeks.

  Complaints
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report for each of the last 10 years (a) the number of complaints made against his Department to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, (b) the number of complaints upheld and (c) the action he took on (b).

  Mr. Maude
  The number of complaints(a) made and (b) upheld for the last 10 years is as follows:

  (a) complaints made

  (b) complaints upheld

  1989–90

  1

  1

  1988–89

  5

  1

  1987–88

  7

  —

  1986–87

  5

  —

  1985–86

  7

  —

  1984–85

  10

  —

  1983–84

  6

  —

  1982–83

  13

  —

  1981–82

  14

  —

  1980–81

  6

  —

  1 Figures not yet available.

  When the PCA upholds a complaint it is departmental practice to provide an appropriate remedy.

  Guatemala
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make representations to the Government in Guatemala on the abduction on 27 February of Benjamin Diaz Arévalo, a student at the universidad de San Carlos in Guatemala;

  (2) if he will make representations to the Guatemalan Government concerning the safety of Carlos Luna, a student of the San Carlos university, Guatemala city.

  Mr. Maude
  We are making inquiries about these cases. We will continue to monitor the human rights situation and make representations when appropriate, either acting alone or in concert with our European partners. The Guatemalan authorities are in no doubt about the concern felt in this country about human rights violations in Guatemala.

  Refugee Camps, Thailand
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to support European Commissioner Abei Mauters, to establish neutral refugee camps on the Thailand border.

  Mr. Maude
  We support all efforts to improve the lot of displaced persons in camps along the Thai-Cambodian border. Since 1979, the United Kingdom has contributed over £13·7 million in humanitarian assistance via international agencies. If and when neutral camps under direct United Nations administration need to be created as part of a comprehensive political settlement in Cambodia, we would be ready to play our full part in their establishment.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning the human rights situation in East Timor, following the United States ambassador's visit to Dili in January.

  Mr. Maude
  We believe that generally the situation has improved following the changes in military command structure last December. We continue to monitor the situation.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the instructions given by the Indonesian Minister for Defence in February to the armed forces about how to handle demonstrators in favour of independence from Indonesia.

  Mr. Maude
  We are not party to instructions issued by the Indonesian Minister of Defence. We understand that the authorities' intention is that peaceful demonstrations should be allowed to pass off without intervention.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the British Government have made to the Indonesian authorities about the use of violence against peaceful demonstrators for independence in East Timor.

  Mr. Maude
  The Indonesian authorities are well aware of our views on the need to respect human rights. Two recent demonstrations that we know of passed off peacefully without incident.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what steps the Government are taking to promote educational exchanges between the United Kingdom and the emerging democracies of eastern Europe and, in particular, to assist students from these countries to study at United Kingdom universities.

  Mr. Maude
  We have been progressively extending our educational exchange programmes in response to changes in eastern Europe and introducing new schemes to bring eastern European students to our universities and polytechnics, funded jointly with the private sector, with academic institutions and with bodies such as the Soros Foundation.

  Kenya
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact his Department has had in recent weeks with Dr. Richard Leakey, director of the Kenyan wildlife department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The British High Commission in Nairobi is in regular contact with Dr. Leakey and senior officials of the Kenya Wildlife Service. The high commissioner in Nairobi last met Dr. Leakey on 15 March.

  Kenya
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has regarding the level of elephant poaching in Kenya following the decision to enter a reservation on behalf of Hong Kong ivory.

  Mr. Maude
  The Kenya Wildlife Service does not produce official figures of monthly poaching. The service knows of only three killings in March in Tsavo and, although not all poached elephants are discovered, it anticipates that the total killed for this month in Kenya will be in single figures. During the previous two months we know that 50 elephants were illegally killed in the Tsavo area.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on world price movements of ivory following the decision to enter a reservation on behalf of Hong Kong; and what monitoring is maintained of price movements.

  Mr. Maude
  None. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not monitor price movements in the ivory market.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Environmental Investigation Agency concerning poached ivory being laundered into Hong Kong using spare CITES permits.

  Mr. Maude
  None.

SCOTLAND

  Health Spending
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those years in the period 1974 to 1989 when financial cuts in real terms were made in the National Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 15 November 1989,Official Report, columns 362–63. In the period 1974–1989, the only year in which gross National Health Service spending in Scotland fell in real terms was 1977–78.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total number of vacancies for speech therapists within each health board area and the agreed establishment for speech therapists.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the average case load covered by a speech therapist;

  (2) if he will provide a percentage breakdown of the communication-handicapped population who receive speech therapy in (a) the hospital site, (b) National Health Service premises, (c) local authority premises, (d) patients' homes and (e) other locations;
  291
  (3) if he will provide statistics on the levels of speech therapy service currently available in each area health authority in Scotland; if work is currently in progress to analyse the levels of services required for areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 March 1990]: Information available centrally about speech therapy

  Table 1—Speech therapy statistics: year ending 31 March 1989

  Scotland

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Patients attending1

  All ages

  Number

  51,083

  3,928

  4,263

  1,480

  1,788

  3,658

  3,308

  5,644

  Rate2

  10·0

  8·9

  11·4

  14·4

  12·1

  10·6

  12·2

  11·3

  Aged under 5

  30·7

  41·5

  33·6

  24·7

  33·8

  32·0

  23·3

  34·9

  5–18

  41·8

  35·2

  51·2

  42·0

  49·0

  35·1

  47·2

  41·1

  19–64

  14·1

  13·8

  8·5

  19·9

  8·3

  12·3

  18·5

  12·0

  65 and over

  13·3

  9·6

  6·7

  13·4

  8·8

  20·6

  10·9

  12·1

  New patients

  All ages

  Number

  22,447

  1,834

  1,381

  719

  526

  1,593

  1,157

  2,203

  Rate2

  4·4

  4·1

  3·7

  7·0

  3·6

  4·6

  4·3

  4·4

  Aged under 5

  38·6

  46·0

  56·0

  27·0

  47·5

  38·3

  35·8

  40·8

  5–18

  23·3

  21·5

  20·2

  41·2

  29·1

  17·0

  17·7

  23·3

  19–64

  17·0

  16·9

  11·4

  17·8

  9·5

  11·7

  24·0

  14·7

  65 and over

  21·1

  15·6

  12·3

  14·0

  13·9

  33·0

  22·5

  21·2

  Attendances

  All attendances

  465,226

  36,101

  34,545

  21,906

  23,552

  37,456

  26,806

  39,422

  Hospital

  Inpatient

  14·8

  13·8

  6·2

  9·6

  3·4

  10·5

  28·3

  17·8

  Outpatient

  13·0

  11·7

  6·5

  4·6

  3·1

  7·7

  12·8

  9·3

  Health Centre/Clinic

  22·4

  31·6

  42·0

  6·0

  0·8

  24·9

  9·3

  25·5

  School

  38·3

  36·1

  41·5

  49·3

  67·1

  39·0

  35·7

  38·5

  Domiciliary

  4·7

  2·2

  2·7

  10·1

  16·8

  6·3

  4·4

  3·3

  Other

  6·8

  4·7

  1·1

  20·4

  8·8

  11·6

  9·6

  5·7

  Speech therapists3

  Number

  446

  38

  26

  14

  18

  30

  23

  56

  Whole-time equivalents

  363·4

  30·2

  22·4

  10·7

  16·1

  26·4

  17·8

  43·7

  Table 1—continued

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  Patients Attending1

  All Ages

  Number

  8,274

  2,998

  3,570

  7,329

  478

  356

  3,706

  303

  Rate2

  8·8

  14·9

  6·4

  9·9

  24·6

  15·9

  9·4

  9·8

  Aged under 5

  24·0

  27·0

  36·7

  29·6

  16·5

  16·3

  34·7

  21·1

  5–18

  38·6

  55·5

  39·9

  35·4

  78·2

  73·6

  39·7

  49·5

  19–64

  20·8

  9·2

  12·7

  15·8

  1·7

  4·5

  11·6

  20·1

  65 and over

  16·6

  8·3

  10·7

  19·2

  3·6

  5·6

  14·0

  9·2

  New Patients

  All Ages

  Number

  4,301

  1,069

  1,738

  3,827

  157

  186

  1,622

  134

  Rate2

  4·6

  5·3

  3·1

  5·2

  8·1

  8·3

  4·1

  4·3

  Aged under 5

  30·7

  37·7

  49·5

  34·4

  29·9

  21·0

  39·3

  35·8

  5–18

  25·5

  37·4

  20·9

  16·9

  64·3

  68·8

  19·7

  45·5

  19–64

  21·2

  11·6

  15·1

  21·2

  1·9

  5·9

  15·4

  13·4

  65 and over

  22·6

  13·3

  14·4

  27·5

  3·8

  4·3

  25·6

  5·2

  Attendances

  All Attendances

  66,689

  17,764

  30,913

  79,510

  2,422

  3,645

  42,343

  2,152

  Hospital Inpatient

  18·9

  14·1

  9·6

  20·6

  3·3

  1·6

  13·6

  4·6

  292
  staffing, patients, workload and location of treatment in health boards is collated annually by the information and statistics division of Common Services Agency. The latest tables are as follows, and copies are in the Library. Assessment of the need for speech therapy services is a matter for health boards.
  293

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  Outpatient

  24·3

  5·6

  15·5

  13·5

  0·2

  14·7

  21·7

  0·9

  Health Centre/Clinic

  28·1

  10·3

  50·2

  15·8

  3·9

  1·5

  13·2

  21·1

  School

  18·2

  55·8

  20·2

  41·1

  79·0

  79·5

  42·9

  42·9

  Domiciliary

  2·8

  10·3

  2·2

  3·4

  9·3

  2·6

  2·4

  28·0

  Other

  7·8

  3·9

  2·3

  5·6

  4·2

  —

  6·3

  2·4

  Speech Therapists3

  Number

  80

  16

  33

  64

  2

  1

  41

  4

  Whole-time-equivalent

  65·7

  13·4

  26·8

  53·1

  2·0

  0·7

  31·3

  3·1

  1Old and new patients.

  2 Per 1,000 population.

  3 As at 31st March 1989 (provisional figures): excludes speech therapy helpers.

  Source: Form ISD(S)31 and ISD (National Manpower Statistics).

  Table 2

  Speech therapists: by grade and health board: at 31 March 1989 (Provisional)

  Grade E

  Number

  WTE

  Scotland

  5

  5·0

  Argyll and Clyde

  —

  —

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1

  1·0

  Borders

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  Fife

  1

  1·0

  Forth Valley

  1

  1·0

  Grampian

  —

  —

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  —

  Highland

  —

  —

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  Lothian

  1

  1·0

  Orkney

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  Tayside

  1

  1·0

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  Grade D

  Number

  WTE

  Scotland

  27

  27·0

  Argyll and Clyde

  3

  3·0

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1

  1·0

  Borders

  1

  1·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2

  2·0

  Fife

  —

  —

  Forth Valley

  2

  2·0

  Grampian

  2

  2·0

  Greater Glasgow

  3

  3·0

  Highland

  1

  1·0

  Lanarkshire

  1

  1·0

  Lothian

  6

  6·0

  Orkney

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  Tayside

  4

  4·0

  Western Isles

  1

  1·0

  Grade C (Senior)

  Number

  WTE

  Scotland

  141

  129·0

  Argyll and Clyde

  10

  8·5

  Ayrshire and Arran

  8

  7·5

  Borders

  4

  4·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  1·0

  Fife

  8

  8·0

  294

  Number

  WTE

  Forth Valley

  4

  3·4

  Grampian

  11

  11·0

  Greater Glasgow

  43

  38·4

  Highland

  3

  3·0

  Lanarkshire

  11

  10·5

  Lothian

  25

  22·1

  Orkney

  1

  1·0

  Shetland

  —

  —

  Tayside

  11

  9·6

  Western Isles

  1

  1·0

  Grade B (Basic)

  Number

  WTE

  Scotland

  240

  171·8

  Argyll and Clyde

  22

  16·1

  Ayrshire and Arran

  15

  11·9

  Borders

  9

  5·7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  14

  12·1

  Fife

  19

  15·4

  Forth Valley

  13

  8·4

  Grampian

  36

  23·7

  Greater Glasgow

  27

  18–1

  Highland

  12

  9·4

  Lanarkshire

  20

  14·3

  Lothian

  30

  22·3

  Orkney

  —

  —

  Shetland

  1

  0·7

  Tayside

  20

  12·6

  Western Isles

  2

  1·1

  Grade A

  Number

  WTE

  Scotland

  33

  30·6

  Argyll and Clyde

  3

  2·6

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1

  1·0

  Borders

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  1·0

  Fife

  2

  2·0

  Forth Valley

  3

  3·0

  Grampian

  7

  7·0

  Greater Glasgow

  7

  6·2

  Highland

  —

  —

  Lanarkshire

  1

  1·0

  Lothian

  2

  1·7

  Orkney

  1

  1·0

  Shetland

  —

  —

  Tayside

  5

  4·1

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  295

  ST Helper

  Number

  WTE

  Scotland

  3

  1·3

  Argyll and Clyde

  —

  —

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  —

  Borders

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  0·5

  Fife

  —

  —

  Forth Valley

  1

  0·3

  Grampian

  —

  —

  Greater Glasgow

  1

  0·5

  Highland

  —

  —

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  Lothian

  —

  —

  Orkney

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  Tayside

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  Source: ISD (National Manpower Statistics).

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give a breakdown of the percentages of speech therapy referrals which come from doctors and consultants, and from clinical medical officers, health

  Speech therapists in post: Whole-time equivalent at 30 September

  Health board

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  Scotland

  323·7

  339·4

  343·1

  372·3

  377·6

  Argyll and Clyde

  27·5

  29·0

  28·1

  32·8

  33·0

  Ayrshire and Arran

  17·9

  19·3

  20·6

  20·5

  21·5

  Borders

  10·2

  10·3

  11·2

  10·7

  11·7

  Dumfries and Galloway

  15·6

  16·5

  15·9

  15·8

  16·1

  Fife

  23·7

  25·3

  28·0

  27·5

  28·1

  Forth Valley

  13·8

  13·4

  16·3

  18·4

  18·2

  Grampian

  28·6

  35·6

  33·5

  40·2

  45·5

  Greater Glasgow

  60·4

  62·6

  63·0

  70·8

  63·7

  Highland

  12·8

  14·8

  14·9

  16·1

  15·5

  Lanarkshire

  22·8

  24·1

  23·2

  27·5

  31·8

  Lothian

  53·4

  50·2

  52·5

  53·6

  56·4

  Orkney

  2·0

  1·2

  2·0

  1·6

  1·0

  Shetland

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  0·7

  0·7

  Tayside

  31·9

  33·0

  29·8

  33·5

  31·3

  Western Isles

  2·3

  3·3

  3·3

  2·6

  3·1

  1 Provisional.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the name and address of the company which is transferring the Greater Glasgow health board's medical records onto computer.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No such transfer is being undertaken at this time.

  Examinations
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people sat public educational examinations in(a) politics (b) constitutional studies and (c) political history in 1989.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Examination Board does not offer examinations in any of these subjects. Figures for presentations in these subjects in the further and higher education sectors are not collected centrally.
  296
  visitors, community nursing, educational services, social services, speech therapists in other districts, from self-referrals and other sources;

  (2) if he will provide statistics relating to the percentages of people receiving speech therapy services who have associated mobility problems or a level of social-economic difficulty.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 March 1990]: This information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on 20 December,Official Report, column 296, if he will provide details of the numbers of speech therapists employed by each regional education authority in Scotland during the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 March 1990]: Speech therapists are employed almost exclusively by health boards which provide the service for education authorities. The table shows the whole-time equivalent numbers of speech therapists employed by health boards at the latest available date and at the corresponding date in each of the years 1985–88.

  A9
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report those stretches of the A9 lying within Caithness and Sutherland in respect of which since 1970 improvement plans have been announced; and if he will indicate, for each stretch of road, whether (a) work has been completed, (b) work is in progress and (c) an economic assessment is still in train.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The position with respect to major schemes for which plans have been announced since 1970 is as follows:

  A9 Schemes within Caithness and Sutherland

  Year completed

  Length kms

  Completed

  Helmsdale Bridge Diversion

  1973

  0·9

  Bonar Bridge Replacement

  1973

  0·4

  Knockinnon-Latheronwheel

  1976

  2·4

  Mound Bridges

  1988

  0·6

  Dornoch Firth Northern Approach Road

  1988

  4·0

  297

  Year completed

  Length kms

  Dunbeath Bridge Diversion

  1990

  1·6

  In progress

  Expected completion

  Dornoch Firth Bridge

  1991

  0·8

  Economic assessment not yet available

  Windyhouse-Borgue Bridge

  —

  2·8

  Portgower-Greenpark

  —

  1·6

  Berriedale

  —

  5·0

  Crackaig-Culgower

  —

  1·8

  Helmsdale-County Boundary

  —

  5·2

  Brora Bypass

  —

  2·5

  Clothing and Textiles
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department intends to take in order to protect the clothing and textiles industry in Strathclyde after the eventual phasing-out of the multi-fibre arrangement.

  Mr. Lang
  This is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Government have made it clear that progress in phasing out the multi-fibre arrangement must be on the basis of a strengthening of GATT rules and disciplines, particularly those relating to safeguards, unfair trade, intellectual property and the reduction of trade barriers. It is by progress in those areas that the industry will be assisted in coming to terms with the liberalisation of trade in the clothing and textile sector.

  Portland Street, Kilmarnock
  Mr. William McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will report on the progress of the planning application submitted by Balfour Beatty to redevelop Portland street, Kilmarnock.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office inquiry reporter carried out his accompanied site inspection of Portland street on 16 January. His report in relation to the listed building consent applications associated with the proposed Balfour Beatty development is at present under consideration. I expect to reach a conclusion on these applications very soon.

  Staff in post: Whole-time equivalents at 30 September 1989 (provisional)

  Health Board

  Physiotherapist

  Occupational therapist

  Clinical Psychologist

  Pharmacist1

  Scotland

  1,253·3

  592·3

  184·5

  489·8

  Argyll and Clyde

  79·1

  32·1

  17·6

  29·0

  Ayrshire and Arran

  88·5

  29·0

  8·0

  27·9

  Borders

  24·8

  9·7

  3·0

  6·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  21·0

  17·3

  10·0

  7·4

  Fife

  71·7

  33·7

  15·0

  18·0

  Forth Valley

  56·0

  34·4

  11·8

  19·2

  Grampian

  114·8

  65·3

  21·7

  41·5

  Greater Glasgow

  315·0

  136·0

  29·5

  155·6

  Highland

  45·8

  14·9

  4·0

  17·5

  Lanarkshire

  105·5

  28·1

  12·4

  36·6

  Lothian

  225·8

  135·9

  35·6

  82·5

  National Health Service (Competitive Tendering)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on competitive tendering for the non-emergency patient transport services in the Forth Valley and Lanarkshire health board areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Common Services Agency, having considered the tenders received, has decided to award the contract to the Scottish ambulance service in-house team for a five-year period from 1 July 1990.

  The tendering exercise has been proved successful and will result in substantial savings of £500,000. These savings will be reinvested into the accident and emergency service to further improve the level of care provided with no detriment to the non-emergency patient transport service.

  In the light of this experience, I have asked the agency to begin the preparatory work which will allow the tendering exercise to be extended to other areas in Scotland.

  GPs (Fees and Allowances)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the amendment to the statement of fees and allowances to be administered by the Scottish Rural Practice and Fund Committee for the benefit of general practitioners who practise in less densely populated country areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 March 1990]: The Scottish rural practice fund committee has not yet formulated detailed proposals concerning the new scheme. It has recommended that in the first instance the transitional payments scheme at present set out in paragraph 83 of the statement of fees and allowances (SFA) should apply to all GPs who meet the criteria, including those who receive payments from the Scottish rural practice fund. An amendment to the SFA will be made shortly to give effect to this recommendation. This will allow the longer-term scheme covering doctors who work in the less populated areas of Scotland to be worked out carefully and in detail. The details of that long-term scheme will also be set out in an amendment to the SFA in due course.

  Health Service Staff
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many physiotherapists, occupational therapists, clinical pyschologists and pharmacists are employed in each area health authority in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 March 1990]: The information is as follows:
  299

  Health Board

  Physiotherapist

  Occupational therapist

  Clinical psychologist

  Pharmacist1

  Orkney

  5·0

  0·6

  0·0

  0·0

  Shetland

  5·0

  1·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Tayside

  84·7

  53·3

  14·9

  45·0

  Western Isles

  10·6

  1·0

  0·0

  2·0

  CSA

  0·0

  0·0

  1·0

  1·0

  1 hospital based.

  Infertility Services
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he anticipates receiving the report of the working party set up by the National Medical Consultative Committee to examine the provision of infertility services in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 28 March 1990]: The report of the working group on infertility is currently being drafted. Following consideration by the national medical advisory committee, it is hoped that the final report will reach the Scottish Health Service Advisory Council in June, and be submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend thereafter.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual cost of administering income support benefits for free school meals, free milk, wigs, fabric support, prescriptions, false teeth and glasses; and what is the annual value of these benefit payments.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The administration costs arising in the Department of Social Security in respect of the free welfare milk scheme are estimated to be £9·3 million in the year 1989–90. The administration costs in respect of the free school meals scheme and the exemption from NHS charges of income support recipients are not separately identifiable.

  Administration costs in other Departments and elsewhere, and the benefits costs, of providing these schemes for income support recipients are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Scotland and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Wales.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give his latest information on the number of claimants living in the Greenock and Port Glasgow parliamentary constituency aged below 25 years, over 25 years and married couples, receiving income support and the number of dependants covered by each of these three groups of payments.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest available information on the number of claimants of income support, together with the number of dependants, in each of the parliamentary constituencies in the Strathclyde region; and if he will give the comparable information for 1979 and 1987.
  300
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Data on the number of dependants are unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Data on the number of claimants of income support are unavailable by parliamentary constituency. Data for the Department's offices covering Strathclyde region as a whole are in the table.

  Number of supplementary benefit/income support claimants

  Year

  Numbers

  1990

  289,589

  1987

  253,955

  1979

  173,068

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action which include a number where payment has ceased but other action is continuing. Data for 1990 is provisional and subject to amendment.

  Benefits (Take-up)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the rate of take-up of (i) housing benefit and (ii) income support by(a) all claimants and (b) pensioner households.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available information on take-up of income-related benefits is contained in the technical notes on take-up of benefits, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the current level of child benefit if it had been raised in line with inflation.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Child benefit was fully introduced from April 1979 at a rate of £4 a week. Increasing that by the movement in the index of retail prices to April 1989 would give a current amount of £8·42.

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether community care grants are available to persons moving from long-stay psychiatric hospitals to housing association houses where care staff are provided.

  Mr. Scott
  Directions and guidance for the award of social fund community care grants appear in the social fund manual, a copy of which is in the Library. The guidance makes it clear that community care grants are intended to promote independent living in the community. In any particular case it will be for the social fund officer to decide whether a move from long-stay hospital care to a home with some provision for care can be regarded as a return to the community. One of the factors taken into account will be the level of care provided.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report the final expenditure for each local social fund office for the year 1988–89, separately for loans and grants expressed as a proportion of the total annual allocation made to each office.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested can be derived from data in the Library.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report the names of offices given extra allocations for social fund loans or grants from 1 January to the present and the value of those allocations.

  Mr. Scott
  We shall place a full list of the additional allocations in the Library after the end of the current financial year.
  Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proportion of successful applicants to the social fund had support for their application from(a) hon. Members, (b) social workers, (c) welfare rights workers and (d) voluntary groups both (i) initially and (ii) after request for review for (1) community care grants, (2) budgeting loans and (3) crisis loans;

  (2) what proportion of unsuccessful applicants to the social fund had support for their application from (a) hon. Members, (b) social workers, (c) welfare rights workers and (d) voluntary groups both (i) initially and (ii) after request for review for (1) community care grants, (2) budgeting loans and (3) crisis loans.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not collected.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of people in(a) Scotland, (b) Dunfermline, (c) Cowdenbeath, (d) Leven and (e) Kirkcaldy receiving income support in November 1989; and what is his estimate of the number of dependents of each of these at the same date.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 26 March 1990]: Data on the number of dependants are unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Data on the number of claimants of income support are in the table.

  Number of income support claimants

  Area

  Number

  Scotland

  506,853

  Dunfermline

  5,718

  Cowdenbeath

  4,407

  Leven

  5,114

  Kirkcaldy

  11,052

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action which include a number where payment has ceased but other action is continuing. Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye of 21 March,Official Report, column 642, if he will ensure that payment of the claim for family credit dated November 1989 made by the Reverend and Mrs. John MacLeod of Ross-shire, about whom the
  302
  hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye wrote to the Minister on 13 February and 13 March, respectively, will not be delayed by the appeal of the Department of Social Security to the Social Security Commissioners against the award made under the claim for family credit dated November 1988 made by the Reverend and Mrs. John MacLeod; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest claim was decided on 22 March. An award of family credit was made and has been put into payment.

  Community Charge
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the figures showing the amounts of community charge benefit payable during 1990–91 to pensioner couples with joint community charge bills(a) £500, (b) £750, (c) £1,000 and (d) £1,250, assuming in each case that they have £15,000 invested in the building society and occupational pensions of (i) nil, (ii) £500, (iii) £1,000 and (iv) £1,500.

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

  Community charge benefit (weekly). Pensioner couple, capital £15,000, aged 60–74, on state retirement pension for a couple of £75·10 per week.

  Annual joint community charge

  Occupational Pension (per annum)

  Nil £

  £500 £

  £1,000 £

  £1,500 £

  £500

  0·54

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  £750

  4·38

  2·92

  1·48

  Nil

  £1,000

  8·20

  6·76

  5·32

  3·88

  £1,250

  12·04

  10·60

  9·16

  7·72

  Whooping Cough Vaccine
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether there has been any change in(a) departmental policy and (b) the adjudicating doctor's attitude towards payments for damage from the whooping cough vaccine following the Loveday case.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Departmental policy towards vaccine damage payments has not changed since the Loveday case. It remains our intention to make payments under the vaccine damage payments scheme for people who show that they are severely disabled as a result of the effects of vaccination against certain diseases, including whooping cough. The Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 requires that the question whether the severe disablement results from vaccination is to be decided on the balance of probability. Adjudicating doctors have to look at all the relevant evidence available to them when making this decision in individual cases. The Loveday judgment forms part of this evidence.

  Benefits
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the level of benefits.
  303
  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement on uprating social security benefits made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 25 October 1989 at col.841–69.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Economy
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the performance of the Northern Ireland economy over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Cope
  The latest information shows that, in the last quarter of 1989, manufacturing output was 7 per cent. above the same quarter of the previous year, the number unemployed in February 1990 was 10,900 down on a year earlier and growth in Northern Ireland's gross domestic product since 1981 has been similar to the United Kingdom's.

  Dublin (Official Visit)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he hopes next to pay an official visit to Dublin; whom he proposes to meet; and what he hopes to discuss.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next plans to meet his co-chairman of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental council; and what he hopes to discuss.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next hopes to meet the Foreign Secretary of the Republic of Ireland; and what he plans to discuss.

  Mr. Brooke
  I plan to meet Mr. Collins in Dublin shortly to discuss political development within Northern Ireland. Other current issues affecting Northern Ireland are likely to be raised.

  Local Government
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with representatives from political parties in Northern Ireland regarding the transfer of various powers to local authorities.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to increase the scope and accountability of local government in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In their talks with us, most Northern Ireland politicians have looked towards the establishment of a devolved form of government for Northern Ireland as a whole, with an appropriate role for representatives of the minority community. The Government would give serious consideration to any proposals for more local involvement in the government of Northern Ireland which were workable and seemed likely to command widespread acceptance.

  Stevens Inquiry
  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to publish the report of the Stevens inquiry.
  304
  Mr. Cope
  I understand that Mr. Stevens has not yet delivered his report to the Chief Constable, who commissioned it. At this stage, it is too early to say when or in what form its conclusions may be made public.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Stevens inquiry.

  Mr. Cope
  So far, 58 people have been charged with offences as a result of the inquiries of Mr. Stevens and his team. The inquiry continues. I understand that Mr. Stevens is now expected to report the findings of his inquiry to the Chief Constable of the RUC during the month of April.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with representatives of Eire regarding the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I last met Ministers from the Republic of Ireland at the Anglo-lrish Intergovernmental Conference meeting on 2 March. The two Governments remain committed to the Agreement and the principles it embodies.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the status of Northern Ireland as embodied in the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. The Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Republic of Ireland affirm in article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland and recognise that the present wish of a majority is for no change in that status.

  School Assemblies
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to introduce legislative proposals relating to the conduct of school assemblies; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Community Relations
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on community relations in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Steps have been and are being taken to improve relations between the two sides of the community in Northern Ireland. These include measures directed at:increasing contact and co-operation across the community;
  increasing greater mutual respect and understanding; and ensuring the existence of equality of opportunity and equity of treatment.

  Terrorists (Extradition)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications by the Royal Ulster Constabulary for the extradition of persons sought
  305
  for terrorist-type crimes have been made during the last 10 years to the Irish Republic; and how many persons have subsequently been handed over.

  Mr. Cope
  During the past 10 years the Royal Ulster Constabulary has requested the return of 51 persons for terrorist offences from the Irish Republic. Six persons have subsequently been returned, three of them in the past 20 months.

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

  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present security situation in Northern Ireland.

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

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

  Mr. Brooke
  Since I answered a similar question on 1 March 1990 there have been six deaths arising from the security situation in Northern Ireland. A part-time member of the UDR, a member of the RUC Reserve and a civilian were murdered by republican terrorists. Following the latter murder, I have proscribed the Irish People's Liberation Organisation. Two civilians were murdered by loyalist terrorists, and a further civilian died in the course of an attempted robbery. I know the House will join me in condemning the vicious and cowardly murder of the RUC Reserve Constable George Starrett, who was cruelly shot last night at his home in Armagh. This sickening attack on a man who was convalescing at home is yet one more example of the depravity of these evil men.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the levels of planned expenditure on the National Health Service in 1990–91 broken down by region.

  Mr. Needham
  A total of £1,035 million will be provided for the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland. Of this sum, £742,847 million will be allocated directly to the four health and social services boards. Excluding sums set aside for priority developments the balance will be allocated as follows: the Eastern board, £392,372 million, the Northern board, £123,891 million, the Southern board, £113,982 million and the Western board, £113,525 million.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to increase grants to voluntary bodies in 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Grants to voluntary bodies are reviewed each financial year and adjusted as necessary. However, there are no plans to increase grants to voluntary bodies in the remaining part of the 1989–90 financial year.

  Cross-border Co-operation
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subjects of cross-border co-operation were discussed at the last meeting of the Anglo-Irish ministerial council.

  Mr. Brooke
  Discussions at the last meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference on 2 March included cross-border co-operation on security and social and economic matters.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what issues of non-security related cross-border co-operation will be discussed at the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish ministerial conference.

  Mr. Brooke
  Among the items for discussion at the next Conference will be cross-border economic and social co-operation and the implications of 1992.

  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border security co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.

  Mr. Brooke
  Enhancing cross-border co-operation on security matters remains a fundamental objective of the Government in their discussions with the Irish Government. Progress has been made since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but there remains considerable scope for further improvement. We shall continue to explore, through the Conference, ways in which this can be achieved.

  Prison Visits
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what requests he has received from the Irish Government for visits to prisons in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cope
  None.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients were treated in hospitals in Northern Ireland in 1987 and 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The total numbers of in-patients treated in 1987 and 1989 were as follows:

  1987

  1988–89

  Ordinary admissions

  266,622

  266,530

  Day cases

  27,707

  42,423

  TOTAL

  294,329

  308,953

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the annual amount of Industrial Development Board assistance to aid employment.

  Mr. Needham
  The Industrial Development Board's expenditure to aid employment was £94 million in 1988–89. Forecast expenditure for the current year is £85 million.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on inward investment.

  Mr. Needham
  Recent successes and current levels of interest by potential investors in the far east, United States and Europe suggest that an increasing number of companies are prepared to give serious consideration to investment in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is being done to promote overseas investment in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Our efforts are concentrated on major markets for mobile investment, with increasing emphasis on the far east and the USA, and sectorally in areas where Northern Ireland has particular strengths.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the benefits of advance factory provision and availability of sites with development planning approval in attracting inward investment to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The IDB's advance factories provide high quality and immediately available industrial accommodation for inward investors who may wish to purchase or rent premises. Twelve such factories are currently available throughout the Province. Serviced industrially zoned land provides investors with the opportunity to acquire sites quickly and at market price for early project implementation. Some 500 acres of fully serviced land are available in the major centres of population.

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

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I met the chairman on 2 March 1990 at the scene of the level crossing accident at Slaght, near Ballymena, Co. Antrim. We viewed the damage to the rolling stock and track and discussed steps necessary to set up an inquiry into the accident and the arrangements to visit the local hospital to see those who had been injured.

  Area Health Boards
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whan he last met representatives of the area health boards; and what issues were discussed.

  Mr. Needham
  My noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale has met representatives of the boards on a number of occasions. His discussions with them have covered a wide range of issues concerning the policy and administration of the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland including the progress of the boards in taking forward the reforms set out in "Working for Patients".

  Constitutional Reform
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what practical alternatives to devolution have emerged from his exploratory meetings with the main constitutional political parties.
  308
  Mr. Brooke
  All the main constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland have expressed a willingness to work towards the devolution of powers to local elected representatives. The Government support this aim, because it seems the approach most likely to command widespread acceptance and serve the interests of all. My discussions with the leaders of the parties have concentrated on this approach.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for the reorganisation of community care.

  Mr. Needham
  My noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale is today publishing a policy paper, entitled "People First", which sets out the Government's proposals for the development of community care in Northern Ireland. A copy is being placed in the Library.

  Cross-community Projects
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many schools are involved in cross-community projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In October 1987 I introduced the cross-community contact scheme to stimulate the development of cross-community projects between schools, and youth and community groups.

  Since its introduction, some 400 schools—about one third of all schools in Northern Ireland—have applied for assistance under the scheme which has an actual budget in 1989–90 of £450,000. Grant is available for joint, continuing projects most of which are curriculum based.

  Private House Building
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate private sector house building in 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Private house building starts rose 64 per cent. from 4,127 in 1979 to 6,763 in 1989.

  Planning Legislation
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes he proposes to make to Northern Ireland planning legislation.

  Mr. Needham
  I intend to lay a draft Planning (Northern Ireland) Order before the House in April.

  Northern Ireland Members have already been consulted on the proposed draft order, the main points of which will be the introduction of simplified planning zones; discontinuance notices; planning agreements and measures for controlling the storage and use of hazardous substances. This will bring the planning law in Northern Ireland substantially into line with that in Great Britain. Also, the draft order will introduce a new measure—a submission notice procedure whereby the Department of Environment (NI) could require the submission of a planning application from anyone carrying out development without planning permission.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the prison service in the light of the decision of the Dublin Supreme Court.

  Mr. Cope
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in the House on 14 March the suggestion that persons returned to custody in Northern Ireland would be subject to ill treatment was"an unacceptable slur on the professionalism of the men and women of the Northern Ireland prison service."—[Official Report, 14 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 481.]
  whose members work with courage and commitment often in difficult circumstances. Conditions in the Maze prison and throughout the Northern Ireland prison system compare most favourably with those found elsewhere in Europe and prisoners are able to enjoy the benefits of an imaginative and constructive prison regime.

  Strangford Lough
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the representations about the declaration of the Strangford Lough (ASSI) Part 3 were taken into consideration during the consultative period by(a) his Department and (b) the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland considered all representations and objections to the declaration of the Strangford Lough (part 3) area of special scientific interest before confirmation took place on 16 November 1989. At a meeting on 3 November 1989 the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside was given information regarding the representations and objections and took this into consideration before advising the Department of its support for the confirmation of the area of special scientific interest.

  Primary Schools, County Fermanagh
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on progress towards resolution of controlled post-primary provision in County Fermanagh for the future.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The future of controlled post-primary school provision in County Fermanagh is a matter for the Western education and library board. No development proposals relating to controlled post-primary schools in this area have been published. However, at the request of the board of governors of Portora royal school—a voluntary grammar school for boys—the board has published a proposal to the effect that girls should be admitted as day pupils to the school with effect from 1 September 1990. No decision on this proposal can be taken until after the expiry of the statutory two-month objection period which ends on 25 April 1990.

  Purchasing Costs
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if his Department achieved the target of 5 per cent. saving in purchasing costs in 1988–89, set by the Paymaster General, through use of the central unit on purchasing.

  Mr. Cope
  Through the co-ordinating efforts of the central unit on purchasing for Northern Ireland, we 310
  achieved savings of 6·3 per cent. worth £17·7 million in 1988–89—significantly above the target which had been set.

  Child Poverty Action Group
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Child Poverty Action Group.

  Mr. Needham
  My noble Friend the Minister responsible for health and social services has agreed to meet representatives of the group but not date has yet been arranged.

  Energy
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extent Northern Ireland is self-supporting in terms of fuel for energy production.

  Mr. Needham
  At present Northern Ireland is entirely dependent on imported fuels for all its energy needs.

  Debt Payments
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the working party on the Payment of Debt (Northern Ireland) Act 1971.

  Mr. Cope
  The Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 does not make provision for a working party; but the public debt policy committee, comprising officials from all Government Departments in Northern Ireland with a major interest in public debt, keeps the problem of public debt under review.

  Integrated Schools
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in establishing integrated schools since the making of the Education Reform (NI) Order in 1989.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 only came into force on 20 February. Since then, however, a number of schools have approached the Department of Education (NI) for advice about integrated status. Statutory proposals have already been submitted to education and library boards on behalf of five proposed new grant-maintained integrated schools and acquisition procedures for integrated status have also begun at a number of existing grant-aided schools. These latter procedures will include the holding of secret, postal ballots of parents, and it has been arranged that these will be conducted on behalf of school governors by the Electoral Reform Society in London.

  Violence
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to take any further measures in the light of recent violent incidents in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have signed an order to proscribe the Irish People's Liberation Organisation (IPLO) under the
  311
  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. The order has been laid before Parliament and since midnight the IPLO has been a proscribed organisation. We shall be asking both Houses to affirm the order in the next few weeks. Organisations such as the IPLO have no place in a democratic society such as ours.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East of 20 March he will state whether the Fair Employment Commission has indicated that it will be bound by the agreement reached with the Fair Employment Agency.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 23 March 1990]: The code of practice was agreed with the former Fair Employment Agency. The question of the agency or the new commission being bound by the code of practice does not arise.

  The code of practice and the questionnaire used to collect the "religious affiliation" of Northern Ireland civil service staff gave an assurance to staff that such information would be treated confidentially. The code of practice states that the information will be used solely for the purposes of monitoring the policy on equal opportunities and on no account will statistical summaries be produced for any other purpose.

  Exceptionally, the code of practice does provide for the release of information to the Fair Employment Commission in the discharge of its statutory responsibilities. Section 19 of the Fair Employment (NI) Act 1989 places regulations on the commission regarding the confidentiality of such information.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland further to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East of 8 February,Official Report, column 745, how many (a) Protestants and (b) Roman Catholics in each grade and section listed in that answer, the Fair Employment Commission must employ to comply with present requirements; and what percentage balance it is seeking to reach those targets.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 March 1990]: The Fair Employment Acts 1976 and 1989 make preferential treatment of individuals of one religious belief or political opinion unlawful but affirmative action measures to encourage members of an under-represented group, including goals and timetables, are lawful. The commission has a target for its workforce and at a press conference in February 1989, the chairman of the then Fair Employment Agency said that the agency advertisements

  Salmon-grilse catches in the River Bush

  Number caught (angling in restricted stretches

  Number passing upstream

  Estimate number spawning

  Number of smolts

  Marine survival smolt to adult percentage

  1980

  246

  973

  783

  20,503

  12·0

  1981

  219

  925

  798

  14,537

  6·3

  1982

  224

  850

  741

  10,779

  10·4

  1983

  138

  520

  480

  26,968

  8·6

  1984

  87

  1

  1

  30,009

  1

  1985

  433

  1,765

  1,501

  30,514

  7·9

  1986

  519

  2,584

  2,271

  19,066

  9·8

  1987

  406

  2,209

  1,952

  22,156

  11·7

  312
  would specify that it is particularly interested in receiving applications from Protestants. He also said that for its support staff, the agency should have a target of 25 to 30 per cent. Catholic and 70 to 75 per cent. Protestant and that this was already being achieved. For operations staff the target was to achieve a Protestant share of applicants for each vacancy advertised of 50 to 55 per cent. and a target for the group as a whole of 50 to 55 per cent. Protestant and 45 to 50 per cent. Roman Catholic. The commission intends to publish information on the composition of its staff and the applicant flow when it has reached it full staffing complement later this year.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information the Fair Employment Commission has on religious affiliations of its present staff.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 March 1990]: The commission is monitoring the community background of its applicants and staff in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. The commission intends to publish information on the composition of its staff and the applicant flow when it has reached its full staffing complement.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the Fair Employment Commission to reach its final staffing complement; and which posts at present remain unfilled.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 March 1990]: The commission hopes to reach its full staffing complement by autumn 1990. At present, posts are unfilled in the following Northern Ireland civil service equivalent grades: one grade 6, two deputy principals (one of which is a research post), one staff officer (complaints), one administrative assistant and the chairman's personal secretary.

  Salmon
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many salmon and grilse were caught in River Bush in each of the last 10 years; how many were recorded passing upstream at Bushmills each year; how many each year are believed to have spawned naturally and successfully; what is the estimated number of(a) parr and (b) smolts produced each year; what has been the estimated survival rate of smolts to adults; how far the information acquired corresponds with information gained from other studies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 March 1990]: Following is the information:
  313

  Number caught (angling in restricted stretches

  Number passing upstream

  Estimate number spawning

  Number of smolts

  Marine survival smolt to adult percentage

  1988

  474

  2,783

  2,442

  22,994

  12·5

  1989

  140

  733

  579

  17,812

  4·3

  1 No data due to breakdown of electric barrier.

  The River Bush experiment is highly regarded internationally and the data produced are regularly integrated with those from other studies, through the ICES salmon working group on which DANI scientists are represented. This is a continuing process and current comparisons are not yet available.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to the total catch of salmon at sea which are bound for(a) the Foyle river system including the Roe and the Faughan, (b) the River Bann system, (c) the River Bush and (d) other salmon rivers in Northern Ireland; and what percentage of the total run this represented in each of the last five years, or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 March 1990]: Following is the information:

  (a) None.

  (b) None.

  (c) For River Bush wild salmon stock information is only available for the last three years as follows:

  Year

  Estimated sea catch of salmon bound for the River Bush

  Relevant percentage of total run

  1987

  4,804

  68·5

  1988

  5,237

  65·3

  1989

  5,931

  89·0

  (d) None.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the age at which salmon smolts in the River Bush migrate to the sea; how long they normally spend there; what percentage of an annual cohort returns are(a) one sea winter, (b) two sea winter, (c) three sea winter and (d) four sea winter fish; and what percentage of the annual salmon run over the last five years has returned in each month of the year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 March 1990]: In the last 10 years 25·1 per cent. of River Bush smolts have migrated to sea at one-plus years of age, 73·8 per cent. at two-plus years of age and 1·1 per cent. at three-plus years of age.

  Year

  Grade of staff leaving1

  Replacement action

  1986–87

  Principal scientific officer

  Post filled by permanent appointment

  Laboratory attendant

  None, the post was dropped fom complement

  1987–88

  None

  1988–89

  None

  1989–90

  Higher scientific officer

  Post to be advertised for permanent appointment

  314
  The percentage of annual returns of various sea ages is as follows (average of last 10 years):

  (a) 1 sea winter : 87·8 per cent.

  (b) 2 sea winter : 12·2 per cent.

  (c) 3 sea winter : 0

  (d) 4 sea winter : 0

  Mean Percentage Monthly Returns 1985–89

  Month

  Percentage of Run

  January

  0·007

  February

  0·020

  March

  0·280

  April

  0·587

  May

  1·283

  June

  3·944

  July

  26·215

  August

  25·655

  September

  14·656

  October

  15·079

  November

  2·402

  December

  1·276

  The three places of decimals indicate activity throughout the year rather than precision.

  Fisheries Research
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many permanent staff, and of what grades, have left employment at the fisheries research laboratory at Coleraine in each of the last three financial years and the current year; which of these posts have been filled with(a) permanent appointments and (b) temporary staff; how many of the temporary staff (i) were and are presently employed for periods of less than one year and (ii) were and are as well qualified as the permanent staff they replaced; and what training programme is employed for such temporary staff.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 March 1990]: The information requested is as follows:
  315

  Year

  Grade of staff leaving1

  Replacement action

  Assistant scientific officer

  Post initially filled by temporary staff pending the transfer of a permenent assistant scientific officer from within DANI on 5 March 1990

  Laboratory attendant

  Post filled to date by temporary staff

  1 Includes resignation, retirement, promotion, transfer and career breaks.

  In each case the temporary staff were appointed for periods of less than one year. The temporary assistant scientific officers appointed in 1989–90 were at least as well qualified as the previous permanent postholder. There are no formal qualifications required for laboratory attendant appointments. Appropriate on-the-job training was provided for temporary staff to allow them to carry out the duties required.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: At present, 54 staff are employed in the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments. The full complement, including vacant posts is 59. The proposed complement for 1990–91 is 61.

HEALTH

  Infertility
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the prevalence of infertility in England.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally. The White Paper "Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation" (Cm. 259) published in November 1987 indicated that about one in 10 couples are thought to be infertile and a greater number are estimated to seek specialist help at some stage.

  AIM Programme
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is supporting the extension of the European Commission AIM programme for health care.

  Mr. Freeman
  We strongly support the continuation of the advanced informatics in medicine (AIM) programme. The Department has been pressing for an adequate budget through the relevant official committees, and I have written in support to Vice-President Pandolfi, the Commissioner responsible. United Kingdom organisations have made the largest contribution of any EC member state to the present stage of the programme, and we wish to see this continue.

  Care Funds
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to issue guidelines on the assessment of individual needs by social services departments under the care funds system.
  316
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We expect to issue guidance in the autumn after wide consultations in the summer.

  Medical Research Ethics
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to introduce a legally binding code of medical research ethics as proposed by a committee of Ministers in the Council of Europe.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The recommendation accepted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 6 February 1990 was that member states should either adopt legislation or take any other measures to ensure the implementation of a series of principles concerning medical research on human beings. The Department of Health will shortly be issuing updated and expanded guidance on the supervision of research on human beings. This guidance may be further revised in the light of experience.

  Drug Trials
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require all authorities running drug trials to offer no-fault compensation to all participating healthy volunteers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Guidance to health authorities, which will be issued shortly, emphasises that those volunteering to participate in research studies should be made aware of what the arrangements are for obtaining compensation in the event of an injury arising from the research. It is then a matter for the individual concerned to decide whether or not the arrangements are acceptable.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will place a statutory limit on the number of drug trial studies a healthy volunteer can participate in per year;

  (2) if there is any monitoring of the number of drug trials each volunteer student participates in over time;

  (3) what safeguards there are to prevent students from taking part in more than one drug trial simultaneously;

  (4) if there is any evidence of volunteers taking part in more than one drug trial simultaneously.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No information is held centrally about individuals who choose to volunteer to participate in medical research projects. There are no plans to introduce limits on the number of times a person can volunteer.

  The Department recommends that a declaration about the state of health and any current medication should be obtained from healthy volunteers. They should also be asked to give their permission for notice to be sent, when necessary, to their general practitioner. Refusal to permit such communication should lead to rejection as a participant.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines have been issued to regional health authorities in assessing the business plans of National Health Service opt-out trusts and in particular on whether such trusts will be expected to shoulder their share of health authorities' deficits in the form of loans or other short-term finance from regional health authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Subject to the passage of the necessary legislation. It will be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to assess applications including business plans submitted by applicants for NHS trust status—on an individual basis in the light of local circumstances.

  Private Homes (Fees)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that where a person moves from a National Health Service hospital to a private nursing home or private elderly persons home, it will be made clear to her or him, in writing, before the transfer, whether the district health authority will pay the fees under a contractual arrangement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Circular HC(89)5 which was issued to health authorities in February 1989, together with a booklet "Discharge of Patients from Hospital"—copies are available in the Library—emphasised that proper arrangements should be made for any necessary continuing care before patients are discharged from hospital. Arrangements, including care in a private residential or nursing home, should be made in good time and be acceptable to the patient and, where appropriate, the patient's relatives or carers. Where a person moves from hospital to a private nursing home, it should be made quite clear to him or her in writing before the transfer whether or not the health authority will pay the fees, under a contractual arrangement.

  Charges
  Ms. Jo Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing prescription, dental and optical charges in April 1979 and April 1990 in current and constant prices showing both the cash and real increase for each charge.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The table sets out the latest available information in relation to prescription and dental charges. No comparable figures for optical charges are available because the supply of NHS spectacles ceased in July 1986. Information relates to financial years.

  £

  Prescription charges

  1979–80

  0·20

  11990–91

  3·05

  21990–91

  1·43

  Average dental charge

  1979–80

  6·83

  11988–89

  19·84

  21988–89

  10·54

  1 Current prices.

  2 1979–80 prices.

  318
  In 1979 a total of 185 million NHS prescription items were dispensed without charge. In 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, 269 million items were dispensed free.

  Wakefield DHA
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will call for a report from the chairman of Wakefield district health authority on the full cost of(a) the out-of-court settlement to be paid to Mr. Ray Corner, the authority's former district finance officer, (b) the legal fees incurred by Mr. Corner which are to be met by the authority, and (c) the authority's own legal fees in its defence against the action; and under which budget heading the payments will be made;

  (2) if he will direct Yorkshire health authority to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances leading up to the dismissal of Mr. Ray Corner as district finance officer of Wakefield district health authority and to publish the report of the inquiry.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a local management issue; the hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Wakefield district health authority, Mr. Brian Hayward for further information.

  Guy's Hospital (Psychiatric Team)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reach a decision on the request that his Department's funding of the psychiatric team for single homeless people, attached to Guy's hospital, London, be extended for a further year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The funding of the team is secure until the end of May. We are considering the possibility of extending support thereafter and expect to be in a position to reach a decision soon.

  Beverley Lewis
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he intends to take as a result of the reports he has received from the Gloucester health authority and Gloucestershire social services department into the death of Beverley Lewis;

  (2) when he expects to receive the coroner's report on Beverley Lewis's death.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have now received reports from the health and social services authorities concerned and the conclusions and verdict of the coroner, and are considering them before deciding whether any further action is warranted.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration is being given into the need for additional legislation following the death of Beverley Lewis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have recently received the coroner's report as well as reports from both the health and local authorities and are examining what, if any, changes are needed to existing legislation or policy.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the need for a public inquiry into the death of Beverley Lewis.
  319
  Mr. Freeman
  We have received a number of letters from Members and members of the public.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many manufacturers of hearing aids have approval to market their hearing aids in the United Kingdom; and what criteria governs their approval.

  Mr. Freeman
  No formal approval is necessary in the United Kingdom for manufacturers to market their hearing aids to their dispensers.

  The retailing of hearing aids to the private user is governed by the Hearing Aid Council Act which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  The Department runs an NHS product approval scheme for hearing aids purchased on central contract by Mersey regional health authority to meet large-scale demand throughout the NHS. Currently eight models are approved under that scheme and have to meet the requirements of specifications drawn up by the Department in consultation with professional NHS staff. The detailed requirements run to several pages but the main factors are the levels of maximum gain and maximum output, and the frequency response.

  A further 300 to 500 other models of hearing aid are also being marketed in this country at present.

  Agency Nurses, Clerical and Administrative Staff
  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the amount spent on(a) agency nurses and (b) agency clerical and administrative staff for the latest available year for each district health authority, special health authority and regional health authority and England as a whole.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information derived from annual accounts submitted to the Department for 1988–89 (the latest available) is shown in the table which has been placed in the Library.

  As a result of various initiatives achieved or pending such as nurse clinical grading and local pay flexibility for administrative and clerical and other staff groups the total expenditure incurred on agency staff should reduce in the future.

  As shown in the table the expenditure is incurred predominately in the Thames regions which together with the special health authorities for the London postgraduate treaching hospitals accounted for some 85 per cent. and 77 per cent. of the England totals for nursing and administrative and clerical staff respectively.

  Mental Incapacity
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the Law Commission's review of mental incapacity to be complete.

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply. The Law Commission hopes to be able to publish a discussion paper on mentally incapacitated adults later this year.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Russia: Chemical Weapons
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any information on the expansion or contraction of the Russian Government's preparations for chemical warfare.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, we are not aware of any recent significant changes in the Soviet Union's chemical warfare capability.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can he confirm that Russia's capability in such deadly and terrible weapons is enormous and that it is difficult to believe in any serious move towards detente until a substantial reduction is made?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is correct in being cautious, because the Soviet Union has the world's largest and most sophisticated chemical weapon capability. We continue to have doubts about Soviet claims about their chemical weapon capability but we hope that bilateral Soviet/US contacts will resolve the concerns.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Government estimate that stocks of chemical weapons in Russia amount to 300, 000 tonnes. The Americans have recently announced that they are satisfied that the total is between 30, 000 and 100, 000 tonnes; the Russians have announced that the total is 50, 000 tonnes. Can the Minister give the Government's latest estimate of the total stock of chemical weapons in Russia? It is no good talking in general terms; the Government must have an estimate. Can they also give an undertaking that after the chemical weapons convention this country will cease to produce binary chemical weapons even though others may not cease to do so?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, no chemical weapons have been produced in this country since the late 1950s. Our current estimate of the stock of chemical weapons in Russia is about 50, 000 tonnes. However, the Americans say that they are not optimistic about that and believe that the Russians could hold far more stocks.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is almost impossible to judge the amount of chemical weapons or to monitor the amount? Can he reassure the House that as regards disarmament, Mr. Gorbachev has been extremely positive in words and deeds for a considerable period of time?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in saying that it is extremely difficult to produce a true and authentic figure about the amount of chemical weapons stocks in the world. However, I assure him that good progress has been made in the recent bilateral discussions on chemical weapons. The memorandum of understanding which was agreed in September last year at Wyoming provided for a two-year experiment in data exchange and verification. The first exchange of information took place in December last year. However, in February the two nations agreed in principle to the destruction of chemical weapon stocks, reducing them to 20 per cent. of current US levels. Her Majesty's Government fully endorse and support those initiatives.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether his original Answer and that concerning the Wyoming agreement relate also to biological weapons, or is that another Question?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, if I knew the exact answer I could say whether it related to this Question. However, I am not certain of the answer and therefore it could be another Question. In the circumstances I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the general public worries far too much about nuclear warfare and far too little about chemical warfare, which is a more likely possibility and could be almost as devastating in its consequences?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord's assumption is correct. Chemical warfare has a far-reaching and lethal potential.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister said that there could be a follow-up of verification for the gradual abandonment of chemical weapons. Will that verification include on-the-spot physical examination and therefore reduce the possibility of cheating to nil?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the point made by the noble Lord is being discussed under the confidence and security building measures which are taking place.

Education: Licensed Teacher Scheme
3.7 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government: How many licensed teachers there are in maintained schools
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a total of 44 licences have been granted since the arrangements were introduced in September last year.
Baroness David: My Lords, are the Government satisfied with that figure, which does not appear to show much enthusiasm for the scheme? Is the Minister aware that I tabled the Question because the

965
LEAs are most incensed? Under the local education authority training grant scheme they were told last September to apply for grants for the training of licensed teachers and that they would receive answers by December. By 26th March, the beginning of this week, they had received no reply. I understand that replies were received today. Does it take the tabling of a Question in this House before the DES will respond? Can the DES be a little more efficient? How can local authorities plan their future expenditure if they must wait an additional three months: before receiving a reply?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand the frustration experienced when one is waiting for a reply. However, the scheme started only in September. While my initial Answer to the Question sounded a little gloomy, it is important to note that approximately 55 LEAs have now applied and the allocations were sent on 26th March. On that date a list of allocations to LEAs was also sent setting out the bids which were made by them. We shall find a different picture this time next year.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there are initiatives for people aspiring to the teaching profession other than that mentioned in the Question?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government are taking seriously the present difficulty in recruiting teachers. There are a number of initiatives, including the licensed and the articled teachers schemes. There are special bursaries for teachers in shortage subjects and education support grants to help with recruitment and retention. Special assistance is being given to teachers for London. There is also an interesting innovation whereby ILEA entered into an arrangement for housing for teachers in London. Indeed, the Secretary of State intends to help with the housing of teachers in London. Help is also provided to encourage mature people to return to the profession and the Teaching as a Career Unit is helping substantially with the recruitment and retention of teachers. The campaign is most vigorous and I hope that in the future we shall see a buoyancy in the recruitment of teachers.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister explain the Government's intentions on payment, first, of unqualified licensed teachers and how that will compare with a new graduate and, secondly, of licensed teachers once they are registered and how that will compare with graduate teachers' pay? There seems to be some confusion on this matter.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the pay for teachers while they are training will vary according to the experience of the particular person. Some come highly qualified and are already graduates when they enter teacher training. They will do the equivalent of a PGCE although it will be more school based. My understanding is that once a graduate is trained he will be treated as a graduate teacher. Non-graduates who achieve trained teacher status will be treated as non-graduate but qualified teachers.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether she has any figures as to the number of licensed teachers who are trained to teach dyslexic children and whether there is a general sufficiency of such teachers? Or is that beyond the Question?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not have a specific answer to my noble friend's question. Nor do I suspect that it will be possible to single out a specific number of teachers. A large number of teachers are involved in special needs teaching and some of that will be for children with dyslexia. However, my noble friend may be interested to know that next week there is to be a specific debate on the teaching of dyslexic children. I shall try to bring as much data to that debate as I can.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, can the Minister enlighten me as to how those licensed teachers will receive their training bearing in mind that to have knowledge and experience of a subject is one thing, but to be able to teach it is very different especially to young people who do not wish to learn?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the particular training for a licensed teacher will largely depend on the knowledge which a teacher has at any time. A teacher may well come in with advanced qualifications in the first instance. It will then be a matter of teaching him to teach children. Therefore, the programmes will vary according to the particular teacher. However, I can assure the noble Lord that no licensed teacher will achieve qualified status unless he has the appropriate knowledge, the personal qualities for teaching, is competent and has classroom experience. It will not be until those factors are satisfied that the status of qualified teacher will be achieved.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the teaching profession is as important as the legal or medical profession? The Government would not dare to attempt to impose such a scheme on either of those professions. When will the Government realise that learning to teach is not simply sitting next to Nellie? It takes a course of four years or a one-year postgraduate course. Is the Minister aware that one of the worst features of this ridiculous scheme is that it will be divisive within the teaching profession and that will be to the detriment of the pupils?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that nothing I have said has downgraded the importance of the teacher in the school. I am not entirely in agreement with the noble Lord who believes that only people who attend a four-year training course are competent. I believe that there are considerable talents outside the classroom. With some training, those people will make excellent teachers. I am not competent to comment on the legal profession but my lay understanding is that there is an articled legal process.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington is right in that

967
many people are under the impression that you do not need any training to be a teacher. I ask the noble Baroness how many of the licensed teachers are likely to end up in the fee-paying schools to which noble Lords opposite send their children. As the noble Baroness has reminded us, the Government have many ad hoc expedients to deal with the teacher shortage problem. However, does not the noble Baroness agree that the Government should have a teacher supply policy overall and in particular, following my noble friend Lord Dormand, they should start to pay teachers properly?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, all the initiatives which I have outlined in the course of answering this Question at least show that the Government take very seriously the issue of supply of teachers. All the imaginative and innovative steps that are being taken are designed to provide more teachers competent in the classroom.
On licensed teachers, they must be at least 26 years of age, they must have two years of higher education before coming into licensed teacher training and they must have GCSE in maths and English. That is a greater qualification than was required by many teachers who applied for teacher training in the 1960s.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the one thing needed to be a good teacher is a teaching nature?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is much in what my noble friend says.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is the Minister aware, to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I— and no doubt others of my age who were at fee-paying schools a generation or two ago— was very satisfactorily taught by teachers whose only satisfactory qualification was a good degree, knowledge of the subject and a proper allowance of carrot and stick for those who, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, reminded us, may not want to learn at all?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point. We need to break the mould of view that only teachers who go to teacher training college for four years are competent to teach in our schools. There are many ways into the classroom. The important thing is a good knowledge of the subject, competence and an aptitude for teaching children.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has embarrassed me once before on raising the matter of his own education? For the second time I forbear to comment on the consequences of it. Have the Government changed their policy as regards the noble Baroness's last remarks concerning the desirability that the overwhelming majority of our teachers should be taught properly themselves and go to teacher training college?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it seems that the Government cannot win in the view of noble Lords opposite. The Government's policy is that teachers should receive a formal training for teaching. That is desirable. However, there is a particular problem at this time which has been identified by your Lordships; that is, a shortage in particular subjects and a reluctance for people to enter the profession. I believe that we have a list of imaginative schemes to get people into the classroom. At the end of the day, as long as they are qualified to teach our children, we should welcome those initiatives.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there is something rather peculiar about the fact that the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Beloff, and myself all taught in universities without having had any training whatever to teach?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, do not tempt me to comment on that!

Invisibles: Balance of Payments
3.19 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the current balance for invisibles in the United Kingdom balance of payments in the last quarter of 1989.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the United Kingdom's invisibles balance was £ 0–7 billion in deficit in the fourth quarter of 1989 partly because of erratically high contributions to the EC budget and exceptional insurance claims arising from disasters in the US.
Lord Jay: My Lords, are the Government not worried at all by the prospect that on the present Chancellor's own estimates by the end of this year this country's overseas borrowings will be £ 50 billion, mainly in the short-term, on which very high interest payments across the exchanges are now being paid? Those have already pushed us into deficit both on visible and invisible account for the first time in our peacetime history.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said, there were exceptional factors in the last invisibles figures. The noble Lord will be pleased to know that the forecast published in the Red Book on Budget Day showed an invisibles surplus of £ 1–5 billion for 1990.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that an increasing number of foreigners, especially from the EC, have been bringing their money to this country in order that they may obtain justice in the High Court in London for which they have such admiration? Will that increasing factor be borne in mind as part of the invisibles earned by this country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that information of which I was not aware. That is not the only money coming into

969
this country. Many overseas firms are investing in this country because we have a good record.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reply, can he explain why the monthly balance of payments figures are shown as being broadly in balance rather than showing a surplus?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the latest figures for the past quarter included those exceptional items. The reason why they are heading the balance now is that the exceptional items are not included.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister say when we last had a deficit in our invisibles and confirm that it is an alarming trend? Does it affect the standing of the City of London as an international finance centre? If so, is that caused by our isolation from the European financial institutions?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know exactly when we were last in deficit in invisibles. I believe that it was just after the war, if my memory serves me right. It is not a trend. There were exceptional factors and, as I said, the forecast for next year is in surplus.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in his reply to ray noble friend, the Minister said that one of the major reasons for the deficit on invisibles was a large payment to the EC. Will he confirm that we are now contributing to the EC four times more than we take out? We pay in four times more than we take out. Will he also confirm that in addition to the invisible deficit our visible deficit was over £ 14, 000 million last year? Under those circumstances will he say what trading benefit we get out of the EC?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that the House appreciates the noble Lord's concern with regard to the European Community, but his question is rather wider than that on the Order Paper. I shall be happy to answer him on another occasion.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is the noble Earl's view that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is the same now as it was when the noble Lord, Lord Young, had responsibility on the Front Bench opposite for these matters and expounded the view that it does not matter how much your manufacturing trade falls, the slack will automatically be taken up by an increase in services?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, manufacturing and services both matter. The noble Lord will be pleased to know that manufacturing exports are rising rapidly; they were up 11–5 per cent. in volume terms in 1989 over 1988.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not a fact that the factors mentioned by the noble Earl far from being a temporary aberration, threaten to be a continuing process over the years ahead? With regard to the net contribution by the British taxpayer to the European Community, the government estimate
970
postulates nearly £ 2 billion across the exchanges for each of the next three years. Is it not also a fact that the high interest rates, which the Governor of the Bank of England recently said will probably continue for some considerable time, mean that we shall again pay across the exchange very high sums by way of interest on the hot money— around £ 40 billion— which is in the country at the moment in order to sustain the present rate of exchange? Will the Government say whether it is still their official view that invisibles will automatically cover any deficit on our visible trade?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I stated the views of the Government clearly both this afternoon and in the Answer to the Question last week on exactly the same matter. The noble Lord referred to hot money, but that is a slightly outdated term. In our modem deregulated world of highly mobile capital the distinction between short- and long-term flows is not especially meaningful.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is there any reason to suppose that the figures given by the noble Earl from the financial statement— £ 1–5 billion surplus on invisibles this year— are any more likely to be accurate than the previous figures given on a variety of subjects? Following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is he aware that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Aldington Committee that, as manufacturing decreased, it would automatically be replaced by the proceeds of invisibles? How will £ 1–5 billion replace the £ 20 billion deficit which was seen last year in manufacturing?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the accuracy of forecasts. All economists agree that accurate forecasts are difficult to produce. Between the forecasts of the noble Lord and government advisers, my bet lies with the government advisers.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Earl answer the second part of my question, which was linked to the first? How are the invisibles to compensate for the deficit of £ 20 billion last year?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is aware of the figures I gave on invisibles. He now knows that demand is slowing and therefore the deficit will reduce. That, together with increasing exports, will help.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is not the Minister also aware that the Chancellor in his Red Book predicts an overall current deficit of £ 15 billion this year? At that rate, by the end of the year we shall be approaching the South American system of borrowing overseas to pay the interest on our previous borrowings.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lord, I do not agree with the noble Lord's last remark. With regard to what he said concerning the Red Book, that is correct.

Pakistan and Nuclear Weapons
3.27 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether Pakistan now possesses nuclear weapons and whether they have urged Pakistan to join the non-proliferation treaty.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are very concerned about the danger of a nuclear arms race developing in the sub-continent. Pakistan has, however, always asserted that it does not possess or intend to develop nuclear weapons. We take every suitable opportunity in our contacts with the Government of Pakistan to stress our continuing concern. As a depositary power the UK is strongly in favour of universal adherence to the non-proliferation treaty.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware— I am sure he is— that since this Question was tabled it has become even more apparent that even when the treaty has been signed, as in the case of Iran, it is not being enforced? What steps are the Government intending to take to ensure more universal extension and, more importantly, the enforcement of the non-proliferation treaty?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the non-proliferation treaty came into force in 1970, since when 139 states have become parties. The fourth review conference will be held in Geneva from 20th August to 14th September and will be of particular importance as it is the last conference before the treaty comes up for extension. As a depositary power the United Kingdom is working actively for a successful outcome to the conference.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is not the central point that neither Pakistan nor India subscribes to the treaty, and will Her Majesty's Government not take steps to persuade both those countries to do so? This is a particularly favourable moment to do so now that Pakistan has become a member of the Commonwealth.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we have in the past urged Pakistan to accede to the non-proliferation treaty, and the Pakistanis have made it clear that they will accede when India does so. We take every opportunity to encourage the Indians to reconsider their position, and we continue to encourage Pakistan to set an example by acceding first.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, have the Government taken further steps to that end since India became a member of the Commonwealth? Is this not an appropriate moment for Her Majesty's Government to take a positive initiative to get both these members of the Commonwealth together again?
Lord Reay: My Lords, this matter was last raised by my noble friend Lord Brabazon with both the Pakistani and the Indian authorities during his visit to the sub-continent in February.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is it not a major problem that a signature to the treaty is manifestly not enough? Iraq is a signatory of the treaty. Is it not further sad to hear from the international inspectorate that it had no evidence whatever that Iraq was building a nuclear weapons facility? Does not that strengthen the view that the best way forward might be the signing of a comprehensive test ban treaty? Is the noble Lord aware that the two nations who are, above all, preventing that are the United States and the United Kingdom?
Lord Reay: My Lords, in raising the question of Iraq, the noble Lord goes wider than the Question on the Order Paper, though I can understand why he should wish to do so. Iraq is a party to the non-proliferation treaty, as he said, and as such has undertaken not to develop a nuclear weapons capability. We expect Iraq to abide by its international legal commitments.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, do the Government remember after all these years— 20 years— that the non-proliferation treaty is in the nature of a compact between the haves and the have-nots? While the have-nots agreed not to obtain nuclear weapons, the nuclear weapons powers, including this country, agreed to proceed to multilateral nuclear disarmament. Is it realistic to expect everyone on the other side of the fence to observe the NPT while we do not do very much about it on our side?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I believe it is generally recognised that the non-proliferation treaty has been successful in discouraging states from developing nuclear weapons and declaring themselves as nuclear weapon states.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, how can the Minister say that with any conviction with the knowledge, according to the latest press reports, that Iraq, which is supposed to be a member of the treaty, is developing nuclear weapons and doing so rather well? What does the Minister have to say about that?
Lord Reay: My Lords, if the noble Lord would like to table a Question on that aspect, I shall be glad to answer it. I do not think that I can add much more to what I have already said.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in my first supplementary question, I believe that I referred to Iran when I meant so say Iraq; though the difference between the two countries is not all that great in this respect. Is the noble Lord aware of the old adage that example is better than precept? The Government's efforts might be more successful if we were to show ourselves that we are not very enthusiastic about nuclear weapons and are ready to begin the process of divesting ourselves of them. Would it not be a good idea not to proceed with Trident?
Lord Reay: No, my Lords, we do not believe that the situations are comparable. The position of the United Kingdom with regard to disarmament remains that if the United States and Soviet arsenals were substantially reduced, we would consider how to contribute to the nuclear arms control process.

Business
3.34 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, subject to the progress of business, in particular the Third Reading of the Education (Student Loans) Bill, the Committee stage of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill may be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour. My noble friends Lord Hesketh, Lord Henley and Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne will move a number of Motions for approval of statutory instruments in the break.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
3.35 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the 2nd Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
Perhaps I may say a brief word in explanation of the first item on the report. It arises from the Employment Bill now before another place in which the provisions of Clauses 1 to 3 are specifically applied to the House of Commons but not to this House. These clauses make it unlawful to refuse a person employment on grounds of membership or non-membership of a trade union. The Offices Committee recommends that these clauses should also be applied to this House by amendment when the Bill reaches us.
There is other employment legislation in existence which has hitherto been applied to this House by analogy rather than in legislation. The Committee further recommend that we should ask the Department of Employment to find a suitable opportunity to apply these provisions also directly to this House to bring it in line with another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the 2nd report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 43).— (The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Application of Employment Legislation to the House of Lords
The Committee accepted recommendations from the Staff of the House Sub-Committee that amendments should be tabled to the Employment Bill now before the House of Commons so as to apply it directly to the House of Lords in the same way as it applies to the House of Commons; and that the Department of Employment should be asked to use the next convenient opportunity to include in an Employment Bill provisions applying to the House of Lords those aspects of employment legislation which at present apply directly to the House of Commons but not to the House of Lords.
2. Reports from the Finance Sub-Committee
The Committee were informed that the Finance Sub-Committee had agreed that in future their reports would be circulated in advance to the Offices Committee.
3. Staff of the House
A report from the Staff of the House Sub-Committee was made. The Committee agreed:—

(a) that the temporary additional post of Assistant Editor in Hansard should be made permanent from 24th March 1990; and

974

(b) that the temporary part-time Architectural Archivist post in the Record Office should be extended for a further period of five years to March 1995.

The Committee also agreed to:

(c) the creation of a post of House of Lords Computer Executive at Grade 7 level, initially for a period of 5 years;

(d) the replacement of a Clerical Officer post in the Library by an Assistant Librarian post;

(e) the upgrading of the post of Chef from 94 per cent. of Catering Manager 2 to full Catering Manager 2 with effect from 1st March 1990;

(f) the regrading, with effect from 15th January 1990, of the Second Chef post in the Barry Room to 90 per cent. of Catering Manager 4; the creation of a post in the main kitchen of Second Chef at 90 per cent. of Catering Manager 4; the deletion of a post in the main kitchen at Industrial Band 16 and the deletion of a post in the main kitchen at Industrial Band 10, and

(g) the payment of a higher rate skill supplement to five Hansard Typists and five Hansard Screen Correctors in place of the existing lower rate skill supplement with effect from 1st January 1990.

In addition, the Committee gave discretion to the Clerk of the Parliaments to appoint an additional Clerk, should the need arise.
4. Parliament Office
The Committee were informed of the promotion of Mr. E. J. J. Wells to Senior Clerk.
5. Insurance for Lords
The Committee approved an increase in personal accident cover for Lords whilst engaged on Parliamentary duty.
6. Revised Scales of Pay and Allowances
The Committee approved increases in the rates of pay of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees and confirmed the application of the following Civil Service memoranda to staff of the House of Lords:—

(a) DEO letter dated 2nd February 1990. (Remuneration of college based sandwich course students.)

(b) DEO letter dated 14th February 1990. (Special pay points for Grades 4 to 7.)

(c) DEO letter dated 1st March 1990. (Management delegation.).

7. Hansard Reporting Staff
The Committee authorised payment of revised late night allowances to permanent staff and revised attendance fees to temporary reporters.
8. Superannuation
The Committee were notified of the following awards made under the House of Lords Staff Pension Scheme:—

(a) Revised pension and lump sum to Mr. G. A. Preston, Assistant Counsel, who retired on 1st October 1989.

(b) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. E. Blackburn, Cleaner, who retired on 21st October 1989.

(c) Pension and lump sum to Mr. L. A. Ketcher, MBE, Senior Executive Officer, who retired on 1st January 1990.

(d) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. C. O'Brien, Head Linen Keeper, who retired on 16th January 1990.

(e) Transfer value payment to the London Residuary Body Superannuation Fund in respect of Mr. D. R. Pester, Assistant Librarian, who resigned on 16th June 1989.

(f) Transfer value payment to the Devonport Royal Dockyard Pension Scheme in respect of Mrs. L. E. Rivers, who resigned on 31st July 1986.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, although it is not mentioned in paragraph 5 of the report, will my noble friend confirm that the Offices Committee requested that investigation be made into extending the cover for Members of your Lordships' House on parliamentary duties to cover their journeys to and

975
from this House? In view of the number of late sittings which your Lordships are suffering, that is perhaps becoming increasingly important.
Lord Aberdare: Yes, my Lords, I can confirm that that is so. It will be considered at the next meeting of the Finance Sub-Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning Bill [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment).— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on recommitment) accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Notification of applications for planning permission for mineral working]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
"Page 44, line 13, leave out ("so long as") and insert ("if).
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment, bringing the wording of Clause 67 (8) into line with that of Clause 65 (5). Perhaps I should add for the convenience of the Committee that these amendments are in relation to the Bills that are now being considered, and immediately after this, and which have arisen after the consideration of the Bills by the Joint Committee. The Chairman of the Joint Committee has seen these amendments and expresses his approval of them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 68 to 148 agreed to.
Clause 149 [Scope of Chapter 11]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 98, line 37, leave out ("in a case not falling within paragraph (a)")
The noble and learned Lord said: With this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos, 3, 4 and 5. This group of amendments gives effect in the Bill to amendments made to Sections 192 (4) (b) and 207 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 by the Town and Country Planning (Blight Provisions) Order 1990. The amendments made by the order take account of changes to the rating system made by the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and will come into force on 1st April 1990. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 149, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 150 to 170 agreed to.
Clause 171 [General interpretation of Chapter 11]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 5:
Page 115, leave out lines 14 to 19 and insert:
(" "annual value" means—
(a) in the case of a hereditament which is shown in a local non-domestic rating list and none of which consists of domestic property or property exempt from local non-domestic rating, the value shown in that list as the rateable value of that hereditament on the date of service;
(b) in the case of a hereditament which is shown in a local non-domestic rating list and which includes domestic property or property exempt from local non-domestic rating, the sum of—
(i) the value shown in that list as the rateable value of that hereditament on the date of service; and
(ii) the value attributable to the non-rateable part of that hereditament in accordance with subsections (2) and (3);
(c) in the case of any other hereditament, the value attributable to that hereditament in accordance with subsections (2) and (3); ").
Page 115, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert—
(" "hereditament" means a relevant hereditament within the meaning of section 64 (4) (a) to (c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988; ")
Page 115, leave out from beginning of line 32 to end of line 11 on page 116 and insert:
(" (2) The value attributable to a hereditament, or the non-rateable part of it, in respect of domestic property shall be the value certified by the relevant valuation officer as being 5 per cent. of the compensation which would be payable in respect of the value of that property if it were purchased compulsorily under statute with vacant possession and the compensation payable were calculated in accordance with Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1961 by reference to the relevant date.
(3) The value attributable to a hereditament, or the non-rateable part of it, in respect of property exempt from local non-domestic rating shall be the value certified by the relevant valuation officer as being the value which would have been shown as the rateable value of that property on the date of service if it were a relevant non-domestic hereditament consisting entirely of non-domestic property, none of which was exempt from local non-domestic rating.
(4) Land which (apart from this subsection) would comprise separate hereditaments solely by reason of being divided by a boundary between rating areas shall be treated for the purposes of the definition of "hereditament" in subsection (1) as if it were not so divided.
(5) In this Section—
"date of service" has the same meaning as in section 168;
"relevant valuation officer" means the valuation officer who would have determined the rateable value in respect of the hereditament for the purposes of Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 if the hereditament had fulfilled the conditions set out in section 42 (1) (b) to (d) of that Act;
"relevant date" is the date by reference to which that determination would have been made;
and expressions used in the definition of "annual value" in subsection (1) or in subsection (2) or (3) which are also used in Part III of that Act have the same meaning as in that Part.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. With the Committee's permission, I move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 171, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 172 to 335 agreed to.
Clause 336 [Interpretation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 224, leave out lines 38 to 45.
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is designed to omit two definitions which have become unnecessary because the expressions defined do not appear elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 336, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Clause agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Development plans: transitional provisions]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8:
Page 248, line 21, leave out (" ("the GLDP") ").
Page 248, line 22, leave out ("the GLDP") and insert ("that Plan").
The noble and learned Lord said: These two amendments to Schedule 2 are minor drafting amendments removing a definition which is unnecessary. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 3 to 11 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Unexpended balance of established development value]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 287, line 1, after ("133") insert ("of this Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is another minor drafting amendment which makes clear that the Section 133 referred to in paragraph 10 (2) (b) is a section of the Bill and not of the 1954 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill [H.L.]
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment).— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on recommitment) accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Duty of London borough councils to notify Commission]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 9, line 27, leave out ("direct the local planning authority to grant") and insert ("give the local planning authority directions as to the granting of).
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to widen the wording of Clause 14 (2) (a) slightly so that it corresponds more closely with paragraph 6 (2) of Schedule 11 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 from which it is derived. It enables the commission not only to direct that listed building consent be granted but also to direct that it be subject to specified conditions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Further provisions as to exercise of functions by different authorities]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
Page 62, line 32, after ("to") insert ("sections 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the principal Act (which make provision as to the exercise of planning functions in National Parks, enterprise zones, urban development areas and housing action areas) and to").
Page 62, line 43, after (" (1) ") insert ("Subject to sections 4 (3) and (4), 6, 7 and 8 of the principal Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: These are drafting amendments designed to make clear that paragraphs 2 and 4 (1) of this schedule are subject to certain provisions of the Town and Country Planning Bill. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Planning (Hazardous Substances) Bill [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.— {The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment) on this Bill.

979
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment).— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on recommitment) accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved the amendment:
Page 17, line 20, at end insert—
("The Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972 (c.42).
In section lOC (10) of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972, for the words "Section 2 of the Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act 1962" there shall be substituted the words "Section 58 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Act 1990".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment the effect of which is to convert a reference in Section lOC (10) of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972 to Section 2 of the 1962 Act into a reference to Clause 58 of the Listed Buildings Bill. The 1962 Act is repealed by this Bill and reproduced in the Listed Buildings Bill. Clause 58 of that Bill is the corresponding provision of Section 2 of the 1962 Act. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: As this is the last of the amendments that we are considering to these four consolidation Bills on planning, we should not let the occasion pass without acknowledging the formidable task that the draftsmen and the officials had. As members of the Joint Consolidation Committee found, they had a most punishing exercise to carry out. Though all consideration is necessary and welcome— and it was particularly so in these instances— it was made the more difficult because of our rather strange methods of legislation. Those concerned deserve great credit for what they have done on this occasion.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Mishcon, perhaps I may echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. We are very grateful to the committee which considers consolidation measures.
The Lord Chancellor: I am extremely glad to join both noble Lords who have spoken on this matter. It is a largely unsung but an extremely important responsibility to keep the statute book in order by consolidations. These four consolidations cover an extremely complicated area of the law. They have been carried out extremely well. I am very grateful to the Joint Committee which examined these matters. It found that, generally speaking, the consolidations are entirely satisfactory. It produced a certain number of amendments but they were small in comparison with the volume of work involved. I express gratitude to the Law Commission and its draftsmen who undertook the task and also to the
980
Joint Committee for the work which it put in in order to make sure that the consolidation was appropriate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
3.50 p.m.
Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
3.51 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Loans for students]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, after ("students"), insert ("over the age of 18 years").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 1 which stands alone. However, in order to assure noble Lords that I am anxious to proceed as rapidly as possible, perhaps I may say that much which concerns me under Amendment No. 1 also arises under Amendment No. 11. I shall therefore not delay noble Lords very greatly when we reach Amendment No. 11.
On Amendment No. 1, your Lordships will recall that I remonstrated very strongly with the Government when they introduced an amendment connected with the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I argued that it was a very difficult matter. I thought that it was fundamental and I asked for more time. It was denied to me and to other colleagues who were interested in the matter. Three days have now passed and I have had time to try to understand the subject further. I shall raise certain matters which I believe will make very clear that as a result of three days' work I understand only how little I understand. I therefore remain convinced that I was right to ask the Government for more time to explore these matters further.
This is a probing amendment and it is not my intention to divide the House on it. The aim is to make clear some of the difficulties, in particular difficulties for someone like myself who is interested in education matters and student loans but who is a very long way from having expertise in matters to do with consumer credit.
First, let me say that my reading of what little I have been able to understand absolutely convinces me that we are not dealing with a minor and technical matter. I believe that the moment we open up the question of making loans to young people under 18 we are on a slippery slope. I am not sure which is the worst of the cliché s but that one will do for the

981
moment. Let me therefore ask these questions. I shall put the points forward and hope for some response.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, instituted an amendment essentially to do with the provision of information to minors and its connection with consumer credit. That is what I understood the amendment to be about. I assumed— perhaps not immediately; it took me at least 48 hours to consider this point— that schools or some young people have already been sent documentation to do with the forthcoming loans scheme. Have they been sent such documentation to do with the forthcoming loans scheme? If any of those young people are under 18, have those who have been sending such documentation to sixth formers been acting illegally under the Consumer Credit Act 1974? I do not have to remind noble Lords that the Bill that we are discussing at the moment is not an Act. So the question that comes immediately to mind is: what has been going on? If they have not been sent any documentation whatever on the matter, there is a paradox— are they ready to respond to the scheme? Either way, that is the problem that emerges.
However, I have also been told that it is not a matter of documentation but of whether it is possible for the Student Loans Company to make loans to under 18 year-olds. I am told that the point is that it is not legally impossible for them to do something: the real problem is whether the debtor is under an obligation to discharge the indebtedness. I am also told that where that arises in connection with loans to minors from, say, a bank— not that I assume that that happens often— then a guarantee of indemnity is required from a third party. A commercial bank would certainly require that.
I have also been advised of many factors that I do not understand concerning what happens with guarantors of indemnity; what happens if they fail; the recovering of the loan and so on. I do not understand them. In a sense, that is all right because essentially all I need to ask is whether the issue has been thought through in connection with the Student Loans Company.
In England and Wales, a student of 17 years is fairly rare and he will be 18 before long. A student of 17 years and 10 months will become 18 two months later, say, by December in his first term. Does that affect his position vis-à -vis a loan? I do not put these questions forward on the assumption that there are no answers. I assume that there must be answers from experts. I put them forward in order to make it clear that it is not a trivial matter and that we ought not to have hurried our debate on it.
I have been informed— and I must emphasise that I do not normally proceed in this manner in your Lordships' debates; I endeavour to acquire some confidence in what I say but I do not have such confidence on this matter— that the situation in Scotland is also worse, and different. On Monday the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, remonstrated with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the question of Scotland. I was very disappointed that he did not remonstrate with me also. I deserve every bit of
982
remonstration. Until I was told about these amendments, I had not thought of the problem of 17 year-olds. When I said that I was unprepared and ignorant, I really meant that. It had not occurred to me. I agree that perhaps I should have thought it through; but I had not. The fact that I had not thought it through reinforces my view that I should have been given more time to think it through rather than be told that everything is all right.
I gather that in Scotland more young people go to university at 17 than in England. The situation is therefore less atypical. I am also told that the legal position in Scotland is different. There are questions of having parental permission to take out a loan which have to be faced up to. Therefore in so far as the student loans scheme applies to Scotland, among the various pieces of paper to be discussed must be a paper referring to parental permission, and such matters. The exact advice that I have been given is that without parental consent in Scotland a loan to a minor is completely void and can be cancelled at any time. That is also rather worrying.
Let me repeat that I do not say that there cannot be answers. I do not say that the Government will not in due course be in a position to answer these matters. But I have to ask noble Lords generally whether we can have confidence that the Government have properly thought through the implications of the Bill for minors, having brought this forward at a late stage. Have they really thought through the problem as it would affect minors in Scotland?
I do not raise these as wrecking matters. I accept that if the Government wish to have a student loans Bill, they must have one. That is up to the Government. However, I believe that on such a matter the Government ought to have given us more time and ought at this moment to be able to offer rather more than definitive statements as answers to my questions. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, being puzzled by certain aspects of this matter. As I am sure will become very apparent to your Lordships, I fully share that puzzlement. It is difficult for your Lordships' House to discharge its duties as a revising Chamber when it has to deal with matters of this complexity at such extremely short notice.
If the noble Lord, Lord Peston— whose energy and enthusiasm are so manifest— is unable to sort out these matters between the time of the announcement and today, it is not unreasonable to infer that there must be a good many others of us who are in a similar position. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will realise that from the point of view of the treatment of this House and the treatment by the House of legislation this is not a satisfactory situation. It derives to some extent from the Government's extraordinary haste in dealing with the Bill. I do not blame my noble friend for that— I know that the decision does not lie with him— but had the Government allowed a little more time to review the matter they would have emerged in the end with a better Bill.

983
I have only one point on the merits and I should be grateful if my noble friend would deal with it. If I understand the Bill aright— and that is a hypothetical question— all the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 remain in respect of those under 18— minors— unless they happen to be students. If they happen to be students of a certain category and kind as defined in the Bill they are taken out of the protection of the Consumer Credit Act. If that interpretation is right— and I should value my noble friend's answer— I should be grateful for an answer to the consequential question: what is the justification for that? If it is right to protect minors from the risk of becoming indebted when they are at an age where they may not fully understand the effect of the obligations they are taking on— and it has apparently been the position which our law has adopted since 1974— is it sensible or socially right to take out of that protection the limited number of minors who happen to be students? The question requires an answer.
4 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I feel obliged to speak to the amendment, not only because my name is to it but because in the small hours of Tuesday morning while we were still in Monday the noble Earl asked me why I had not noted the number of 17 year-old students in Scotland since I had left university there only recently.
I point out to the Minister that I had assumed that the Government would manage to correct such a fundamental error as a group of people being affected by the Bill illegally. I too have a limited knowledge of consumer credit. I made the assumption that the Government would at least base their provisions on the Bill working in conformity with the rest of the law of the country.
As regards those under the age of 18 becoming indebted, I am opposed to that. I have seen many quite appalling cases of 18 and 19 year-olds not being able to handle their finances satisfactorily in their first year at university. All those protections provided by law are probably not only necessary but should be strengthened in some way. Thus I put to your Lordships' House that the issue of minors should have been addressed long before this. We definitely need more information on it.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we shall all listen with great interest to the answers that my noble friend gives to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He has raised at least four questions about the Consumer Credit Act. I rise to speak now because some parts of the answers were clearly given by my noble friend last Monday night. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that it is a pity he was not here to listen to the quite lengthy discussion which we had on that occasion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? Does she agree that it is also a pity that important matters of this kind on an important Bill are, under the arrangements made, taken at an hour when it is sometimes difficult for noble Lords to be present?
Baroness Young: My Lords, of course I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it is unpleasant to have to sit on this Bill or indeed on any other Bills in the early hours of the morning. It is not the first time that this has happened under any government. I am quite certain, that, as on many other matters, it will not be the last time. If I may say so the noble Lord is being somewhat disingenuous in using that argument on this occasion.
Your Lordships' House is a revising Chamber. It is perfectly within the rules that the matter should come to your Lordships' House although I said on Monday night that I regretted that it should come up so late. I have not the slightest doubt that many people who were involved were somewhat irritated that it should come up at this late stage. However, come up it has.
My noble friend will no doubt have answers to all the questions raised but perhaps I may make two points which arose on Monday night. The part of the Consumer Credit Act which is affected by this legislation is one section of the Act whereby finance houses or banks are prohibited from seeking custom from minors. That is on the grounds that in seeking to lend money they would be making money themselves. The whole point about the Student Loans Company is that it will not make a profit. Therefore it stands in a different relationship to young people from that which would apply to a bank. That is the answer to the point on why a bank giving a loan needs a guarantor whereas the Student Loans Company is different. I shall of course listen to what my noble friend says.
The reason for this having to be in the Bill, as I understand it, is that it might just be said that although the Student Loans Company does not make a profit, at some stage it might receive more back in cash terms than it lent. Therefore there could be an element of doubt. It is to remove that doubt that this provision comes before your Lordships' House. It is an important legal point and it is quite right that it arose.
However, as was said on Monday night, we do not need to feel that this completely changes matters or introduces anything other than an important technical point. It does not in any way alter the principle of the Bill.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, on the handling of the Bill I do not think we have received an answer to the point originally raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. It was that whatever notice was given to the Front Benches, no notice could have been given to people on the Back-Benches or the Cross-Benches. In a matter of this kind that is important, particularly for the Cross-Benches. I also believe that it is rather unfair to attack the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. We are all unpaid slaves in this place. It seems to me that on a matter of this importance we have some right to suppose that it will arise at a time when trains still run and we should not normally be in bed.
I wish to raise two points which I have no doubt can easily be answered. As I understand it, so long as there are students, minors of whatever age— and we know that one girl went to university aged

985
14— for this purpose they will be entitled to enter into serious obligations. As I have said before, I do not think the fact that no interest is charged by any means; suggests that it is a minor matter. It is a serious matter which may hang over students until they are 50.
Am I right in saying that without any advice or understanding of what is happening anyone of any age, so long as they are students, can undertake the obligations attaching to the loan? Further, quite apart from consumer protection, I have no doubt that I am quite wrong but I seem to remember that at least in Scotland minors cannot be held to contracts into which they have entered, nor indeed to contracts entered into on their behalf. I am willing to be told that I am wrong about that but I remember as a trustee selling a house which belonged to a minor. I was told that up to the age of 21 he— or in that case she— had a right to repurchase it. No doubt I have misunderstood this, but quite apart from consumer protection, which I do not understand, we should be quite clear what are the covenanted rights of minors in both England and Scotland. We should know what precautions we are taking to see that minors understand the obligations which they take on under this Bill if they accept loans.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, following on from something that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, I think there is a further way in which my noble friend the Minister could assist the House. The noble Baroness said that doubt had arisen because the money that is repaid might be a larger sum, in view of inflation, than the original sum borrowed and thus people could consider that the Student Loans Company was making a profit. However, I do not believe that that is a factor that causes anxiety. I think it is universally accepted that the Student Loans. Company, as a wholly government-owned company, is not in the business of making a profit.
However, I remind the Minister that in Committee in another place the Under-Secretary refused to rule out the possibility of the Student Loans Company being privatised. Indeed at one stage he said that the company may have considerable assets which would facilitate privatisation. We know that as regards any future privatisation Bill, the possibility of the organisation concerned making a profit so that it can be sold into the private sector is an essential factor. Therefore I hope the Minister will state categorically that as long as the loans scheme lasts the Student Loans Company will remain wholly in the public sector. If he made such a statement, many of the worries about minors and other matters would be dissipated.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I wish to put one point to my noble friend before he rises to reply to all the questions that he has been asked. It seems to me that very few people have read Section 50 of the Consumer Credit Act. That section makes it perfectly clear that the Student Loans Company would commit an offence if it sent to a minor,
"any document inviting him to—
(a) borrow money, or
(b) obtain goods on credit or hire".
986
Four categories of borrowing or loans are referred to in total in that section. But surely the purpose of the provision is to protect the Student Loans Company from committing an offence when it circulates documents to minors inviting them to take up a loan which is in effect a form of credit. Therefore it is not the minors whom we seek to protect but the Student Loans Company, or whoever acts on behalf of that company in sending minors documents concerning student loans. I should make it clear that we are not just talking about 17 year-old students but also about the schools that will be sent literature informing them of the opportunity for their pupils to obtain student loans. It is that aspect of the matter that needs to be considered.
The matter of financial gain is the other side of the coin. It has been said over and over again that the Student Loans Company does not intend to make a profit. However, if someone brought a case against the company as regards having distributed documents and it was not protected, it could be shown that it had made a profit on its cash flow at a particular moment in time. I understand that no case has been brought before the courts under the terms of Section 50 of the Consumer Credit Act. Presumably the courts would decide whether financial gain had accrued to the Student Loans Company in this instance. My noble friend Lord Butterworth referred to that matter the other night.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was interested to hear the comments of noble Lords. Perhaps it would be convenient for the House if I separated Amendment No. 11 from this amendment because different arguments are involved. However, I shall try to answer the questions that your Lordships have posed.
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making arrangements to provide students under the age of 19 with loans. It would thus deny loans to such students. It is particularly important that your Lordships are aware that we are talking about denying the opportunity of loans to those under 19. The amendment would therefore quite simply penalise those young people who are bright enough to be ready for higher education while they are still under the age of 19. We have often during our discussions on the Bill referred to the benefits that the loan facility affords to students such as a nil real interest rate on the outstanding loan.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I must interrupt the noble Earl as I wish to follow his argument all the way. I realise that it is my amendment that is being discussed, but I certainly did not think that the words "over the age of 18" had anything to do with the age of 19. I thought those words simply meant someone who was over the age of 18, for example 18 years plus one minute. I am rather lost here. If one says "over the age of 18", does that mean 19 years-old in law?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have read out the information that I have been given as regards the effect of the amendment of the noble Lord.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt my noble friend, but surely the words "over the age of 18" mean that one is over the age of 18 on one's 18th birthday plus one. Indeed, one could say that one is over the age of 18 at one's birth hour plus one. One does not have to wait until one's 19th birthday to be over the age of 18. One is over the age of 18 after one's 18th birthday. I should be astonished to hear a lawyer seriously argue to the contrary.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall have to take further advice on that point. When it comes to debating legal matters with my noble and learned friend one has to be very sure of one's legal ground. However, I can say that that is the advice that I have been given.
The benefits of the loan facility have been referred to on a number of occasions. The loan facility is a benefit to students whether they are over or under the age of 18. As I said, the loan facility offers students a nil real interest rate on the outstanding loan and the generous provision we have built in for deferment of repayments where a borrower's income is no more than moderate. Further, there is provision for cancellation of the entire loan in certain circumstances and at a certain age. I therefore wonder whether the students who would have stood to benefit had the loans been available as we had hoped will welcome the fact that such an amendment is before your Lordships.
I now turn specifically to the points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked whether schools had been sent information on loans. He said in his most disarming way that if schools had that information they must be breaking the law but that if they did not have it they could not be ready to carry out the loans scheme. However, the situation is not quite like that, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware. That is an important point for my noble friend Lady Elles too.
It is true that copies of the leaflet have been sent to schools for the information of sixth formers and their teachers. However, that does not offend any of the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act. Section 50 of the Consumer Credit Act makes it an offence to send an invitation to borrowers with a view to financial gain. That is an entirely separate matter. As I said in the early hours of Tuesday morning, the key to that part of the Consumer Credit Act is whether a company has a view to financial gain. The leaflet on the student loans scheme was sent by the department with no view to financial gain. It was sent only to convey information. Therefore we are ready to implement the scheme, but we are not breaking the law.
As regards the requirement of parental consent for loans to minors in Scotland, in view of the purpose for which a student loan would be taken out there is every prospect that the Scottish courts would hold the debt to be enforceable as loans are taken out for the benefit of students. That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. A parental acknowledgment or consent to the existence of the loan would enhance the prospects of enforcement,
988
but my advice is that neither acknowledgment nor consent would be essential. Such parental acknowledgment need not constitute a guarantee. It simply acknowledges that the minor concerned has entered into a contract.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said that he was not aware of the amendment. I must remind him that my noble friend the Chief Whip brought the amendment to the attention of the noble Lord the Chief Whip of the Liberal Democrat Party before the usual Thursday meeting so that he could bring it to the attention of those noble Lords whom he knew to be interested in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter raised the important point of whether the whole of the Consumer Credit Act now did not apply to students. The answer is no. Students will be subject to the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act except in so far as concerns Section 50. I spent a great deal of time at an earlier stage spelling out exactly what the difficulties were with Section 50. It is a difficult, complex and rather grey area of the law which has yet to be tested. The amendment which we tabled and which was agreed by your Lordships was for clarification, as my noble friend Lady Young reminded the House. It could be that the courts might have interpreted the matter differently from the way in which my noble friend Lord Beloff interprets it. It was for that very reason that we thought it necessary to clarify the situation.
I repeat that Section 50 of the Consumer Credit Act relates to the prohibition on sending documents with a view to financial gain. That was the point that we needed to clarify. The technical amendment was necessary to make sure that the Student Loans Company was not in the business of making a financial gain.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point can he explain how the company can be run and pay salaries if it does not make a financial gain?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the salaries are paid by the taxpayer, as I hope the noble Baroness will have understood from what I have said on numerous occasions both in Committee and at Report stage.
I hope that that reply satisfies my noble friend Lord Beloff. Whether the company is in public or private hands it is in the business of giving loans to students and not of making a financial gain. Therefore I believe that his concern is unfounded.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt because I know that the noble Earl has a great deal to get through. However, we are genuinely mystified by the question of privatisation. If the company were to be privatised it would be free to do what it liked. Can we be reassured that it will not be privatised? Once it is privatised the Government have no more control over it. Can the noble Earl explain the position and give some guarantee that that will not happen?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no gain will be made out of the making of loans whether the company is owned by the Government or is in private ownership. Under whatever ownership, minors will continue to enjoy the protection of Section 50 of the Consumer Credit Act. The government amendment on that section makes it clear that no gain or profit will be made out of the loan scheme. That is the key point which I hope will resolve the concerns of the noble Baroness, whether the company is in public or private ownership.
I turn back to the question that was raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham who picked up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. As I understand it now, a person is over the age of 18— which is what the amendment states— when he is 19 and over. A person is aged 18 during the entire 12-month period between his eighteenth birthday and his nineteenth birthday. That is the advice that I have received. Since I am up against my noble and learned friend I shall not quibble about it. I have tried to deal not so much with the wording and the technical nature of the amendment, although that has been an interesting debate in itself, but with the principle of what we are trying to achieve.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend one question. If I am wrong— and I am just as fallible as anybody else -does he agree that it is purely a drafting point and that the wording of the amendment can be changed so as to give effect to what most of us believe is the existing situation, namely that you become 18 on your eighteenth birthday and after midnight you are more than 18?
Lord Hughes: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Earl is risking disagreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, perhaps I may ask whether the advice he has received is from a legal quarter, a civil servant or a draftsman.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord with his great experience, knows better than I where such information comes from. I am told that it is of the highest repute, as one would expect in your Lordships' House.
The effect of the amendment, whether the definition is 17 years, 11 months and 28 days or 18 years and one day, is to treat entirely differently two students who are on the same course at the same institution and who will enjoy the same lifetime advantages as a result of their higher education merely because one is over a certain age and the other is not. As I believe all noble Lords will agree, such discrimination is neither sensible nor fair. It would be a positive deterrent to young people taking higher education. That is at least one area of common ground. We all want to encourage young people to enter higher education. I believe that to discriminate against one group would be wrong.
Lord Jay: My Lords, can the noble Earl now answer the question that I asked earlier? Could this curious company be privatised without primary legislation or would it require primary legislation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I answered that question too fully on Report. I am sure that the noble Lord has read the answer in the Official Report with his usual diligence in view of his concern in this matter. As I understand it, it would not require primary legislation.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, is it really worth worrying about the privatisation point? Here is a company which is going to make loans without inquiring into the financial status of the borrowers. It is bound to become insolvent.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is extremely difficult to speak after that particular intervention. I thank the noble Earl for his reply and noble Lords for their contributions. I am not endeavouring to damage the Bill at this point. I am merely endeavouring to establish the point about scrutiny, revision and the need for time to think these matters through. What has emerged from our discussions is precisely that those are difficult areas.
I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, although she is not in her place, that I am not stupid. I am aware of what Section 50 of the Consumer Credit Act says. I am also perfectly well aware of the arguments which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has put forward. I find them extremely cogent. However, my problem is that once one opens up the area there is always the suspicion that one has to look at the matter in much greater detail and explore it further. I hope that the noble Earl does not feel that I have insulted him in any way by saying that I have not understood his arguments. My point is that when one enters a new field one's concern is where one will end up when it has been thought through. I have already given some examples of where we might end up.
I have made my point. I should have been happier if we could have dealt with the matter at our leisure at a more satisfactory time. There is nothing that we can do about that and I understand that there was nothing that the Government could have done. Having made those points, and perhaps adding "I told you so" in anticipation of the trouble that will emerge with the Student Loans Company, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 6, after ("loans") insert ("amounting to no more than 50 per cent. of public support).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 9 but I wish to speak to Amendment No. 2 first and wait to hear what the Government have to say about their own amendment, Amendment No. 9, before I comment on it.
This is the third time that I have moved the amendment. The first time was at the Committee stage, when the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that she would take it back and draw the matter to the attention of her right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I moved it again on Report, when the noble Baroness said that she would come forward with a new amendment on Third Reading. She

991
assured the House that she had expressed the Committee's views to the Secretary of State, but she felt that the amendment was inappropriate because the Government intend that loans should be more widely available than mandatory grants.
I recognise that there might be a problem in this amendment, but it is the issue of principle of which I want to remind noble Lords. The principle of the Bill is that it should be based on the concept of top-up loans. It therefore seemed to many Members of the Committee and again to many Members of the House at Report stage that it was appropriate to write into the Bill the provision that the maximum amount of student maintenance to which loans should refer was 50 per cent. It has always been the Government's stated intention not to go above 50 per cent. In the light of that, there was agreement on all sides of the House that it would provide some reassurance to the universities, polytechnics, colleges and their students that that was the case and that the Government were sincere in their intentions if the principle were written into the Bill. There is an overwhelming case for doing that. No one in any of the debates that we have had on the Bill has favoured going above the principle of 50 per cent. and abandoning the concept of top-up. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have to say that I admire the persistence of the noble Baroness in this matter. I hope that my reply will help her.
In a previous debate I undertook to bring forward an amendment that would meet the concern expressed both here and in another place about the possible long-term development of the scheme. I accepted that the Bill should contain a provision that would not allow the loan to exceed the value of the grant, in line with the policy set out in the White Paper. I hope that noble Lords will agree that I have kept faith with the commitment which I gave on Report. That provision is one of the amendments that we are due to reach later, as it applies to Schedule 2.
It may be helpful if I say a little at this stage about the Government's amendment, Amendment No. 9. Amendments Nos. 2 and 9 are grouped together, but I wish to speak to Amendment No. 9. As I explained before, the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, does not meet the problem. It denies the loan to students receiving no grant. As I pointed out on Report, 50 per cent. of nothing is nothing.
The government amendment avoids that difficulty. It allows the loan to be offered to students receiving no grant. That is important. As the House knows, we intend eligibility for the loan to be cast more widely than eligibility for the grant.
The government amendment also deals with a second difficulty that the amendment before us at the moment does not address; namely, that the public support available to a student is not a single fixed total. There are three main rates of grant and a series of additional allowances. The government amendment is specific about the sum that the loan should not exceed. It would not allow the loan to be
992
greater than the grant to that student. Thus, for a student in London the loan could not be more than the London rate of grant; for one elsewhere, it could not be more than the elsewhere rate of grant; and so on. Without that degree of precision it would be possible for the loan to exceed the value of the grant available to some students.
The government amendment has a third feature. I mentioned it in our previous debate. It includes a provision that would allow a successor government to exceed the limit, subject to parliamentary approval.
As the House knows, we do not expect the point where grant and loan are equal to be reached for a good many years. However, when that point is reached the government of the day might wish, in the light of circumstances at the time, to provide more than half a student's resources in the form of loan. We proposed that, if the government at that time decide to take that route, the loan regulations should require affirmative resolution if they involve a loan facility that exceeds the value of the grant.
Your Lordships know that our present intention is that, once the loan and the grant have reached parity, they should be uprated in parallel; but we must allow a government in the next century to act differently without needing to secure fresh primary legislation. The affirmative resolution procedure that we propose will allow the government of the day the necessary flexibility. At the same time it provides, through the affirmative procedure, for the proper opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. There is therefore an assurance that both Houses will determine what happens beyond that level of parity.
In describing the government amendment that arises a little later on— Amendment No. 9— I have also explained why the amendment before us now does not have the desired effect. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will withdraw their amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, decides what to do with her amendment, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to clarify an interesting phrase which fell from her lips. She mentioned the Government's intention that eligibility for the loan should be cast more widely than eligibility for the grant. Will she tell us what categories of student she has in mind? Is she thinking of mature students or part-time students? That would materially affect the feelings of many of us about the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have had extremely detailed discussions on who shall be qualified. Off the top of my head, I believe that a mature student who might not necessarily qualify for grant would have access to the loan facility. I cannot be precise at this moment, but we have mentioned many people who may have access to the loan facility for higher education but would not necessarily qualify for a grant.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may put to her one

993
further question about which I am slightly uncertain. Can we be reassured that paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 9 will not make it difficult for any future government to extend the eligibility for mandatory awards, should they choose to do so?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am receiving from the Box the right kind of nods which I hope will reassure the noble Baroness on that point. The imporant point is that the Bill now makes it possible not to go beyond that level of parity and that, should there be any intention to do so, it would be important for both Houses to have a view about what should happen beyond that level.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, I should say that grants are available for one course only. I am afraid that I cannot read the writing in the note that has been handed to me. I believe that my first answer is correct. Some people will have access to a loan but will not necessarily qualify for a grant. I hope that the noble Lord will read Hansard and single out some illustrations of that point.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she will tell me whether she could write to me and summarise the position.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall indeed do so.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward the amendment. I am extremely glad to be able to say that I find large parts of it highly acceptable. However, I have one reservation which relates to the final paragraph of the amendment where the Government yet again appear to want to provide a let-out whereby either they or a future government could go above the 50 per cent. figure in the Bill.
I was a little surprised to hear the noble Baroness say that some future government might want to abandon the parity principle as, until now, we have always had the reassurance that the parity principle was paramount. However, if a future government were to want to do that and to increase loans as a proportion of the total amount of maintenance, I should have thought that the right solution was to introduce primary legislation rather than to rely yet again on regulations. With that exception about which I am not entirely happy, although I do not wish to press the point further this afternoon, and in view of the government amendment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("and such conditions may include a provision in respect of students attending courses of higher education of longer than three academic years' duration that they shall incur no liability in respect of any loan given for the fourth year").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now return yet again to the problem of the fourth-year student. All students on courses longer than three years are at some disadvantage compared with those on
994
three-year courses. That is for the simple reason that if any debt is incurred in the form of the new student loan, ultimately it will have to be paid back. With interest even at only the rate of inflation, the student will still end up paying a considerable sum of interest on the loan. The basic problem can be described by saying that if one receives a loan for four years rather than three years, there is not only the extra debt but also the extra period for paying interest on the debt that one has already acquired. Even if that interest is only levied at the rate of inflation, it has been calculated that the difference could be as much as 60 per cent.
I hope that that description puts in context the need for special help to be given to fourth-year students. There has been some small consideration for those whose courses last for more than four years. Why is there not some help for those who are taking a four-year
As I have said, as it seems to me on umpteen occasions the Scots are the group who will be most hard hit. On other occasions I have remarked at considerable length that Scottish students who do Highers, even though they do not undertake sixth-form studies do not have the same choice available to them as in most of the English and Welsh courses, which assume that the student has already acquired a certain amount of technical knowledge from A-levels. Therefore any Scottish student who does a three-year course without having taken A-levels is at a certain disadvantage. He is at a definite disadvantage in the first year especially in the first couple of terms.
If one accepts that some provision is to be given to those undertaking longer courses, why not for those who have four-year courses to follow? They also have a problem. It is possibly not quite of the same magnitude but it is a problem of the same type and they should be given some help.
The Government have constantly said that they would review the situation. I hope that they will review the whole scheme the whole time. One should try to get the thing right so that any review would be a matter of examining the scheme and noting how well it is doing. One should not be glaring at it and hoping that the problem will not erupt in one's face.
Groups other than Scottish students are affected. I accept that the Scots can do a three-year course but the Scottish Honours course takes four years and I suggest that we want to obtain the highest standard of education that is available.
Throughout discussion of this Bill the Government have said that they hope to encourage an increase in student numbers. I suggest that greater numbers with lower quality degrees will be no answer. We have teachers who are studying for the B.Ed. qualification and we have a chronic shortage of teachers. I suggest that anything that might deter even a few of them is something to be avoided like the plague at this time.
We ask the Government Front Bench for a real concession and help to be given to those who undertake four-year courses. I hope that we can make some progress and give assistance to those who are

995
studying for longer than the basic three years. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should like to say a few brief words on this amendment which is tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I fully appreciate that when a scheme of this kind is introduced one faces the problem of what to do about what one might call, so far as concerns England and Wales, a non-standard three-year degree; namely, a four-year degree course. I do not say that in order to insult the Scots and infer that there is something abnormal about them. It is simply that they have the tradition of a four-year degree.
I should like to hear from the Government whether they feel that the four-year degree is somehow academically bad and they do not mind if this legislation acts as a disincentive to such degrees. I hope that they will not say that. The fact is that the student on a four-year degree course already incurs higher costs. To the economist the most obvious of those costs consists of the year of income forgone in order to spend time at college. If the noble Earl is about to say that this problem is very difficult to solve, I shall agree with him. However I think that those who, to say the least, do not regard a four-year course as illegitimate— to put it as mildly as possible— would like to have some reassurance from the Government in the form of an undertaking that they will at least look for a way of making a concession if they can. I understand that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is seeking. I add my voice to his I think that the Government to take this matter very seriously.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in case it should be thought that this is only a Scottish question, I should like to underline the fact that the B.Ed. takes four years and it leads to not very well paid work. If one discourages teachers from taking a B.Ed. qualification, it flies in the face of all the needs of the education system at the present time.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in support of this amendment I should like to remind the House that a number of speakers supported this or similar amendments during all three previous stages of the Bill. Not only will there be a deterrent in the Bill as it now stands to those taking longer courses but also after they have finished the longer courses there will be an incentive for them to go into the more highly paid branches of their profession and perhaps neglect the lower paid ones. In my own field of medicine I think of medical research, public health and epidemiology which are rather poorly paid branches of the profession. They are, however, extremely important.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand the motivation behind this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has been very persistent in bringing it to your Lordships' notice. It is intended to secure fair treatment for students following longer courses, particularly those in Scotland. However, I have to say that on the test of fairness I believe that it fails. It would mean that a student on a course of four
996
years or longer would pay back less than he had borrowed from the taxpayer.
Those on four-year courses would pay back the same as those on three-year courses, even though they had borrowed more. On top of that they would continue to receive more by way of maintenance and tuition fee support than those on three-year courses. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Addington, agrees with me that students on three-year courses might wonder why the funds available for higher education were to be loaded towards those on four-year courses in the way that he proposes.
We believe that a loan should be available to every student irrespective of the length of the course or its nature and that graduates should pay back in real terms the same sums as they have borrowed. That is fair to the taxpayer and fair to the graduate.
After very careful consideration we were able to vary, while keeping moneys repaid equal to moneys borrowed in real terms, the period over which a loan is repaid. As noble Lords will recall, I announced to the House at Report stage that we would be extending to seven years initially the repayment period for graduates who borrow under the scheme for more than four years. That will significantly reduce the size of the annual repayments that those graduates will face. That was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pressed on us at an earlier stage. I was perhaps a shade disappointed that he did not thank the Government for the major concession in meeting the concern that he had put before us.
As the loan scheme develops and loans increase in real terms, the standard repayment period and the extended repayment period for those on longer courses will be increased so that the repayments remain reasonable. I repeat what I and my noble friend Lady Blatch have said on many occasions. We shall continue to monitor the whole of the loan scheme. We shall look particularly carefully at those who are on four-year courses because of the concerns that have been expressed. If there is need to take action, one is able to act under the regulations.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Earl has given me more or less the same answer as I have been receiving the whole way through this discussion. No further concession has been forthcoming. He spoke about someone receiving a loan over a four-year period and receiving the extra year's help in tuition fees and maintenance. I should like to point out that Scottish students have invariably spent one year less in school— or have done so very often. I should also mention the fact that the four-year course in Scotland is based on the Highers system. It is a system which is non-specialist. England is moving toward it and away from the specialisation of A-levels. I suggest that we may face that problem in the future.
Ultimately we are not addressing the problem that certain courses are of a four-year nature. Many of them lead to low paid professions and teaching is the classic example. As the Government have not been prepared to make any major concession on this matter, I have no option but to test the opinion of the House.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 98.

DIVISION No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L, [Teller]

Jay, L.

Adrian, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Airedale, L.

Kearton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Banks, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Beloff, L.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blease, L.

Longford, E.

Blyth, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Peston, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dainton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B,

Porritt, L.

David, B .

Rea, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Richardson, L.

Diamond, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Dunrossil, V.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Ennals, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ezra, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Serota, B.

Flowers, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Foot, L.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grimond, L.

Swann, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hooson, L.

White, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt, L.

Willis, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Cross, V.

Arran, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Atholl, D.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Balfour, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Bauer, L.

Derwent, L.

Belstead, L.

Eccles, V.

Bessborough, E.

Elton, L.

Blake, I,.

Fisher, L.

Blatch, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Borthwick, L.

Eraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Gainford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Butterworth, L.

Geddes, L.

Caithness, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Caldecote, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Carnock, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hanson, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Harvington, L.

Colwyn, L.

Havers, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Henley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hertford, M.

Craigmyle, L.

Hesketh, L.

998

Hives, L.

Renwick, L.

Holdemess, L.

St. Davids, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hooper, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Selkirk, E.

Kitchener, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Lauderdale, E.

Shannon, E.

Long, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mancroft, L.

Slim, V.

Merrivale, L.

Stockton, E.

Milverton, L.

Strange, B.

Morris, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mottistone, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mountevans, L.

Munster, E.

Swansea, L.

Nelson, E.

Swinton, E.

Newall, L.

Terrington, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orkney, E.

Tombs, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trumpington, B.

Peel, E.

Ullswater, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Quinton, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Yarborough, E.

Reay, L.

Young, B.

Renton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.58 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert:
(" (5A) The power to make orders under subsection (4) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5 and, with the leave of the House, will speak to Amendment No. 6. At Report stage earlier this week I promised to look carefully, with my right honourable friend, at the power given by Clause 1(4) to amend Schedule 1, and the comments made on that power by many of your Lordships. The feeling of the House, as I understood it, was that your Lordships would like some way in which to comment, if orders were made amending Schedule 1.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 provide for your Lordships to do just that. They make such orders subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We anticipate that changes to Schedule 1 will be made in response to developments in the world of higher education; for example, to include new courses, rather than through any wish to restrict the provision of loans. We do not expect that frequent revision of Schedule 1 will be necessary, but, if such changes are to be made, this amendment will ensure that they are debated by your Lordships and by another place, and are subject to the approval of both Houses.
I hope that what I have said, and what is in the amendments, meets the concerns expressed by your Lordships— in particular, those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lady Young. The Government Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 have exactly the effect intended in Amendment No. 8, which is in the name of the noble and learned Lord, and I hope that what I have said will satisfy him. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward this amendment, which meets one of the anxieties I raised at Report stage. I have no doubt that it will be greatly welcomed by the universities. I am very grateful to my noble friend for the work which I know he has put into the matter. I hope that he will pass on my thanks to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for his support of these measures. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who may wish to say something further, and my noble friend Lord Rippon in thanking my noble friend for what he has been able to do.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I too should like to express my thanks to the noble Earl the Paymaster General. As I had not heard from him as I expected to hear yesterday, I put down my Amendment No. 8, just ahead, I imagine, of the noble Earl's Amendment No. 5. There are only two differences, on both of which I hesitated. They concern where the amendments should appear in the Bill and whether the cautionary words at the beginning of my amendment are necessary. On both those points the draftsman is entitled to have his view maintained and vindicated. The noble Earl has been good as his word in Committee and rather better than his word at Report, as he merely said then that he would consult. I am most grateful to him.
Baroness David: My Lords, we are grateful for this concession. It has taken a long time to get but it has arrived. We are very pleased about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said how pleased the universities would be. I would say that the universities, the polytechnics and indeed the colleges which are affected by Schedule 1 will be glad to have the reassurance that the amendment gives.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 16, leave out from ("make") to ("shall") in line 18 and insert ("regulations under this section or Schedule 2 to this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which, subject to subsection (7) below and paragraph (1A) of that Schedule, ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("code") and insert ("regulations").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely technical drafting amendment. It is designed to correct one very small error in a previous amendment agreed by the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is indeed a technical amendment. The Bill now contains two sets of amendments that were passed on Report against the Government's wishes; those inserted by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who unfortunately is not with us today, about amending the regulations which are the subject of the present debate; and those inserted by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the treatment of some students for housing benefit purposes. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that the Government are considering the position in the light
1000
of those votes. I have no conclusion to announce today but do not wish to stand in the way of Amendment No. 7. Therefore we will accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Loans for students]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 40, at end insert:
(1A) The maximum amount prescribed under sub-paragraph (1) (a) above for the loan to be made to a student in any year shall not exceed—

(a) the amount specified as the ordinary maintenance requirement for students of the class or description to which he belongs by regulations having effect for that year under section 1 (1) of the Education Act 1962 (mandatory awards); or

(b) if no such amount is specified for students of the class or description to which he belongs, such amount as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for students of that class or description having regard to the amount specified as mentioned in paragraph (a) above;

but regulations, other than the first, made under sub-paragraph (1) (a) above may prescribe a higher maximum if a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 40, at end insert:
(" (1A) Before issuing regulations in respect of any academic year under sub-paragraph (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as appear to him to be concerned.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at Report stage the noble Baroness agreed that the consultation is a very important part of the process when changes take place from year to year. We believe that it is very important that consultation with all interested groups before these changes are made should be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult,
"such organisations as appear to him to be concerned",
before making regulations governing the size of the loan and the terms on which they are to be made and recovered. As noble Lords will know, the Government are committed to monitoring the operation of the loans scheme, a point we have made at every stage of the Bill's progress through the House. The operation of the loan scheme will be monitored continually. We expect to consult widely and will take into account all views put to us before deciding whether the scheme can be improved in any material respect.
There is no similar statutory requirement to consult on the mandatory awards regulations, though in practice the Secretary of State consults the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics, the local authority associations and indeed the National Union of Students. The annual review of grant rates and conditions takes account of a wide range of evidence from a variety of sources. Such

1001
consultations are valuable and effective even in the absence of a statutory requirement for them.
The Education Act 1962 does not commit the Government to taking account of evidence from particular groups before amending the regulations for grants, and there is no reason why such a requirement should be written on to the face of this Bill. Since 1962 the Government have taken account of a range of views in revising the grants regulations year by year. There is no reason why the same procedure should not apply in future for the parallel loans regulations. The Government are always receiving and responding to representations on student support and will continue to do so.
This amendment is both unnecessary and unwieldy. The Government will monitor the impact of the loans scheme and consult where necessary before making any regulations governing the making and repayment of loans. This is what happens with the grants scheme and, quite properly, this procedure will also apply to the loans scheme. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Baroness has responded in that way. Reference is constantly made to the 1962 Act but it provides no parallel. We are now moving into a position that is very much challenged by pretty well all the organisations concerned with education. That was not the case at all under the 1962 Act. There is a great deal of anxiety about the Bill and how it will develop over the years. The position is quite different from that of 1962. It is important to have on the face of the Bill the right to be consulted. One should not have to rely on the goodwill of the Government to consult but on the right to be consulted. I am afraid that, in the light of the noble Baroness's response, I shall have to divide the House.
5.8 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 104.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Adrian, L.

David, B.

Airedale, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ardwick, L.

Diamond, L.

Aylestone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Beloff, L.

Ennals, L.

Birk, B.

Ezra, L.

Blackstone, B.

Falkland, V.

Blease, L.

Flowers, L.

Blyth, L.

Foot, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hanworth, V.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Cobbold, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Henniker, L.

1002

Hirshfield, L.

Nicol, B.

Hooson, L.

Peston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hughes, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hunt, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Kearton, L.

Serota, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L,

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Swann, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Tordoff, L.

Longford, E.

Underhill, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Whaddon, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

White, B.

Molloy, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Monson, L.

Willis, L.

Mulley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Killearn, L.

Arran, E.

Kitchener, E.

Atholl, D.

Lauderdale, E.

Balfour, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Bauer, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mancroft, L.

Blake, L.

Merrivale, L.

Blatch, B.

Milverton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Morris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brentford, V.

Mountevans, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Munster, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Nelson, E.

Butterworth, L.

Newall, L.

Caithness, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Caldecote, V.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Peel, E.

Carnock, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Prior, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Quinton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cross, V.

Reay, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Denham, L.

Richardson, L.

Derwent, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Eccles, V.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Erroll, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Ferrers, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fisher, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fortescue, L.

Selkirk, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Slim, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stockton, E.

Geddes, L.

Strange, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hanson, L.

Tombs, L.

Havers, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hertford, M.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hesketh, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hives, L.

Yarborough, E.

Holderness, L.

Young, B.

Hooper, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert ("; and (c) no interest shall accrue to a loan secured by a minor during the period when such a person is a minor.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during our debate on Amendment No. 1 I said that I had made all the relevant points. I do not want to cover the ground again but I forgot to point out that we should be looking at other legislation such as the Minors' Contracts Act 1987 which deals with lending to minors. It illustrates my point about how complicated the issue is.
Having made my points earlier I do not believe that noble Lords will welcome a further delay in the proceedings. Therefore, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment
No. 12:
Page 5, line 14, at end insert:
(" (4) Regulations made under this paragraph shall allow special conditions to be set in respect of repayment of loans for disabled students or graduates.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is the same as that which I moved and withdrew on Report. However, there is one minor exception which I hope will appeal to the noble Earl. It provides that regulations may be made under this paragraph to allow special conditions to be set in respect of repayment of loans for disabled students or graduates. I have left out the words which appeared in my previous amendment; they were "in comparison with loans to other students". The noble Earl was right to take exception to those words and I hope that the amendment is acceptable in its present form.
The arguments were adduced at great length during previous stages and therefore I do not need to go into detail. Briefly they are, first, that a disabled student is likely to incur larger loans than a non-disabled student. Secondly, when the disabled student becomes a graduate he is likely to be poorer than graduates who are able bodied. He will be poorer partly because he will have incurred greater expenses, partly because he will have greater costs and partly because, on average, the disabled graduate receives a smaller income than the non-disabled graduate.
For all those reasons it appears to be unanswerable that special conditions should be set for the repayment of loans for disabled students. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I support the amendment as I did on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has made the necessary points and there is no need for me to repeat them. I hope that disabled students will receive the extra help. We all agree that what has been given is generous but, because of the difficulties that they will face when repaying the loans, that is not enough.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support this amendment. The points have already been made. The disabled not only have a more difficult time as students, but they have a far higher probability of being unemployed and a far less chance of earning very high salaries. Thus I suggest that it is only fair that they receive special consideration.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support this amendment. I hope that the Minister has been able to assist on this aspect. I wonder whether the Government have fully understood the point about the extra costs of disabled life. Even if a disabled person manages to obtain a job as highly paid as an able-bodied counterpart, and manages not to run up a higher loan, there are still the extra costs which are not fully offset by the mobility and attendance allowances. Those costs occur daily for the rest of your life.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I also support this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we announced on 19th March that there would be special provision for disabled people repaying their loans, in the form of a disregard of disability-related benefits for the purpose of assessing a disabled graduate's income for deferment.
Disabled people with low incomes will be protected by the deferment threshold at 85 per cent. of national average income. Those who continue to earn less than this generous threshold may expect to make no repayments, and to have their debts cancelled at the age of 50. Those two sentences cover the point of concern of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, as he has just expressed it to the House.
The disregard of disability-related benefits will ensure that disabled graduates are not lifted above the threshold by benefit income. Someone who received the mobility allowance would find that the disregard effectively raised his threshold to around 90 per cent., or over £ 12, 200 in today's terms. Anyone receiving disability-related benefits of over £ 40 per week in today's terms would enjoy a threshold above 100 per cent. of average earnings.
I repeat the assurances I gave at Report stage that this provision will be included in regulations, which the House will debate for their first use.
I now turn to the key point of what I have to say. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said that she hoped that I had given this matter further consideration, as I have. What convinces me on my line of argument is that there is no need to insert in the Bill a measure permitting special provision to be made for repayments by the disabled. The Bill as drafted already provides for that.
I can reassure the House that an enormous amount of work has gone into this area. We were able to come back with a very generous package for the disabled which we have discussed on a couple of occasions. I understand the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. We are very keen to monitor the situation and look at it. However, I return to my key point— that is, there is no need to insert this into the Bill because the Bill as drafted already allows for it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the Bill may already contain the provision. No doubt the noble Earl can tell us where it is. However, this is not so material as whether or not the Government will make use of the provision. That is what we should like to have from the noble Earl. If he says he will make use of the provision, then there would be good reason to withdraw the amendment.
I hope that the noble Earl recognises that there is support from all sides of the House on this amendment. When he talks about the disregard of disability-related benefits, that is beside the point because all disabled people do not receive those benefits. For example, the deaf are very gravely handicapped but do not receive the same disability-related benefits as those confined to wheelchairs. Therefore, disregard is neither here nor there for them.
Unless there is an assurance from the noble Earl that the Government will make use of the regulations in the sense for which we have all pressed, I shall ask the House to divide.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on the question of whether the Bill permits the disabled to be treated differently, I draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 1 (6), and particularly the last line.
I cannot go further regarding what the noble Lord said today. He knows that we have responded very considerably towards meeting the anxieties of the disabled. I fear that we are not going to agree exactly on the final amount today. However, there has been a considerable shift in the Government's position, as I have been able to tell your Lordships. We shall continue to monitor the situation very carefully.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask this question. Is it not the case that however good and honourable are the present Government's intentions— and I am sure they are— if we put the words of this amendment into the Bill that will serve as a very useful handle should we have the misfortune to have a government who are less fair on this matter? There is a great deal to be said for having something on the face of the Bill which can be referred to if the government of the day, whoever they may be, do not make that sort of provision.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, I have heard him use the opposite argument; namely, if it is provided for in the Bill there is no need to write it on the face of the Bill a second time. On the question of the disabled, whatever may be the colour, complexion or belief of the government in power, the concerns of the disabled will always be very much to the fore as they are to the forefront of the mind of this Government.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, when I sat on that Bench opposite I was always very pleased when I was able to say that an amendment was not acceptable because it contradicted what we intended to do. On more than one occasion I refused to accept a brief which told me that I should not accept the amendment because it was already covered in
1006
another form in another part of the Bill. I told my advisers that there is nothing wrong with belt and braces.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I hope that the noble Earl will understand that it is the feeling of the House that special provision for the disabled should be written into the Bill. I appeal to him to accept that. I very much regret that if he does not, I shall have to divide the House. It would be most acceptable to the House if the noble Earl could nod his head, but I can see that he is not doing so and regretfully I ask the House to divide on this amendment.
5.27 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 85.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hughes, L.

Adrian, L.

Hunt, L.

Airedale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kearton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Beloff, L.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blease, L.

Longford, E.

Blyth, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milverton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Molloy, L.

Monson, L.

Cobbold, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Congleton, L.

Mulley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nicol, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Diamond, L.

Renton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Richardson, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Erroll, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ezra, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Saint Oswald, L.

Flowers, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Stedman, B.

Grantchester, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grimond, L.

Swann, L.

Hacking, L.

Tombs, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller.]

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Whaddon, L.

Henniker, L.

White, B.

Holderness, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Hooson, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Willis, L.

1007

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Henley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hertford, M.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Atholl, D.

Hives, L.

Balfour, E.

Hooper, B.

Bauer, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belstead, L.

Killearn, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Blake, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caithness, E.

Mountevans, L.

Caldecote, V.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Newall, L.

Carnock, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colwyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Peel, E.

Cross, V.

Prior, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Quinton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L.

Reay, L.

Derwent, L.

Renwick, L.

Eccles, V.

Saint Albans, D.

Elles, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Selkirk, E.

Fisher, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stockton, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strange, B.

Gainford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Geddes, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ullswater, V.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Yarborough, E.

Young, B.

Hanson, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 28, at end insert:
(" (1A) The Secretary of State shall provide to such institutions full compensation in respect of all work required in connection with the certification or otherwise of a students eligibility, and such compensation shall be in addition to that made available for the work required in connection with the distribution of Access Funds.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, those noble Lords who were here around midnight at Report stage heard the arguments for this amendment rehearsed at some length both by myself and by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. I therefore need only rehearse them briefly today.
One matter that has worried me throughout the debates on the Bill is a tendency to underestimate the administrative costs. In so far as these proposals reflect extra administrative costs to the Government, that is a matter which they must balance against the advantages they believe the scheme confers on the country. My concern— a universal concern in the institutions of higher education— is that the universities and polytechnics will also bear considerable administrative costs. Those costs have already manifested themselves in relation to the
1008
community charge where they are involved in dealing with the students liable to pay it, but certification is probably a more serious and complicated business.
The noble Earl described the process to be followed by the student and the role of the university as regards certification. There will be extra administrators; no doubt extra typewriters, telephones, offices and so forth. Since this was not a measure forced upon the Government by the overwhelming enthusiasm of the universities and polytechnics, but a government measure which they asked those institutions to accept, surely the financial responsibility should be that of the Government.
Universities and other institutions of higher education have no free money. Many of them are in considerable financial difficulty. If money has to be paid to certify students for the student loans, it can only be obtained by cutting the universities' activity in some other respect— by reducing teaching staff or curtailing research. In other words, unless there is a guarantee from the Government that they will pay the extra administrative costs, they are asking universities to divert money from their primary concerns— teaching and research— to a secondary concern, administration.
In replying to the debate the Minister informed us that there was no need to worry. The Government would be consulting with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics. He said that in those discussions the question of who should pay the bill "would be on the agenda".
That is a slippery phrase. On a day when Chancellor Kohl is visiting London I seem to remember someone saying a little while ago, that German unification was not on the agenda. It now appears to be on the agenda. Similarly, if the noble Earl says that the matter of payment is simply to be "on the agenda", how do I know that it will turn out not to be on the agenda?
In other words, all we are asking is that the Minister should admit that it will cost the universities, polytechnics and colleges money; that they have no money to meet these costs and that the Government recognise their obligation to furnish resources to enable institutions to carry through the Government's own policy. I commend the amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He has stated the general case very thoroughly and I do not want to repeat it. However, I should like to highlight what is involved. On Report the Minister said something about the process that is required but since then we have had the DES press release of 22nd March which amplifies that process.
It seems that the student applies through the college, which will have to certify him as a proper student on a proper course. The student will take with him as proof of identify his birth certificate, his mandatory award letter, if any, his bank or building society account number, and so on. However, what bothers me are the following words:
"The academic institution checks the documents the student brings with him. The student completes an eligibility form".

1009
Therefore, the college has to check the student's birth certificate, bank account number, and so on. I do not know what one does when checking such things. Perhaps that is perfectly reasonable but I wish I understood better what will actually be involved. Therefore I do not know what the costs will be and for that reason I hope that they will be covered by the Government, who are putting this demand upon the universities. We are already faced with the demand to administer access funds and in recent years at the Government's behest we have had to administer all sorts of schemes at the expense of our teaching and research, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, I spoke on this issue in Committee and on Report and I was grateful to the noble Earl the Paymaster General for saying on Report that the question of payments would be on the agenda of the meeting between the universities and the DES.
I put my name to this amendment because I hope that the Minister will indicate today how his thinking on the matter is developing. I know that it is only a few days since the Report stage was concluded but I am sure the House would be grateful to hear that the Government will not only place this matter on the agenda of the forthcoming meeting but will also come forward with an offer of financial support, preferably with an offer of new resources to support the administrative activities that this new scheme will involve.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I support this amendment from these Benches. All of us who are involved in running higher education institutions know the difficulties of the current financial situation. We are speaking not just about universities but about polytechnics and colleges of higher education. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, so rightly said, this scheme could well mean the diversion of funds from the main responsibilities of higher education institutions, which are to teach our students, and to undertake research into supporting the Government in the administration of a scheme involving student maintenance. As I have already said that would be a highly undesirable situation in the context of so little funding being available for new developments in research and teaching.
In supporting Amendment No. 13 I shall not be moving my Amendment No. 15 since both amendments cover exactly the same issues and the wording of Amendment No. 13 is, if anything, better than the wording of my amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, there is a report in today's issue of Nature — an admirable publication which some of your Lordships may read— which states:
"DES officials say they will discuss any arrangements to reimburse universities for additional costs with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals at a future date".
That must mean after the passing of this Bill. I think the House will agree that that is rather an
1010
unsatisfactory situation in which to allow the Bill to leave this House. For example, if the talks break down what will happen? I am sure the noble Earl will be able to assist us this afternoon and give some indication that the talks will take place under reasonable auspices.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this seems to be a reasonable amendment. No one can allege that the universities have clamoured for the scheme. It is well known that the Government have decided, for better or worse and for their own reasons, to impose the scheme on them. That inevitably raises the basic question of who pays.
No one is clear— though we shall perhaps be clearer when my noble friend the Paymaster General has spoken— as to how much money is involved, but I put to him that he is facing a dilemma. If, as I suspect, the amount is substantial, it is wrong that it should come out of the universities' assets. If, on the other hand, it is trifling, it is putting no obligation on the Government and the taxpayer to ask them to shoulder it. Either way, it seems that there is a case, if the Government want to go ahead with the scheme, for not seeking directly or indirectly to make the universities pay for it.
Baroness White: My Lords, I draw the attention of the noble Earl to the fact that this coming year will be particularly arduous because it covers the entire body of students, as I understand it, and not just one year's entry, which will occur later on. We have to arrange— as we shall in our college— to deal with some 8, 000 students, though not all of them will be eligible for the loan system as some are from overseas. Nevertheless, it will be a very difficult job and if, as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, indicated, we have to check a number of personal documents, whatever they may be, I cannot help thinking how much easier it would be for the Government to accede to the vice-chancellors' suggestion that it should all be done through the Inland Revenue.
However, the Government have not felt able to do that so they must recognise, particularly in this coming academic year, that they are putting a considerable administrative burden upon staffs, which some of us have been pruning— perhaps over-vigorously— over the past few years.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I do not want the universities to divert money to this scheme which they would otherwise spend on other forms of education. However, I do not see why they should be given a blank cheque to hire as many people as they like in order to administer it. Therefore, what should one do? I believe the answer is simple. The money should come from the access fund.
Lord Rippon: My Lords, I do not wholly agree with the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Eccles. This has nothing to do with whether one is in favour of student loans. It is wholly reasonable that this amendment should be accepted by the Government for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
We all know that at present the universities are under tremendous pressure. Funds are not freely

1011
available for extra expenditure of this nature. It is not a question, if I may say so, of giving the universities a blank cheque. After all, the universities are subject to audit. Perhaps I should declare an interest as chairman of the audit committee of London University. But it certainly seems to me that the universities should be reimbursed for all expenditure necessarily incurred in carrying out duties imposed by government legislation.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I wish to put one more point to my noble friend. There is a certain logic in this amendment. The purpose of the Bill is to raise additional funds for the universities and the growing number of students. This is a measure which will be of assistance to the Treasury and the taxpayer in the long run. The universities are being asked to work the machinery when the Bill becomes an Act. It is only reasonable that the cost of working that machinery, which will benefit the Government, should be borne by them.
It is well known that universities are going to great lengths to work the machinery. My particular interest is Surrey University. It has set up a research park to earn itself fresh income in order to keep the university going. It would be very hard if the university had to use such hard earned funds in order to provide the machinery to work this scheme for the benefit of the Government. With his admirable mind, I am sure that my noble friend will see the logic of that argument.
Lord Swann: My Lords, I wish to give your Lordships the results of some calculations which I have done though they may well be wrong. I do not have my calculator with me. I have done a little mental arithmetic. I was considering what I would have thought if I were in charge of this scheme in the days when I was Principal of Edinburgh University. I do not believe for one moment that it could be carried out for less than about 10 minutes per student, and probably a lot more. Edinburgh University had 10, 000 students, so that is 100, 000 minutes per annum. That equals 16, 000 hours, which is 400 weeks; something like eight-man years would be involved each year. It would have involved quite a lot money as well as a lot of wasted time by intelligent people.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, at Report stage I described in some detail the role of the academic institutions in the student loans scheme. I said that, while that role will be important, it will also be limited, as indeed has been requested.
Academic institutions will identify their students, certify them as eligible and issue forms. Students will apply for loans directly to the Student Loans Company, through the post. The academic institutions will also be expected to inform the Student Loans Company if a student unexpectedly ceases to be eligible by leaving a course prematurely, and to store documents for auditing purposes.
Apart from that, the academic institutions will not be involved in any steps beyond certifying eligibility. I have listened carefully to what noble Lords have said at Second Reading, Committee and Report
1012
stages of the Bill about the matter of payment to the academic institutions.
Given what I had said, I was very surprised to hear what my noble friend Lord Beloff said. He said something to the effect that he did not know whether this matter would be on the agenda when I said that it would be. I can confirm the fact that the department's officials have already written confirming that payment is on the agenda. That subject will be discussed. I do not know whether or not I can convince my noble friend, but that is up to him.
Just as the Government were willing to make a payment contribution towards the cost of the scheme when it was to be run by the banks, so we will be willing to make a contribution to the institutions. Those payments will reflect the limited role in the certification process which we are asking the institutions to take on.
The issue will be discussed at official level at a meeting to be held next Tuesday. I do not think any of us can anticipate the outcome in detail, but I can assure your Lordships that the momentum of discussion will be maintained.
My noble friend Lord Beloff said that we were underestimating the administrative cost. The Government have said all along that the administrative cost of the scheme would be in the range of £ 10 million to £ 20 million. There is no reason to change that view. It is not the Government who have underestimated the cost, but the critics who have consistently overestimated it.
The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, raised the question of college checks. I shall go over that point again. The colleges will check the correct transcription of material on the birth certificate, the chequebook, etc., onto the eligibility certificate. These are details and how they will be worked out will be a matter for discussion between officials on Tuesday.
There is another point which I believe will be of interest to your Lordships. During the summer term, the Student Loans Company and the education departments will be organising a major information programme for the academic institutions. We shall work closely with the institutions at all stages. It is in our joint interests to ensure that students have swift and efficient access to additional resources this autumn.
Perhaps I may confirm the two main points. First, payment is on the agenda for the meeting on Tuesday. Secondly, and most important is the matter which is of concern to so many of your Lordships and that is that the Government are willing to make payments to the institutions, but it is the amount which has now to be decided.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am delighted to know that the matter is on the agenda and that there is not time now for it to come off. I am sure that my noble friend was right in assuring us that that was the case. He has also said— perhaps it goes some way to meeting the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock— that the Government contemplate, in the course of those negotiations, making a contribution towards the cost. In

1013
consequence, I might have been tempted to withdraw this amendment were it not for the fact that my noble friend prefaced his remarks by insisting that the costs of the universities were very limited because their function was very limited.
The noble Lords, Lord Flowers and Lord Swann, I suspect have more academic experience between them than most Members of your Lordships' House. Their remarks show that, even accepting the view— and we accept the Minister's word for it— that all that is required is the certification that students are who they say they are and that they inform the loan company should they cease to be students, nevertheless, a very considerable sum of money is involved.
The documents have to be examined and the students have to be interviewed. It is difficult to see how that can be done in any other way. So when the Minister suggests that the expenditure is not very large, one begins to wonder whether the offer made to the universities will come anywhere near the total cost to them of the operation. The Minister could accept the view of his noble friend Lord Rippon, or the opinion expressed by his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and simply tell the House that the necessary cost to the universities of the certification process will be reimbursed with due audit by Her Majesty's Government. In that case the amendment would have served its purpose and I would feel able to withdraw it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must point out that I did not say that the cost was not large. I said that the costs have to be quantified. I said that the Government are willing to make a contribution. One of the points of the Tuesday meeting is to assess exactly that issue. We have to discuss the matter with the institutions. We are in touch with them at the moment. If the officials put forward a good idea and say that, within that framework they can carry out what is required in a slightly different way and the costs will be so much; or if the officials say that it would be easier to use an alternative method, that will affect the cost. I cannot say what the cost will be. No way did I ever say that the cost would not be large. I do not know what the cost will be and that is what the Tuesday meeting will be concerned with. Your Lordships have a commitment from me that the Government will pay the money.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Rippon, laid down a very simple principle. It was not that the universities and colleges should be allowed to exploit the Government, but simply that the Government should agree that, whatever be the agreed audited costs, they were the costs that the Government should meet. I cannot understand how the noble Earl can possibly reject that suggestion. It is the noble Earl's scheme. Surely the Government would be willing to meet the agreed audited costs of the scheme. That is all that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is asking for, and I cannot see how the noble Earl can reject it.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with respect, that is not what the amendment states. It might well be one definition of how we assess the cost, but as all noble Lords will know, it is not the only way. However, I have given a very firm commitment to the House this afternoon.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he say whether the commitment that he has given to the House is that the Government will reimburse to the universities all costs of introducing and operating the scheme which can be shown to have arisen as the result of his discussions or otherwise? Will he undertake not— as he used the phrase— to make a contribution, but to pay those costs in full?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, what the Government are willing to do is obviously to meet the reasonable costs of this scheme. What I do not know is what those costs will be. I have made a very firm commitment that the Government are willing to make payments to the institutions. That has to be decided at the meeting on Tuesday.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept the phase "audited costs", which means that they are real?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said, that could be one of the methods by which we arrive at an assessment of the final cost. At this stage, to pre-empt the discussion that will take place would be wrong. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the feeling in the House that that is what the preferred method would be.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, is there not a difficulty there? Unless an amendment goes to another place which enables the matter to be put right, whatever view his noble friend may take, it will be too late for the matter to be put right unless we do something now.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is a question of getting the matter right. I put it to your Lordships that the best way of getting it right is to have a commitment from the Government that they will meet the costs. That I have given. The best way for that to be assessed and agreed is at a meeting between the parties. That will be on Tuesday of next week. It might not be the last meeting, but it will certainly be the first.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again. However, the Minister is saying that at the meeting we shall form the estimated costs. I think that the House would be satisfied if the Minister undertook that the audited costs after the event would be met. Of course we must estimate the costs at this meeting which he has promised us— and I am glad that he has done so— but the real costs are the audited costs after the event. We need an assurance about them.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not an expert on the definition of audited costs. However, I believe that "audited" proves the probity of the accounts. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, is keen to get this right, as are the Government. I am sure that he would understand that it would be wrong for me to prescribe at this stage, before the meeting, exactly the best method of assessing the final picture. That is rightly left for the discussions that will be held.
Let me say yet again that noble Lords have a commitment that the Government are concerned about this matter. We understand the points that have been made. That is why I was able to give the firm commitment that I have given this afternoon.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask whether the meeting for Tuesday is absolutely fixed or will it take place only if the Bill has received Royal Assent by then?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is a different question to which I do not know the answer. As your Lordships will be aware, there are many meetings between officials and the higher institutions. As I have said on numerous occasions, we wish to continue to foster that situation. It is absolutely fixed, my Lords.
Baroness White: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that if we accept the amendment now there is still an opportunity in another place for members to say that they do not accept it? We then have the procedure between the Houses and so on. If we do not have this provision on the face of the Bill, we have nothing that will sustain us if, by unhappy chance, anything should go wrong with the discussions.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, as I understand it, the Government are willing to pay the costs, but they wish to know what scheme will be brought in. It is no good saying that all schemes cost the same money. The scheme might be computerised; it might not. One must find that out first. If I were Minister, I should not be willing to trust all the universities to produce a good, efficient, economic scheme. We wish to know that factor before the taxpayer is asked to pay the money.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that he said that the Government would meet the costs— that seems to be perfectly adequate— and not that they would make a contribution to the costs? He said at one point that the Government would meet them. We wish to qualify that by finding out what they will be and the method of meeting them which is to be decided. Will he confirm that he categorically stated that the Government would meet the costs. That is quite clear.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and my noble friend Lord Eccles. I think that that covers exactly what I have been saying and meets very much the concerns that your Lordships have stated.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if the noble Earl says that, why on earth does he not accept the amendment?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I have listened to this further exchange. I think that the noble Earl misunderstands the amendment. The amendment does not commit the Government either to a particular sum of money, or (and this meets the case put by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles) prescribes any particular way in which it should be administered. It merely puts on record the fact that the Government are committed to meeting the costs of the universities which, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, says, is what the noble Earl has said. I cannot understand why the noble Earl will not agree to an amendment which does not bind him to more than what he has stated, especially in view of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton that this would enable the issue to be considered when the Bill returns to another place.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Perhaps I may say, with the leave of the House— because, with respect, we are on the point of becoming quite out of order— that the amendment provides for
"compensation in respect of all work required in connection with the certification".
In view of what my noble friend Lord Eccles said, it is working out those costs exactly that is important. On the advice that I have received, the amendment is very open ended.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, no. "Required" means required by Her Majesty's Government in order to carry out Her Majesty's Government's intentions. In the light of that answer,. I must seek the opinion of the House.
6.8 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 83.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

David, B.

Adrian, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Airedale, L,

Derwent, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Diamond, L.

Ardwick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Atholl, D.

Dunrossil, V.

Aylestone, L.

Ennals, L.

Beloff, L. [Teller.]

Erroll, E.

Birk, B.

Ezra, L.

Blackstone, B.

Falkland, V.

Blyth, L.

Fisher, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Flowers, L. [Teller.]

Broadbridge, L.

Foot, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gallacher, L.

Geddes, L.

Cobbold, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Congleton, L.

Grimond, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hanworth, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Dainton, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Henniker, L.

1017

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peston, L.

Hughes, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hunt, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Renton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Richardson, L.

Kearton, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Seear, B.

Longford, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stedman, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Swann, L.

Molloy, L.

Tordoff, L.

Monson, L.

Underhill, L.

Mulley, L .

White, B.

Nicol, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Willis, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hooper, B.

Arran, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Balfour, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Bauer, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Liverpool, E.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V.

Blake, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boardman, L.

Mancroft, L.

Borthwick, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Milverton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Mottistone, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Caithness, E.

Munster, E.

Caldecote, V.

Nelson, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Newall, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Colwyn, L.

Peel, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Prior, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Denham L. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Eccles, V.

Saint Albans, D.

Elles, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elton, L.

Selkirk, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sharples, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Stockton, E.

Gainford, L.

Strange, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Torrington, V.

Trumpington, B.

Hanson, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hertford M.

Whitelaw, V.

Hesketh, L.

Yarborough, E.

Hives, L.

Young, B.

Holderness, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 40, at end insert:
(" (1A) The Secretary of State shall in making any provision in respect of the disbursement to institutions of funds to be made available as Access Funds issue guidelines to the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council on the criteria by which such funds are to be dispersed to these institutions, after consultation with such bodies as appear to him to be concerned.
1018
(1B) The institutions referred to in sub-paragraph (1A) above shall publish information on how they distribute these Access Funds to their students.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to attempt to ensure that the allocation of funds by the individual education institutions has regard to fairness, financial hardship and individual need, and that the criteria used to enable this to take place are established in consultation with the appropriate bodies. The individual education institution will make public the methods it has used to distribute the funds.
On 26th March, the Secretary of State for Education announced a further £ 10 million for the access funds. This I understand will give the undergraduate sector £ 14 million, the postgraduate sector £ 6 million and the further education sector £ 5 million. Despite increases, these amounts are unfortunately still wholly inadequate to compensate for losses incurred as a result of the Government's proposed student financial support scheme.
In the White Paper the section on access funds includes the following:
"The Government hopes that the institutions will themselves work out imaginative arrangements for enhancing the value and scope of the funds, for example, by linking payments to sponsorship, helping students find paid employment, or making some payments on a repayable basis, as well as making grants."
In a letter to the chairman of the UFC on 23rd November, Mr. MacGregor said:
"The degree to which the funds assist access for undergraduates will depend on the skill with which institutions not only use the funds available but also develop imaginative ways of enhancing the value of them".
Quite how they will do that I do not know. Mr. Jackson, in Committee in January, quoted this statement from the White Paper as being desirable. It seems unlikely that if the payments were linked to sponsorship or were made in the form of loans, as the White Paper suggests, they could also be made on the basis of financial hardship and individual need.
I trust that in reply the Minister will tell us whether the White Paper statement and its corroboration by Mr. Jackson on 25th January still represent government thinking. On 19th March the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, stated (at col. 142 of Hansard), "The noble Baroness"— that is me—
"referred to access loans. They are not loans, they are payments".
I had made a slip-up because I certainly meant to say "funds". However perhaps I was not so wrong if the White Paper is to be followed.
Anyway, we hope that this line of thinking— the loan idea— will not inform the Secretary of State's guidelines on the criteria for the dispersal of the funds. Instead, attention should be paid to the issues of fairness, hardship and individual need. To establish the criteria that will address these issues properly, the consultation process mentioned in the amendment
"with such bodies as appear to him to be concerned"
will be absolutely essential. Consultation has been an issue of concern throughout the passage of the loans Bill. It is particularly important here to establish the specific criteria that will be used to

1019
allocate funds. The Minister accepted a previous amendment of mine on consultation, so I hope he will also feel able to accept this amendment.
A case in point which highlights the importance of consultation is that of an education institution which has made particular efforts and has been successful in increasing the proportion of students with disabilities who are taking courses, or perhaps which has a large number of four-year courses. If those institutions— there are a number of them— are allocated the same amount of funds as other institutions of comparable size, it is likely that they will be short of funds for other groups in need.
On 12th March the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said:
"Student parents will also be candidates for assistance from the access funds".— [Official Report. 12/3/90; col. [437.]
On 19th March the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said:
"housing costs is one of the factors used in the distribution of access fund cash by the department". — [Official Report, 19/3/90; col. 45.]
There will of course be high regional housing costs in some areas. That has been mentioned several times during the passage of the Bill. Throughout the debates on this Bill there have been a number of claims by the Government that the access funds will be used to compensate for losses incurred by different groups such as mature students, students with dependants, students with disabilities and others. Those have all been mentioned. Hence it appears that the access funds are being used as a catch-all answer whenever the question of students losing out under the new system of student financial support is raised.
It is clear that the amounts of funds allocated are insufficient to compensate for losses suffered by all those different groups. Therefore there is a need for guidelines from the Secretary of State to establish the criteria for dispersal of the funds, and for those criteria to be worked out in consultation with the appropriate bodies. Furthermore, the use which the relevant education institutions make of the guidelines should be made public. That will help in assessing the adequacy of the access funds and give confidence and information to those students who may want help but who are not sure whether they qualify for it. This is an important matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady David, has made most of the important points, but I wish to emphasise that it is important that the public, students as a whole and institutions should know from the centre what the broad principles for the administration of the access funds are to be. At the same time it is important that there should be adequate flexibility inside the different institutions because their needs will tend to vary considerably according to the students that they happen to have. Anyone who has been involved in this area knows that circumstances that one has not anticipated always arise. Therefore it is extremely important to have money available which one is free to use in order to meet unanticipated problems which crop
1020
up when an institution contains a variety of students with different needs and backgrounds.
I also wish to stress how important it is that the access funds should not be loans. The people who require access funds will have enough problems repaying the loans that they receive. However, graduate students will not receive any loans, so the access funds will be the only funds available to them. However, we are still hoping that the Government will not reverse the wise decision that the House made on housing subsidy. Unless that decision stands, graduate students will be in a bad position. Access funds will be the only way of assisting that particular important group of students. I hope there is no question of the access funds being provided as anything other than grants. I hope that guidance will be given so that the way in which the funds are administered is seen to be fair. That guidance should, however, include sufficient flexibility to meet the varying needs which inevitably crop up in different institutions.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I wish most warmly to support the amendment. I think it would be very useful from the point of view of students with disabilities, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, has already said. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is no reference to access funds in the Bill. Therefore, for that reason, the amendment is technically defective. However, that is not the main point I wish to make. I believe the amendment is otiose for a number of reasons. My right honourable friend intends to issue guidelines on the distribution of the access funds not only to the two funding councils but also to LEA maintained and other institutions which fall outside the ambit of the funding councils. The amendment of the noble Baroness does not include the further education sector. However, I trust that is an oversight, rather than a desire to prevent the issuing of guidance relating to the further education access fund. The guidance has already been drafted and my right honourable friend intends to discuss it with the funding councils and others in the near future.
Concern has been expressed about the need to ensure that the funding councils should be asked to take account of students' accommodation costs in distributing the access funds to the institutions. I can assure the House that my right honourable friend's guidance will do precisely that.
There has also been some concern that institutions will not regard disabled students as eligible for access fund assistance because they retain entitlement to certain social security benefits. My right honourable friend will be willing to draw attention to this point in giving guidance to the administrators of the three proposed funds, if your Lordships feel this would be helpful.
As to the requirement that institutions should publish information on how they distribute the access funds to their students, the Government made it clear in the White Paper that institutions would have discretion as to the administration of the funds. We shall certainly be reviewing the operation of the access funds, as the White Paper made clear. We shall

1021
be asking the funding councils and the institutions to co-operate with us in that, by making available data on the use to which the money is put. From that the Government will expect to be able to publish data on the way the access funds are used.
But it would not be right to place a statutory obligation on the further and higher education institutions to publish individual statistics, although some may wish to do so. The operation of the scheme will be monitored, and the data will be published, centrally rather than piecemeal.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that she expected the access funds not to be loans and that they should always be grants. If institutions thought it appropriate to make a loan to a student rather than to give a grant because that student may just need time to become solvent and to overcome a crisis in his life, that would be an appropriate use of the funds and would extend their use. I envisage, however, that most payments of this kind would be in the form of grants. However, I should not like to think that the facility of a loan was necessarily excluded. However, that would be a matter for the institution concerned. The noble Baroness also referred to postgraduates. It is quite wrong to say that access funds will only be available to postgraduates. Their present grant arrangements will continue.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I did not intend to say that in the least. However, I understand that one access fund is intended for graduates. Is that not correct?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, my Lords, That is correct. The amendment is technically defective but I also believe it is unnecessary and inappropriate. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Seear, will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am disappointed with that reply. I am not at all surprised that the amendment is defective. The point about the further education sector was an oversight. However, I am glad that institutions will have discretion in this matter because they will have different needs. I am glad also that the operation will be monitored. Nevertheless, I am disappointed as regards what the noble Baroness said about loans because I thought these access funds were to be outright grants. If they are to be granted as loans, they will represent yet another burden on the students concerned.
However, it appears that there will be some guidance on this matter. One certainly hopes, for the sake of the students, that the institutions will know what kind of grants are to be given from the funds. That is an important point because otherwise students will not know whether to apply for funds and what to apply for. I shall certainly not press the amendment at this stage, but we shall watch very carefully to see what happens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— {The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, our deliberations are nearly at an end. I cannot pretend that I am at all happy with the Bill although noble Lords can claim to have removed or moderated some of its faults. In that connection I have heard that the Government propose to guillotine the debate on your Lordships' amendments in another place. I never criticise the other place but I do not see how noble Lords can with confidence do their job of scrutiny if it does not examine our amendments fully and seriously, albeit eventually to reject them.
The Government were surely right to call into question the existing system of student maintenance. In considering reform a relevant consideration is how the graduate repays and may further repay to the community some of the benefits which he or she has received from higher education. Unfortunately, the response to those problems represented by the Bill is a botched one.
Perhaps I may repeat some remarks that I made at this stage of the Education Reform Bill in 1988. There ought to have been a greater meeting of minds than there has been. There were arguments that the Government could and should have accepted. A good example is Amendment No. 10 on consultation moved today by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The Government defeated that amendment but in my view they should have accepted it. Another example is the amendment, narrowly defeated, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
It has been apparent from the moment the Bill was introduced in your Lordships' House that the Government have been living from hand to mouth. They have found new difficulties almost every day and cobbled together new solutions as best they might. I hope that I may be forgiven for yet again harping on the obvious example, the amendment to the Consumer Credit Act. There have been others.
More importantly, the Government have not yet proved to anyone's satisfaction that they have a workable scheme. We are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for telling us, bit by bit, how the scheme might work. However, it is by no means clear that it will work or that there are any back-up procedures to deal with the many things that can go wrong.
Noble Lords must bear in mind that it is only from next week that consultations will begin with the universities and colleges on their part in the administration of the scheme. Without denigrating academic administrators, who anyway have other thankless tasks to perform, it is hard to believe that they can take on the issue of certificates and the allocation of the access funds in time for the new academic year. I hope that I do not have to remind Ministers that the new academic year starts in September. Happily, maintenance grants will continue to be paid by the local authorities in their usual efficient way.

1023
As for recovery of the loans on default and related matters, the position is even more vague and unconvincing. However, happily we may have a change of government before long which will avoid at least those traumas.
Much of the trouble arises from the nature of the Bill, which is in the form of powers to make regulations. Here the Government have moved. We are thankful that there will be significant use of the affirmative resolution procedure. We are also pleased by the Government's acceptance of the amendment of my noble friend Lady David on consultation and some of the amendments concerning the disabled. We are also grateful for our own amendments relating to data protection.
Having said all that, among those Peers who have participated in our debates the majority opinion must surely be that the Government would be best advised to think further, to modify their plans and not to proceed before the academic year 1991–92.
I must now change the subject. I have the pleasant duty of thanking all those colleagues in all parts of your Lordships' House who have taken part in our debates. We have heard well-considered contributions from the Cross-Benchers, who have made clear many of the worries of the universities. They have been extremely helpful in dealing with problems that arise for the disabled.
We have heard from the Social Democrats, at least from the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, who has valiantly soldiered on, largely on his own on his Benches. The Liberal Democrat Front Bench has done its usual good job. I do not usually care to make invidious comparisons but I must in particular congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington. He is nearer the student stage than many of us. That is to his advantage. I hope that he can be persuaded to continue to participate in our debates on education and related themes.
On the government side the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, continues to impress. I must especially single out the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, whose first Bill this is. At the risk of ruining her career, I can only say that in my opinion she has made an excellent start. I should also like to refer to two Tory Back-Benchers. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, dislikes the Bill. He has shown great courage in opposing it. If I ever find myself in a similar position, which I hope I do not, I should hope to be equally courageous. Equally, although she is not presently in her seat, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has given the Government critical but constructive support. In analogous circumstances I should hope to emulate her.
On behalf of the official Opposition I should like to thank all those organisations which have sent us briefing material. They are too many to name in their entirety. However, I must mention the National Union of Students, which has, I understand, assisted Peers of all political persuasions and none. It has correctly reflected the attitude of the overwhelming majority of students in opposing the Bill. In addition, the material it has sent us, which covers a wide range of topics, has been of the highest professional quality.
1024
It reflects very well on the National Union of Students as a serious body representing students.
As for my two colleagues, my noble friends Lady David and Lady Blackstone, I risk embarrassing them by saying that noble Lords on all sides of the House have remarked on the excellence of their contributions. It is not so much that they have helped me to do my job better but rather, as they have not hesitated to point out when I have loaded them with amendments, that they have been doing my job for me. For that I thank them.
I conclude by thanking all noble Lords for making these difficult and trying days a good deal more interesting and enjoyable than they otherwise might have been.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who have taken part in the debates on the Bill. I believe that we have helped to make it a more workable piece of legislation. Having said that, I must say that I am still totally opposed to the principle behind it. I believe that the idea of students paying in some way for their education in the form of a direct payment rather than through the tax burden which is placed on them is not an unreasonable one. However, this is not the way to go about it. However, it is the system that we are stuck with. I hope that we have made improvements to the scheme.
I should like to thank the noble Earl and the noble Baroness opposite who have handled the Bill with their usual courtesy and at times with a quite uncomfortable degree of skill. I hope that this will not be the last time that we cross foils and that the next time we score a few more points.
I thank those other noble Lords on all sides of the House who have joined in the debates. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has already been mentioned. He is a notable example of somebody who follows his convictions without being swayed by his colleagues.
Those groups which have helped us— the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the AMA and particularly the National Union of Students— have all been extremely helpful. I should like to say to the NUS that, having seen its work here, I am sorry that I did not take an active role in it when I was at university, but it would have been difficult to fit that in with the academic work and about 15 rugby matches a week
I hope that when the Bill becomes law— if indeed it does— it will have a far better future than I perceive it will, but I doubt that. I should welcome any more workable system if it were to be placed on the statute book.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, with the British genius for understatement, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, remarked that I dislike this Bill. I am afraid that my dislike of it has at times been apparent and may even have caused some irritation among my noble friends. On the other hand, I do not wish to pursue, and it would be wrong to pursue at this stage, the reasons for the objections that have been voiced. I should rather repeat what I said on Second Reading; namely, that my worry was largely that the Bill would contribute to the alienation that has taken place

1025
between the Government and the academic community. It is perhaps evident from the notable contributions that have been made from all sides of the House by persons whose roots are in the academic community that that disquiet has not been allayed, but has rather been increased by the passage of the Bill through the House.
On the other hand, since the Second Reading debate, noble Lords have both elicited through their diligent attendance a great deal of information which will be of value to the academic institutions and have improved the Bill in some notable respects. Where those improvements have been made particularly in relation to the question of the affirmative resolution— they have been the acceptance by Ministers of the arguments put forward in earlier stages of the Bill— one can only accept them with gratitude. I can well imagine that the task of the noble Earl in steering a course between the wishes of the House and the instructions he might receive from other quarters has not been an easy one. I do not think that he will look back with great pleasure on his inevitable and compulsory immersion in the murky deep of Academe.
However, some amendments have been carried by the House and my plea to Her Majesty's Government is: do not use the other place to reverse them. The House has criticised the Bill, irrespective of party, on professional lines, from every quarter. There is no point in having a second Chamber composed largely of experts on particular topics and then brushing aside the amendments that they have persuaded their colleagues to make. If the Government were not merely to guillotine discussion but to whip the other place against the amendments which this House has passed, the alienation of the university community would be greater than ever. It could say that it had spent a great deal of time and trouble, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, in briefing the noble Lords on the issues involved and had managed to persuade colleagues less directly involved than themselves in academic affairs. All of us in the universities owe particular gratitude to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his interventions. Members of the university community have done all that and might reasonably expect that the Government would accept amendments which do not in any way invalidate the latter's purpose in putting forward the Bill and which do not impugn the Bill's principles. They would then say that the Government were indifferent to their concerns.
I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House, who sins in Cabinet, to convey to his colleagues that this is an opportunity to bring about at least an element of reconciliation and that it would be a pity to throw it away in order simply to show that in the last resort the Executive, with a majority in the other place, can always get its way, whatever the criticism. This is a serious appeal from a convinced supporter of Her Majesty's Government to Members on the Front Bench in this House and I hope that they will heed it.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to say briefly that I know my noble friend Lord Russell
1026
very much wishes that he could be here for the speeches on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. He mentioned on Monday— it seems a long time ago— that he would be in the United States by this time, so he is not here to make the contribution that he would have very much liked to make. I know that he would have liked to pay tribute to the many people all around the House who have joined in debates on the Bill. It has been one of the pleasures, if one can describe so unsatisfactory a Bill as providing pleasure, that there has been so much cross-party and cross-Bench collaboration— for instance, between these Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Peston— though that is in no way to be taken as a precedent. However, on a Bill such as this, one is prepared to collaborate with absolutely anyone who will play.
I still regard this as a totally deplorable Bill. It is a great mistake that the advice of the vice-chancellors was not taken as to the way in which the necessary extra money— we all recognise that it is needed for the universities— should be raised, but that is water under the bridge. We are grateful— I know that my noble friend Lord Russell would have said this— to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for his patience and the good tempered way in which he has conducted proceedings on the Bill. He stands up to us admirably and without losing his temper. It might help if he also stood up to some of the people behind him who prepare his briefs and give him his instructions, but we understand full well the position of government Front Bench speakers in that regard.
I should like to echo the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, with regard to the great importance of trying to heal the breach with the universities and other institutions of higher education. They are the powerhouses from which the strength of this country must be drawn and the damage that has been done between the Government and the institutions of higher education goes very deep indeed.
Perhaps I may just put in one last plug; namely, that the Government should think seriously about what they are doing to the graduate students. There is a great danger that, because of the increased numbers, the teaching at undergraduate level cannot be as thorough and deep as it has been in the past, and that reliance for the development of the ablest people in this country will have to be placed on fourth-year students. I therefore beg the Government, when they consider the amendments which have gone through the House and those which have been put forward but have not been accepted, to bear seriously in mind the needs of graduate students if the quality of work coming from the universities is to be maintained. However, that is perhaps a Second Reading point rather than a point to be made on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. Sadly, the Bill will now pass. We have done the best we can for it. It is a little better than it was, but that is not saying much.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I should like to begin by echoing what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said about my noble friend Lord Caithness. He has managed a difficult situation extremely well. I have taken a good many education Bills— I do not

1027
remember the exact number— through another place. If one is the Minister, one is at least supposed to understand something about education. It is a difficult subject because the experts on both sides of the Chamber are all certain that they know what is right. I do not know of any subject with which one has to deal in government on which there is such obstinacy among the experts. When I was in the ministry I had great trouble. I am sure that anyone dealing with an education Bill will know that I am right.
I find this Bill a disappointment. It is obvious that the future of our people depends on the breadth and quality of the education that we offer to all citizens all through their lives. This Bill does a little— a very little— to extend the entry to higher education. In my judgment it has been a lost opportunity.
To my recollection all students overspent their allowances, irrespective of how big those allowances were. I do not think that young people have changed very much. I expect that all students today overspend their maintenance allowances. Therefore the offer of a top-up loan will be very welcome. But in higher education the maintenance money is not a factor of importance in furthering the expansion of higher education. The real deterrent to higher education lies in the schools. Every year thousands of boys and girls have never been brought to the point of preparation where they could make it to a university or college. I have in mind especially children from poor homes where poverty and other disadvantages are handicaps which can only be overcome by good teaching in schools.
We make an error in spending our time on what is, as regards the future, the less important part of higher education. There are several areas of great weakness. One was identified by the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Blackstone. In my view, they rightly showed us that money spent on part-time students is money well spent. The Bill does not cover that area. I think it is a great pity. We have to be content with the assurance from my noble friend on the Front Bench that the Secretary of State will take a further look at the importance of part-time students.
It is high time that we pressed upon the Secretary of State and all his colleagues the fact that they must provide very much more in the way of resources for education at all stages, and in particular for the 16 to 19 year-olds, among whom the recruitment takes place for universities and colleges. Unless they do that, we shall find that our economy will decline and there will not be the resources to maintain progress in the other social services. Therefore, if there were to be a vote, I should vote for this Bill half-heartedly.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I want to begin with the nice things— to thank the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for their unfailing courtesy and for the extent to which they have tried to help in some of our concerns. But they have been operating under considerable constraints, as has already been pointed out.
What is interesting is that when the Government introduced the Bill in this House they started with
1028
a considerable advantage— namely, the general acceptance around the House that there should be a contribution from graduates to the costs of higher education. There was not a consensus on that issue two or three years ago. It is a considerable achievement of the Government that they have managed to gain acceptance for that point and that they have gained it from the Labour Party as well. During the course of the Bill through this House they dissipated the advantage from which they started.
There are only three points which stick in my mind and continue to cause me considerable worry— as much worry at the end of the Bill as they did at the beginning. First, I do not understand from where the easier access and increased participation are to come. As I pointed out at an earlier stage in the Bill the Government have made projections well into the next century in which they seem to have frozen the loan eligible student body at 427, 000. If that is to include some who are not eligible for grants, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, told us, that could lead certainly to no increase and possibly to a flattening out in the student population. Possibly a few mature students may creep in under the Bill, but part-timers, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, pointed out, are completely excluded. We have done abolutely nothing for them and they will be a very important element in the increase in higher education numbers that we all seek. I hope that the Government will come back to that point or at any rate keep a constant eye on it.
There was one new clause which I was amazed— and I remain amazed— that the Government did not accept: the new clause moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, for an annual report to Parliament on the results of monitoring the scheme. We were told that monitoring would take place anyway and the facts would be available. There would have been no additional cost or additional demand on civil servants' time. It would have been so much better if the Government were simply to put on the table on an annual basis the results of the scheme. It is very regrettable that they did not accept that.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that we should be making significant use of the affirmative procedure. That is a gain that we have made during the course of the Bill through your Lordships' House. But that will be of no use to us at all unless the Government listen. So my final hope is that they will bring an unbiased and objective eye to bear on the operation of this scheme and its effect on the various student groups. If it is not seen to be operating as the Government had hoped, I hope that they will be genuinely prepared to admit that they were wrong and look at the whole scheme again. Pending that, I am most grateful to the Front Bench opposite for the courtesy with which they have treated noble Lords during the course of this Bill.
7 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the one point on which all noble Lords who have taken part have wholly agreed during the discussions of the Bill has been their admiration for the noble Earl the Paymaster General. He has handled the Bill with

1029
enormous skill, patience and stamina. I say that as one who from time to time may have given him a little minor trouble.
It is difficult work to conduct a good Bill through this House; but it much harder work to conduct a bad one. I hope that my noble friend Lord Renton will not disagree with my statement that the really great advocate is the man who can make a good argument out of a thoroughly bad case. In that sense too the noble Earl is a remarkably able advocate.
For me the Bill has been a sad experience because it is the first Bill in 11 years from what I regard as the best Government that this country has had for many years that I found myself from time to time quite unable to support. It seems to go against the philosophy of the party to which I belong by its emphasis on borrowing. It is virtually compelling a whole generation of our future leaders to resort to borrowing not, shall we say, for the purpose of a mortgage in order to acquire a house but simply for day-to-day maintenance. It will do much harm long after students have graduated and long after they have repaid or tried to repay the loan. The habit of thinking it right to borrow for their day-to-day maintenance will do an infinity of harm. Moreover, it is very contrary indeed to the whole spirit and approach of the Conservative Party. It is also, incidentally, quite contrary to what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the Budget speech, when he made it clear that there was much too much borrowing in this country today and he would like to see it reduced. But here we have a Bill which is extending borrowing on a very considerable scale and I find it enormously regrettable.
The other point that has struck me forcibly— and I do not want to detain your Lordships long— has been the almost inexplicable hurry in which the Government have involved themselves in taking the Bill through. They have sat late night after night. Incidentally, I was rebuked by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who I see is not in her place, for not having been in my place during one of those late night debates. But perhaps I can say that she is one of those people who operate best at night. For my part, I did not feel any obligation to inconvenience myself unduly for the sake of a Bill which I found myself quite unable to support and which I am extremely sorry that this excellent Government should bring forward.
What makes the hurry even more inexplicable— and this argument should appeal to a Treasury Minister on the Front Bench— is that this measure will result in no saving to public funds until well into the next century. Therefore to hurry in this way, to, in many ways, abort the legislative process on an important Bill, in order to get the Bill in operation by the autumn is the more inexplicable. There will be no saving until 2004 or 2005, and therefore there would have been no great difficulty in taking the Bill at the sort of pace at which it would have been easier and more appropriate to debate its immensely important clauses.
I so agreed with what my noble friend Lord Eccles said; and he speaks, as your Lordships know, with very great authority as a most successful former
1030
Minister for Education. There were opportunities for amendment which could have widened the Bill so as to do some of the very important things which need doing in our education system. All this has been prejudiced and lost by the haste with which it has been pushed through. I leave aside the inconvenience to your Lordships. But I suggest that this is just the kind of Bill in which the revising responsibilities of this House could have been most usefully deployed.
Apart from my noble friend, we number among our Members a number of vice-chancellors and former vice-chancellors and other people with immense experience in education. If we had had a more leisurely pace of discussion, we could undoubtedly have taken advantage of their knowledge and wisdom to improve the Bill very considerably. As it is, it goes from this House with one or two amendments which are undoubtedly improvements and it goes after very rushed discussion.
I can only conclude by saying that I profoundly hope that I am wrong in anticipating the harm that it will do socially; that I hope that I am wrong in referring to the missed opportunities; and that in any event I hope the Government will take the advice which my noble friend gave them to make every effort now to restore their relations with the universities.
There really is no doubt from the declarations of vice-chancellors and senior academics and from the views of students, undergraduates, student unions and the rest that this measure is intensely unpopular, and has made the Government intensely unpopular in the universities. To make this Government in their 11th year unpopular with the future leaders of this country is a very serious thing to have done. It could if not remedied be extremely damaging for the country in the future.
I hope that when my noble friend comes to reply he will indicate that not only he, but still more his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education, will make every effort in their power to mend their fences with the universities, to try to show some understanding of their feelings and of their apprehensions about this measure, to smooth its path as far as is possible and to get back to the good relations that there used to be.
I speak on that with some experience. When I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 1962 I was also Minister for the universities and we had a good and friendly relationship. The university heads would ring me up and I would ring them up and, though they never got as much money out of me as they would have liked, our relations were good and easy and we understood each other. That was a long time ago and there have been many periods since, I am sure, when relations have been good. They are not good today and it is up to Her Majesty's Government now to try to restore the position in the interests of the universities, of the future of this country and of the future of the Government.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, I am not sure that anyone on these Benches can speak on behalf of the Cross-Bench Peers but I should like, if I may, to take

1031
that risk and say that I am sure that they too are very grateful indeed to all those who have taken part in this debate and to add my thanks especially to the noble Earl the Paymaster General and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch
Like most of us here I have grave reservations about the Bill even as it now stands. I have even more reservations about the Bill as I fear it may return to us from another place, and I very much want to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said about the amendments on housing benefits. It is an enormously important change that we have made in the Bill. It may not be very acceptable to the Government, but I have to say that it makes the Bill a great deal more acceptable to universities.
As the noble Lords, Lord Beloff and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, have said, to reverse those amendments by whatever procedure, but particularly by the guillotine procedure, will do incalculable damage to the relationships between universities and this Government. Speaking as one who is involved in universities and who, indeed, is not wholly unsympathetic to much of what the Government have done over the last 10 years, I would be enormously sorry to see that relationship made worse than it already has been made. I hope that the Bill can be left in that respect as it stands now as it is about to leave your Lordships' House.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is worth recalling that before we brought forward this Bill to your Lordships there was an enormous amount of discussion and consultation carried out, so much so that experience was sought from other countries around the world that were either doing a loans scheme, a grants scheme, a mixture of the two or some other form of finance to education. In that latter category there is only Australia, with a very new, novel and untested scheme. That led in due course to the White Paper which was followed by yet further consultation.
At the end of that we have produced a scheme which has been more carefully thought out and considered than any other alternative. Indeed it has been proven to be a better alternative than other suggestions. The Bill provides the legislative framework for the loans scheme to be put into operation and for the scheme to be improved and developed in the light of monitoring— a point which is of so much concern to your Lordships. The scheme is intended to increase participation in higher education, a fundamental point on which we are all agreed. I say to my noble friend Lord Eccles that we will encourage greater demand by increasing the resources available to students. We want to see that encouragement. That is why the grant plus the loan will be 25 per cent. higher than the grant alone this year. We will also remove the constraint on expansion by tapping a new source of funds— the anticipation of a student's future earnings as a graduate— thereby reducing the burden on parents from 1991–92 and on the taxpayer in particular in future years.
It is also worth reminding ourselves of the number of concessions the Government have made during
1032
the long hours of discussion on the Bill to meet concerns both in this House and in another place. What has been done is an enormous tribute to my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and, in particular, to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. As those who have been involved will know, my right honourable friend has made considerable efforts to make the right communications with the higher education establishment. The noble Lords, Lord Flowers and Lord Adrian, will know this particularly well. My noble friend Lady Blatch and I said on more than one occasion that my right houourable friend's door was open, but of course consultation is a two-way process.
So what were the concessions made? There was the affirmative resolution procedure for first regulations under Clause 1 (2) (b) and paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 2 and the orders under Clause 1 (4) amending Schedule 1. Those were of particular concern to my noble friend Lady Young, who played a valiant role in taking the Bill through the House, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. We met the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady David, on consultation before amending Schedule 1. The concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, were met today when we limited the maximum of the loan to the value of the maximum grant with no departure from parity without use of the affirmative resolution procedure.
We put together a substantial package for the disabled in increasing the disabled students' allowance and disregard of disability related benefits when assessing income for deferment. The House has come to expect the expertise with which the disabled students' case was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). The whole House benefited from the great wisdom and experience brought to our debates by the noble Lords, Lord Flowers and Lord Adrian. We were able to meet their concerns too by defining and limiting the role of the academic institutions.
Many noble Lords were concerned about the access funds. There was an increase in public expenditure with a doubling of the access funds. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has been right to the fore in wishing to put forward the case of those on four-year courses and longer. We have not been able to agree on four-year courses although the position will be monitored. We have been able to meet the concern of the noble Lord and of my noble friends Lord Colwyn and Lord Haig with the extension of repayment terms for those who have been on longer courses. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has played an immense role. He has had the benefit not only of being at university more recently than other noble Lords but also of going to a Scottish university.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, whom we much missed today— we hope he is having a nice time in America— was able to convince the Government that constraints on disclosure of information by the Student Loans Company was a necessary matter to incorporate into the Bill, and that we have done.

1033
We have made a mass of concessions to meet the concerns expressed by the House. To me it has been a most interesting discussion. I refer particularly to the discussion with the higher education establishment. It is something which I could not claim to have been in at Cirencester but I gather that it has now more of a university status since I left. Perhaps that is an omen. What has most impressed me has been the magnificent role played by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He has been the thorn between the two blushing roses on the Opposition Bench. He has never ceased trying to put forward his points of view, with many of which I have been able to agree and make the necessary amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has been tireless in putting forward her points with very good effect. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has fought a long and lonely battle from his Bench but with success on occasions too. I should like to thank all noble Lords for their contributions. Whether the Bill will go down in the battle honours of All Souls College is a matter on which I do not think I am the right person to comment. I thank my noble friend Lady Elles for her support. I pay a special tribute to my noble friend Lady Blatch. On her first Bill she has done better than anyone could have done in her position. She has done an enormous amount of work and has been a great help to me.
I should like to say, because I feel strongly, that I was disappointed that a number of commitments, concessions and undertakings— in fact more on this Bill than any other— which I gave in very good faith on behalf of the Government were rejected by your Lordships. We pressed the noble Lord, Lord Peston, very hard to reveal the plans of the Labour Party and to give us an insight into its policies, but, alas, the agency seems to have got the better of him. However, we saw just a glimpse of the noble Lord's general policies in his party's attitude to public expenditure and taxpayers' money. We were a little concerned on this side of the House— and I was especially concerned wearing my Treasury hat— that the taxpayers' money was there to be liberally doled out at whim.
I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords. I have had the enormous advantage of having an excellent team, supporting me from behind. I would say to some of my noble friends who have said that I have had a bad brief that, on the contary, I have had an excellent brief. It is an excellent Bill. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Business
7.17 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, further to my business statement earlier today, it may be for the convenience of the House, in view of the progress on today's business, if I announce that it has been agreed through the usual channels that, with the leave of the House, we should proceed immediately with the orders which were due to be taken during
1034
the dinner break and then go straight on to resume the Committee stage of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, with the proviso that we will not start that Bill before 7.30 p.m.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
Lord Denham: My Lords, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the resumed Committee stage of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill be postponed until after the orders to be moved by my noble friends Lord Henley, Lord Hesketh and Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Charge Benefits (General) Amendment Regulations 1990
7.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, by leave, I also intend to speak to the Community Charge Benefits (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations which were laid before Parliament on 22nd March 1990.
The House discussed the Community Charge Benefits Regulations 1989 last July and we do not need to discuss these amending regulations in the same depth tonight. I do not think the House would welcome at this hour a line by line explanation of each of their provisions since many of the changes are technical.
However, the regulations make a number of important changes which affect a number of groups of people. They provide for an increased disregard of £ 10 per week for war pensions and war disablement pensions, which was announced last July. They also provide that the special payments of £ 40 a week to war widows whose husbands served before 1973, which were announced before Christmas, shall be disregarded totally when assessing claims for community charge benefit. In relation to community charge benefit, they provide for the complete disregard of all payments from the MacFarlane (Special Payments) Trust to Haemophiliacs who are suffering from an HIV infection. They provide for a doubling to £ 10 per week of the disregard of regular charitable and voluntary payments which was announced in January.
I should also tell the House that the regulations provide certain consequential changes to community charge benefit arising from the community charge transitional relief schemes which will come into effect in April. These schemes reduce the community charge bills of people who will be affected adversely by the changeover from rates. The regulations provide that benefit entitlement is assessed on the

1035
basis of the community charge net of any transitional relief.
I now turn to the second set of regulations which bring into effect the increased upper capital limit which was announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor as part of the package of measures to assist savers. For income support and family credit the new capital limit will be £ 8, 000. For community charge benefit and housing benefit the upper capital limit will be doubled from £ 8, 000 to £ 16, 000. These regulations cover that increase for community charge benefit.
The change has been widely welcomed in Parliament and in the country. It will be fairer to savers with low incomes. The new limits recognise the conscientious efforts of people on low incomes who have built up savings for their retirement. The change will benefit 195, 000 individual charge payers of which 150, 000 will be pensioners. The increased cost as regards community charge benefit will be £ 35 million out of a total cost of £ 120 million for all income-related benefits.
The new limits will work in the following way. All capital up to £ 3, 000 will be ignored completely. People, whether individuals or couples, whose capital is greater than £ 16, 000 will not be entitled to community charge benefit. The actual income received by the person in respect of this capital is ignored when assessing community charge benefit. However, for every £ 250 worth of capital above £ 3, 000 an income of £ 1 a week is assumed and taken into account in calculating benefit entitlement. The maximum tariff income that can be assumed will be £ 52 a week; that is when one is just under the new higher capital limit.
These regulations introduce important changes to the community charge benefit scheme and I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee] .— (Lord Henley.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations. However, he will not be surprised to learn that there is little connected with this monstrous system of taxation that can be welcomed by this side of the House. Yesterday we had a debate in which some of the legitimate criticisms were voiced from all sides. I do not wish to cover that ground again today. Although the Government have been compelled by public agitation and concern to make the concessions in the regulations they do not appear to benefit as many people as was indicated.
As the Minister said, there are provisions under which savings above £ 3, 000 are counted as income. He has explained that every £ 250 of savings over £ 3, 000 counts as £ 1 of income and that is used to reduce the amount of benefit that people will receive. I understand that savings of £ 10, 000 will count as being equal to a weekly income of £ 28 and will be added to whatever other income people receive. As a result, many will receive only limited help and will lose eligibility completely before they reach the new
1036
£16,000 figure. Therefore, it is not as great a concession as it at first appears.
Moreover, millions of people will be much worse off when paying the community charge than they would have been had the present rating system continued. I wish to quote a typical example. In addition to his state pension a pensioner has a small occupational pension. At the time of retirement he or she has commuted part of that pension, as is possible under most occupational schemes, and has received a small lump sum which has been put aside. That may well be more than £ 16, 000 which he or she has saved for a time when it may be needed; for example, one of the partners may become ill and require residential care. As we all know, that can be expensive and I welcome the report in today's newspapers indicating that the Government intend to do something about that. However, that is another debate. It is probable that the other partner in such a couple will not be in receipt of anything other than a state pension. They are people in modest circumstances; the lower middle-class, thrifty people who often vote for the government opposite. Their modest home will probably not have a high rateable value. Under the community charge provisions, as a result of the Government's doctrine of joint and several liability, both partners must each pay a flat rate charge irrespective of the fact that only one has any real income. The head of the household will be responsible for the payment of both partners.
I mention that with feeling because it is happening in my area. I am personally affected, although millions of people will be worse affected. The community charge in my area— that is Camden— has been assessed at £ 534 a head, whereas rates on my relatively modest flat were only £ 700. The only way in which one could be better off under those circumstances would be if one lived alone. I wonder whether the Government are out to encourage divorce and single occupancy.
Nor is it possible to blame the local council; it did not invent the notion of joint and several liability— the Government did. Even with my supposedly high spending council, an increase in rates from £ 700 to almost £ 1, 100 in one step was unlikely to take place. Nor is the charge likely to remain even at that figure. The Government have placed extra responsibilities on councils for care in the community and education and they must be paid for. Therefore, we can expect no amelioration. Moreover, we are paying more in our area— an extra £ 75 into the Government's safety net— in order to subsidise other councils such as Wandsworth where the poll tax bills are being reduced.
The community charge remains a most unfair system of taxation. The Government need not delude themselves by thinking that people are blaming the so-called high spending councils for the charges; clearly they understand that they are due to the system now being introduced for which the Government are responsible. There may be some gainers under the new system but in the main they are the better-off— those living in property with a high rateable value rather than those living in a low rateable value property who, if it is occupied by more than one person, must inevitably pay more.

1037
I prophesy that the Government will have to come back with more concessions, creating even greater confusion, as the full meaning of the community charge becomes apparent. I have not heard a single complaint about the local council in my area, even though it has a reputation for being high spending. Indeed, it is now viewed with more sympathy because it must cope with even more under constantly escalating Government pressure, although it does not have the resources to do so. The charges for those services are being shifted from the better off to those in more modest circumstances.
Of course I welcome any concessions but the system is wrong and unfair. Such modest concessions as we have had appear to benefit the very poor— if you are homeless you will not have to pay at all— but ordinary people in modest circumstances are being hit hard both by the community charge and by the level of interest rates. I prophesy that there must be more concessions.
Before I began to look at various papers in connection with these regulations I received material from the Disability Alliance pointing out that, although severely mentally handicapped people are exempt, those suffering from severe physical handicap are not. Clearly that is unfair and it is one of the issues which must be re-examined. We are heading towards a period when there will be even more concessions as various interest groups begin to press their cases. The whole scheme is ill-judged and misconceived. I prophesy that it will lead to great trouble for the Government. We do not oppose the regulations because they give limited relief to certain groups, but the scheme simply will not do.
Lord Henley: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I do not intend to be drawn on the general subject of the community charge. We have had ample time to discuss and debate it in this House. But having said what she did, the noble Baroness immediately proceeded to do the opposite and hardly touched on the orders. However, I am glad that she ended by giving a welcome to them.
The noble Baroness said that there would be fewer gainers than we claim. That is not the case. There are estimated to be something in the region of 25, 000 individuals, of whom 15, 000 are pensioners who will gain from the higher limit if their capital is between £ 14, 000 and £ 16,000.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the disabled. Disabled people who are receiving an incapacity benefit and the long-term sick qualify for a disability premium which is included in the applicable amount in addition to the personal allowance. Therefore, disabled people will continue to receive community charge benefit at a higher level of income than those who are not disabled and whose circumstances are otherwise the same.
In income related benefits it is normal to take all sources of income into account. However, an exception is made for particular types of income for disabled people like the attendance and mobility allowances which are disregarded totally. That disregard recognises the importance of that source of income for disabled people.
1038
Lastly, on the general subject of the treatment of capital in income related benefits, it has always been the case ever since 1948 that there has been some form of tariff income, first in supplementary benefit and now in income support and community charge benefit. The increase to £ 16, 000 will provide very welcome relief to a large number of people.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Charge Benefits (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1990
7.31 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee] .— {Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gas and Electricity Industries (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1990
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I beg to move.
This order is part of the secondary legislation under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 needed to implement the new system of business rating which takes effect from 1st April. It fixes the rateable values of parts of the electricity industry and corrects a small error in the order that deals with British Gas.
When we debated eight orders covering the majority of the industries in December, certain decisions on aspects of the structure of the electricity industry remained to be taken and issues about the valuation of other parts of the industry were still under consideration. This order ties up the loose ends.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee.] — {Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1990
7.34 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House will know that similar regulations increasing the corresponding eligibility limits in England and Wales are also before the House— the regulations adjusting the legal aid financial limits to take account of inflation and reflect the overall levels in changes in social security benefits. The legal aid financial eligibility limits are normally uprated annually when the Department of Social Security raises the levels of

1039
social security benefits. That assists administration because applicants on certain income-related benefits automatically qualify for legal aid.
Before us today are two sets of draft regulations raising the eligibility limits for civil legal aid and advice and assistance which will come into force on 9th April. The Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 raised the lower disposal income limit for civil legal aid— that is, the level below which no contribution from income is payable— from £ 2, 515 to £ 2, 645 per year. The increase in the upper income limit— that is, the level above which legal aid is not normally available— is from £ 6, 035 to £ 6, 350 per year. The upper capital limit above which legal aid is not normally available is increased from £ 6, 000 to £ 6, 310. There is no change in the lower limit.
The Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 raised the upper income limit from £ 128 to £ 135 per week. The capital limit above which advice and assistance is not available increases from £890 to £935. The scale of contributions for applicants with disposable incomes between the upper and lower income limits for advice and assistance is also changed by the regulations. Generally, the changes represent an increase of around 5–2 per cent. which matches the uprating level of the income-related social security benefits. The uprating of eligibility limits for legal aid does not include housing because housing costs are deducted from disposable income in the assessment of eligibility for individual cases.
Recipients of income support and other income-related benefits are permitted to have £ 3, 000 in disposable capital before any income is assumed to be generated which would affect the level of benefit paid. It seems sensible to continue to use that limit as the threshold of capital contributions for legal aid which is why the lower capital limit is unchanged.
I hope that I have sufficiently explained the purpose of the draft regulations to allow the House to appreciate their importance. Other improvements have been and are being made. We have set up a procedure for payment of legal aid for the purposes of appeal from the legal aid fund in respect of appeals against conviction and sentence which are won after refusal by the Scottish Legal Aid Board. That will take effect on 1st April this year.
I have briefly described the legal aid financial conditions regulations. I believe that those represent significant improvements. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th March be approved. [13th Report from the Joint Committee.] — (The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble he has taken in his detailed explanation in view of the brief explanation on the Order Paper. When one picks up the draft instruments they tend to be rather complicated without the assistance of the parent
1040
legislation. I have contacted a number of people on this including my colleagues in the other place and I have no objections. I am quite happy that these orders should be approved.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1990
7.37 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee] .— {The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990
Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990
Forth Ports Authority (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990
Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990
Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990
Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990
British Waterways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990
Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990
Mercury Communications Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990
British Telecommunications plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990
British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990
British Alcan Primary and Recycling Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990
Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990

British Gas plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 6th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these 14 orders all relate to the revaluation of non-domestic property affected from 1st April. Twelve of the orders prescribe the level of rateable value to apply to the so-called formula valued industries with effect from 1st April. The remaining two orders continue the present de-rating, albeit at a lower level, for industrial and freight transport lands and heritages, and for mines and quarries.
The 12 formula valuation orders relate to certain public utilities most of which are currently valued by formula. The orders prescribe either the rateable values or the rules to be used in determining the rateable values for those undertakings with effect from 1st April, the effective date of general revaluation of non-domestic property.
Orders relating to the valuation of the corresponding undertakings in England and Wales have already been approved by your Lordships. In drafting the orders before you today the aim has been not only to arrive at levels of assessment consistent with those that might have been made by conventional means, but also to harmonise the approach with that adopted south of the Border.
Where the necessary information exists, a method similar to the contractors' basis of valuation has been adopted. This approach, which is used by the assessors in valuing properties for which no rental evidence is available— such as oil refineries and petrochemical complexes— starts with a net cost of building or replacing a property. That cost, after appropriate allowances, is converted to an annual sum by applying the decapitalisation rate.
For the gas and telecommunications industries it has been possible to use their net current cost accounts, suitably adjusted to derive a rateable value in this way. The water undertakings' rateable values have been derived from comparison with those set for the statutory water companies in England and Wales. In the case of the canals, ports and railways industries, no current cost accounts information is available. The rateable values of those industries have been determined by reference to that percentage of turnover which represents a fair assessment, taking account of the percentages applicable to other types of industry whose values have been set on a conventional basis.
Those rateable values imply significant changes in rates bills for some industries. Where appropriate, the values have been adjusted to provide the same level of protection as has been afforded to other ratepayers. With the exception of canals and statutory docks and harbours, the orders apply only in respect of 1990–91. Revised orders will be required for subsequent years. This is largely because the levels of industrial de-rating to apply in years subsequent to 1991 have yet to be decided.
The assessments and provisions contained in these orders have been worked out as a result of extensive discussions with the industries involved, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with the Scottish Assessors' Association. They have also been the subject of public consultation. We believe that they represent fair and reasonable assessments for these industries.
Turning to the two de-rating orders, I remind your Lordships that manufacturing industry in Scotland has benefited from de-rating for many years. The purpose of this de-rating is to equalise the rate burden on this sector north and south of the Border, thus avoiding any competitive disadvantage in Scotland resulting from the different valuation in rating systems.
It is clear that, as we move towards full harmonisation with England and Wales, the need for industrial de-rating will disappear. Over the interim period it is intended that reductions in the level of de-rating do not disadvantage Scottish industry. As a first step towards a national rate in Scotland, my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State has reduced poundages next year by 6.25 per cent.— equivalent to a reduction in rates paid by industry and commerce of £ 80 million. This allows for a reduction in the level of de-rating to 35 per cent. in 1990–91, and this will be reviewed for future years in the light of further progress towards harmonisation.
The Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 provides for the same level of de-rating for these subjects and also contains certain provisions relating to their method of evaluation which also apply in England and Wales.
I beg to move that the 14 Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper be agreed to en bloc. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the orders laid before the House on 6th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee.] — (The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I again thank the Minister for his explanation and agree that it would be better to take the 14 Motions en bloc. I should like to read his statement with considerable care once it has been printed in the Official Report. It appeared to me as though, in some of the assessments, he was walking very close to what is derided as a "roof tax", when he spoke about capital value and construction value in certain cases as being the only way to make an evaluation.
I certainly understand the reason for the gradual phasing out of the de-rating system. In terms of the European Community it would be quite anomalous to have special rates for special industries in Scotland, although the original reason for de-rating was to compensate for some of the problems in heavy industrial areas. Those problems arise not only from distance, but because the standard of living in heavy industrial areas— the quality of life— tends to be lower as a result of the sheer size and the by-products of heavy industry.
I will certainly look at what the noble Earl has said. I understand that he said there would be a

1043
benefit to industry of £ 80 million. I may not have heard him clearly or perhaps I was thinking of something else, but I felt it would ultimately be a disbenefit to industry. However, I am sure that that is a point which can be sorted out later. In the meantime I am pleased with what he has said. I will read the Official Report with considerable interest and say that on this side of the House we have no objection at this stage to the orders going through. We may have something to say on a general question— we cannot do anything about the orders— or come back in general debate to some of the points that the noble Earl raised.
Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. I confirm that I did say £ 80 million.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
7.47 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.— {Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD GRANTCHESTER in the Chair.]
Clause 20 [Rights of audience in the Court of Session, the House of Lords, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the High Court of Justiciary]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 223A:
Page 23, line 32, at end insert ("but may not make any rule which would, by comparison with any corresponding rule applying with respect to the sheriff court, directly or indirectly inhibit the freedom of a solicitor to appear in court or to undertake all the work preparatory to his appearance in court.")
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment referring to the making of rules by the council of the Law Society in regard to practice, and it relates to page 23, line 32. The idea behind it is that the council should not be able to make any rule which directly or indirectly inhibits the freedom of a solicitor to appear in court or to undertake all the work preparatory to his appearance in court.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate drew my attention to his Amendment No. 225B. Perhaps I may leave that for the moment. I should also explain that, although my name appears to Amendment No. 225A, which proposes the abolition of Clauses 10 and 11, it was placed there inadvertently. It would be inconsistent for me to move both Amendments Nos. 223A and 225A.
The situation in Scotland is that solicitors conduct 90 per cent. of the jury work in the sheriff court. That allows them, once they become a solicitor advocate, to continue to carry out the work preparatory to their appearance in court, which they
1044
do now. I appreciate that there may be criticism of that approach, but it is important to remember that the issue will cover a very small percentage of those practising in the courts in Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Late on Tuesday night the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate accepted Amendment No. 223 in principle— that the rules should correspond as nearly as possible to those that apply to advocates. The difficulty with this amendment is to compare it with the amendment accepted in principle and I do not think that they can fit together.
However, the problem with the amendment now moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is the concept that a solicitor in a sheriff court normally takes statements and precognitions from witnesses and sees them, and to apply that rule to the High Court and the Court of Session. The obvious difficulty is to apply it to the rule accepted in principle, because advocates have a complete prohibition against such behaviour.
The main objection in principle to this amendment, I suggest, is that what it is doing, and what perhaps Amendments Nos. 225B and 257B are doing, is to say that the sheriff court rules should prevail over the Court of Session rules. That appears, at least to me, to be totally wrong in principle. The Court of Session and the High Court are the highest courts in civil criminal business and the sheriff court is the lowest court. It is wrong that in that sense the tail should wag the dog.
It is perfectly natural that in the lower court you should have a less rigid standard and allow various procedures which are not suitable for the highest court in the country. It is proper that the highest court should control its own rules. It appears to me at any rate that one would have the lowest common denominator applying to the rules of procedure. If that is taken to its logical extent one would have the rules of procedure and conduct in the district court ruling the sheriff court, the Court of Session, the House of Lords, the Judicial Committee and the Privy Council. That would be totally wrong. It is the highest courts that should set down the rules and the lowest courts should modify them accordingly. Therefore, on principle, I oppose this amendment.
Lord McCluskey: I also rise to oppose the amendment. I concentrate on the point just mentioned, that it is designed to allow solicitors both to precognosce a case and then to conduct the case, perhaps even to see witnesses in the course of the case and to reprecognosce them.
Paragraph 3.16 of the Government's Green Paper states:
"A particular point of principle is the need to ensure, in High Court or Court of Session cases, that those who plead in court should not have been involved in the investigation of the evidence".
That was a particular point of principle. When the White Paper was published less than six months later it stated:
"A particular matter most appropriately dealt with in this way by professional rules concerns the degree of separation required between the person precognoscing witnesses before the evidence comes before the court, and the person questioning them in court".

1045
The White Paper then referred to the original views which were expressed and which I quoted and then continued:
"After further consideration the Secretary of State has decided that this preliminary view requires to be refined".
Therefore, what started off as a point of principle became in the end a preliminary view. The word used is "refined", whereas in truth it has been totally abandoned. I have seen no justification for that abandonment of the point of principle and I am opposed to it.
There is another matter. After the reference to the Secretary of State deciding that the preliminary view requires to be refined, the White Paper continues:
"and that the proper concern of the profession is to observe the principle that no one, including the person to present the case in court, should do or say anything which would have the effect of, or could be construed as, inducing a witness (or the client) to tailor lis or her evidence",
and so on. That is a ridiculous proposition because there is no conceivable way in which that can be policed. How on earth do you enforce that principle except by banning face-to-face meetings or telephone conversations between the advocate, on the one hand, and the witness, on the other? Is there somehow to be a third party present or are all these meetings to be tape-recorded so that that principle can be given effect to?
I am opposed to this amendment principally for that reason. I should like an explanation from the Government for the departure from a point of principle to this alleged and enenforceable principle to which I have drawn attention.
Lord Eraser of Carmyllie: The idea that the Law Society should seek to achieve uniformly high standards of conduct on the part of solicitors, regardless of the court in which they are practising, is clearly one with which I agree. But I can conceive that, to relate effectively to the rather different practices of the sheriff and supreme courts, it may be necessary to have different sets of rules with slightly different provisions.
I recognise a potential risk that the Law Society might be persuaded into rules which were unnecessarily restrictive. That is why we have provided in subsection (10) that the Secretary of State should have to approve any rule which makes this differentiation. If it should be the case in some particular respect that the interests of justice properly require a differential rule then, if the Secretary of State is persuaded, the rule will be made and become effective. If he is not so persuaded— and at present he does not have any circumstance in mind which would fit this criterion— then the rule will not take effect.
While there appears to be no difference between the noble and learned Lord and myself as to objective, the formulation in the Bill is more cautious in providing for an eventuality as yet unforeseen.
I have been asked about the change that has occurred between the Green Paper and the White Paper. I recognise that there is an interrelationship between the amendment in principle which I accepted on Tuesday night, Amendment No. 223,
1046
and the present amendment. We are concerned to ensure that there should be no diminution in the responsibilities laid on those who appear before the courts and that they should properly discharge that duty to the courts. Undoubtedly we have been influenced by the fact that the Law Society of Scotland, in responding to the paper, had this to say (paragraph 3.M.2):
"We have endeavoured to ascertain the origins of this so-called rule or principle but without success. It appears to have emerged from the complementary professional responsibilities of the solicitor and advocate in litigation. It was the function of the solicitor to interview potential witnesses. This was, of course, perfectly natural as the solicitor was taking instructions from and advising the client… The advocate, in his role as specialist pleader brought an objective and detached view to bear upon the case. This entirely practical separation of functions of solicitor and advocate although subject to many exceptions appears now to have been elevated to the status of an irrevokable rule or principle".
That principle is sometimes erroneously described as the Philips principle because it was a practice among advocates in Scotland that predated the Philips report by decades, if not centuries. We are anxious to see whether there is a way of approaching this matter that does not put it in quite that fashion but nevertheless imposes on solicitors as a code of conduct that they should to all practical purposes observe much the same approach.
Noble and learned Lords will appreciate that there are many exceptions in Scotland. One is entitled, even if one appears as a pleader in court, to interview and consult with one's client, whether or not that client is to be a witness as to fact. It would be wholly improper for any advocate interviewing or consulting with his client to fashion his client's evidence to meet the case or to influence the way in which his client gives evidence. As I understand it, there are similar provisions which will enable an advocate and a pleader in court to have a direct face-to-face interview with an expert witness who is coming before the court. Therefore, it is not an absolute rule. What we will be concerned to discover, given that inter-relationship which I accept is there between Amendments Nos. 223 and 223A, is whether the matter can be resolved. That is why I indicated that I wanted to take away Amendment No. 223A for further consideration.
8 p.m.
Lord, Emslie: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has explained the Government's thinking in this matter. I am still a little concerned about how this code of ethics can possibly be policed. One must not confuse the right of the advocate to consult his client because he does so in order to get his client's instructions and to make up his mind about his client. It is also perfectly proper for an advocate to consult an expert witness. The purpose of that exercise is to be properly instructed so that the advocate can cross-examine the expert witness for the other side.
What is not at all proper, because detachment is the key to advocacy in the Supreme Court, is to interview witnesses as to fact. If you allow the possibility of witnesses to fact being precognosced by the person who is going to hold himself out as an advocate, then you are running a very grave risk of

1047
a breach of the code of ethics which you will never be able to trap. The only safe way— I speak from a very long experience of advocacy and on the Bench— is to have a neat little rule which forbids it. It will not do any harm. If you do not have the rule, it will not do any good.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Along with the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, I believe that I am the only person in this Committee who has been both an advocate and a solicitor. The problem is that in the sheriff court it is perfectly proper to see your client and witnesses to take statements and all the rest of it. But that refers to the lower court which is not dealing with the most serious crime. The lower court deals with crimes which, in my day, involved a maximum sentence of two years. It is now a maximum sentence of three years. One was dealing with civil cases which admittedly had no upper financial limit, but in fact there was regularly a fairly low limit compared with the average case heard in the Court of Session.
The important point is that the serious cases, such as rape and murder, had to be treated with the kind of detachment of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, has spoken. Having experienced both systems, I am quite convinced— I shall be interested to hear the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay— that the necessity for detachment justifies the rule. It means that one gives the client in serious cases a higher standard of care and provides a higher standard when arguing his case. Those factors are to the benefit of the client. I shall be very sorry indeed to see this rule depart from the Court of Session and the High Court. In considering this matter, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will bear in mind the distinction between the two courts.
Lord McCluskey: I wish to add one point which I should have mentioned previously. It explains the origin of the phrases used in the Green Paper. The Royal Commission considered this matter, particularly in the criminal context, and that is the subject with which I am most concerned. The conclusion stated at paragraph 1553 is:
"We think it may well be correct that the relative detachment of the advocate from the client which exists by reason of the nature of his function could in some types of serious criminal charges form a valuable safeguard".
The Royal Commission unanimously concluded that that would be a valuable safeguard. The Government will have to show some good reason for accepting a departure from a rule which maintains that safeguard.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I hope that I have made my position clear. I understand very clearly what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, has said about the importance of maintaining objectivity, detachment and of ensuring that there is no risk of witnesses being influenced intentionally or otherwise. That view is correct. I have indicated that I wish to find a way of resolving this problem other than that suggested by the noble and learned Lord which is by maintaining the rule as it stands.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: In moving the amendment on behalf of the Law Society it was
1048
foreseeable that there would be a perfectly proper reaction to it. Behind the present reform of the law there is the prospect of anyone who becomes a solicitor advocate being highly trained. He will not be given that responsibility— it has been called a privilege— unless he is seen to be a fit and proper person to deal with certain matters.
In modem times we are running into a certain amount of inconsistency. It has been implied on more than one occasion that the sheriff court is such a terrible place where inferior people practise inferior law and perhaps achieve inferior results. We have even heard the word "contamination" used as regards witnesses in connection with this argument. If that is the situation it is surprising to say the least that over the period of 25 years in which I have been associated with the courts, I can remember only two cases coming before the court in which solicitors were alleged to have acted improperly in the course of precognoscing witnesses and also of presenting a case where the consequences might be that a person may be imprisoned for a period of up to three years.
The Court of Session and the High Court are superior courts where a different type of training and technique are required. Nonetheless it is perhaps time to look at these practices and to review them as time goes on. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. In the light of our discussions I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): If Amendment No. 223B is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 223C.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 223B:
Page 23, leave out lines 33 to 36 and insert:
(" (7) Where a solicitor having an appropriate right of audience in any of the courts mentioned in subsection (1) is instructed to appear in that court, those instructions shall take precedence before any of his other professional obligations, and the Council shall make rules—
(a) establishing the order of precedence of those courts for the purposes of this subsection;
(b) securing, through such of their officers as they think appropriate, that, where possible, any person wishing to be represented before any of those courts by a solicitor holding an appropriate right of audience is so represented.
(7A) Subsection (7) does not apply to an employed solicitor whose conrtact of employment prevents him from acting for persons other than his employer.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this amendment, which replaces subsection (7) of this clause, is to give a clearer indication of the way in which the council is to be required to fulfil its obligation to secure representation by a solicitor advocate for any person wishing to employ one to act for him. It is appreciated that subsection (7) as presently drafted could put the council in a difficult position when the number of solicitor advocates was very small, as it is likely to be for at least a short time after the legislation is implemented.
This amendment therefore requires the council to make rules to establish the precedence which one set of instructions must take over another where the two are in conflict. Such rules will doubtless equate

1049
broadly with similar rules made by the Dean of the Faculty in relation to advocates. Any such rules made by the council would be subject to the approval of the Lord President. The council will remain under a duty to secure representation for any person wishing to employ a solicitor advocate although the draft now recognises that this may not be possible in every case.
In meeting the obligations imposed by this amendment, the council will be ensuring that a level playing field exists between advocates and solicitors with rights of audience in the Supreme Courts. It would clearly have been unacceptable for advocates to be subject to the cab rank rule while solicitors with such rights of audience were free to pick and choose the instructions they wish to accept. The Law Society fully accepts its responsibility in this regard and this amendment will allow it to meet that responsibility in so far as it is able, given the numbers of solicitor advocates available. The new subsection (7A) disapplies the rule that the council will make relating to precedence of instructions from solicitors who are employed.
Given this amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will be able immediately to indicate that he will not be pressing Amendment No. 223C.
The issue of precedence is covered in the Faculty of Advocates' most recent guide to professional conduct published in 1988 at paragraph 4.5.1. A precise list of the precedents of the courts is given, although in succeeding paragraphs the flexibility that is allowed in such circumstances is spelt out. One would envisage that the Council of the Law Society would be making arrangements which, if not identical, were similar to those.
Lord Emslie: I am bound to say that I am a little concerned about this amendment in so far as it deals with the matter covered in new subsection (7a) — the question of the precedence of courts inter se. As a matter of construction, in this subsection we are dealing with the order of precedence as between the Court of Session and the High Court simpliciter inter se.
With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, that is not the question. There are far more important questions that are subsumed by that initial question. For example, a critical issue is: what is the order of precedence as between the First and Second Division of the Court of Session in the Inner House? What is the order of precedence as between an Inner House commitment and an Outer House commitment? What is the order of precedence as between an Inner House commitment and a High Court commitment of first instance? What indeed is the precedence of the High Court as a Court of Appeal in competition with any court of first instance and indeed in competition with either of the divisions of the Inner House? All these questions have to be addressed.
The language of this new subsection does not permit them to be addressed. For that reason I consider that it would be wise if the noble and learned Lord agreed to consider this matter again. Much more needs to be done than has been covered in the subsection as drafted.
1050
Another matter that causes me concern is that the duty is placed on the Council of the Law Society to establish the rules of precedence among the courts— not just the Court of Session and the High Court, but the various divisions and echelons of the various courts that are encompassed within the High Court and the Court of Session.
I have always understood that among the courts for which the Lord President and the Lord Justice General are responsible— it is the same man but under two hats— the ultimate decision is a decision of the Lord President and the Lord Justice General. As in a question with the Faculty of Advocates, the matter is readily regulated in discussion between the Lord President, the Lord Justice General and the Dean. How can it be that the Council of the Law Society should be left to make rules of precedence among courts inter se without doing so on the advice of the Lord President, or the Lord Justice General, depending on what it is? What is necessary is that the magic words "with the advice of the Lord President" must be introduced in the context of the council's function of making the rules to which new subsection (7A) is directed.
There also has to be flexibility in devising the rules. A good deal turns on the relative importance of cases in different courts and perhaps at different levels. In the College of Justice the intervention of the Dean of the Faculty is a valuable asset, and in discussion with the Lord President a decision can be taken as to what the council's duty is. Even if the general rule says that he should be in one place, in discussion between the president and the dean it may be decided that his duty lies in another place.
I merely point out these matters to the noble and learned Lord in the hope that he will understand that a good deal more needs to be done if good sense is to be made of a perfectly laudable intention. I have no doubt that it is very desirable that the rules of precedence among the courts should be perfectly understood by everybody with a right to practise in them. Once cannot have one rule for the advocates and another for the solicitors. The rules must be the same; and the only persons who can determine which rules should apply and what the rules should be are the Lord President and the Lord Justice General. I am using the plural of the verb because there are two offices held by the same person.
Lord Renton: I should have thought that a part-heard case in almost any court should have very high precedence indeed. If orders of precedence are being arranged, there should be a provision to ensure that counsel and/or solicitors involved in cases which for one reason or another become part heard should have a prior obligation to attend to finish those cases.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I may deal with the problem that I see arising on subsection (7) (b). That gives the Council of the Law Society the duty of making rules,
"securing, through such of their officers as they think appropriate, that, where possible, any person wishing to be represented".
That is fine so far as it goes. However— adverting to a matter that the noble and learned Lord, Lord

1051
Emslie, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton have just raised— the relationship between the advocate and the solicitor instructing him is totally different from the relationship between the solicitor and his client. The solicitor has a contractural relationship with his client. That means that if he has to break it he is in breach of contract.
How is the obligation of a solicitor who has a contractual obligation to attend a meeting of trustees which meet each year on the second Thursday of February to be placed with a duty to appear in court? Which takes precedence? What happens to the breach of contract if the court takes precedence? If the court does not take precedence, what happens to the level playing field between the advocate and the solicitor? It is a difficult problem which does not appear to have been faced by the Government in considering the matter. But it a very real problem both for solicitors and for anybody who wishes to see a level playing field between the solicitor advocate and the advocate.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I understand that the amendment is the result of fairly prolonged discussion between the Law Society and the department of the noble and learned Lord. The spirit behind the amendment is appreciated.
However, having heard the criticisms of it from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, and others who have spoken, I hope that it will become clear that, in the wording and the extent of the clause, the amendment is not in a satisfactory condition and that it might be proper to see whether the points that have been raised and the wording might be re-considered. I shall not rehearse the points again; we have much to do tonight. Perhaps the wording in Amendment No. 223C:
"so far as is reasonably practicable".
could be taken into account and included.
There is one other matter which disturbs members of the solicitor branch of the profession of solicitor advocates. They perform a dual role— one day they act as solicitors and one day as solicitor advocates. If the solicitor advocate acts on instructions spelled out in Amendment No. 223B and, for example, leaves a client in a civil case in Perth to attend a criminal case in Edinburgh, he may leave the client in the lurch at the behest of the council. The client may then lose the case or run into additional costs through the proof being postponed and similar problems. In that situation who will pay the costs? At the moment, broadly speaking, an advocate who is instructed by the dean will be covered for any liability from having acted on the part of the dean.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, has pointed out, there is a contract between the solicitor and the client. The Law Society is anxious about this and perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would be willing to take the amendment away and examine it again. Perhaps he should give serious consideration— as I am sure he will— to the question of liability arising out of the operation of this section resulting in damages.
1052
On one of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, I am advised that the rules of the Council of the Law Society always need the consent of the Lord President. That is my information.
Lord McCluskey: Perhaps I may add three points to what has been said. First, I do not understand the concept of a solicitor being instructed in the same way as counsel is instructed. When counsel receives a letter of instructions requiring him to be in a particular place at a particular time, he is instructed. I do not know what comparable concept would apply in relation to a solicitor. That must be taken on board in the reconsideration.
Secondly, for the advocate it is not just a question of which court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, has dealt with that. If an advocate is at a planning inquiry or some other tribunal and a case in which he was instructed to appear in a criminal court in Scotland, in the court of first instance, calls in the Appeal Court, he is required to appear in the Appeal Court. His Appeal Court work will take precedence over work in the planning inquiry. That concept does not appear in the wording of the amendment.
The third point echoes one which I made in relation to solicitors' practice rules. The Faculty of Advocates includes firms which have been practising for some centuries in all the courts in Scotland. Their practice rules must be the model for this clause. I invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to examine them. I am dismayed beyond belief to hear the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, say that this amendment is the product of deep and serious consideration and thought. If that is the truth then the Lord help us all.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: As a user of the services of solicitors, I hope that the fact that we have no solicitors from Scotland in the House of Lords will not mean that noble Lords forget the point of view of the customer of solicitors. I was rather dismayed to see how far the noble and learned Lord had strayed from the Bill. I am concerned at what will happen.
I heard the arguments on the English Bill and was concerned when the same arguments were deployed there. What will happen if I make an appointment with my solicitor to discuss something? He may also be a solicitor advocate doing both kinds of work. I may find that precedence has been given to his having to plead in court. This is not entirely about the way in which the court works. It affects the public who use solicitors in other ways. They are not the same as advocates; they do a different job as well.
The balancing argument must be remembered. The likes of myself cannot deal with it because I do not know enough about how the court works since I have simply been an honorary sheriff. I do not know enough but I know what it feels like to be the customer. We must remember the client. I hope that noble and learned Lords will not all leap up and answer me. I ask my noble and learned friend to bear that in mind; the night is not young and I do not wish to hold things up.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness, in spite of her request that I should not do so.
A noble and learned Lord: Perhaps we should all stand up!
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I might be the one to do so, having been a solicitor. The basic difference is that the solicitor can choose whom he has as his client. As an advocate one receives a letter of instruction and whoever the client is, one appears. The solicitor can choose and make his appointment.
The noble Baroness is perfectly right. It will be extremely difficult if appointments made by a solicitor are suddenly, because of the precedence of the court, all washed away. One of the major difficulties of getting through court business, as the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate will no doubt say, is the availability of court time. It is essential that court time be used as fully as possible.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not wish to take up time but some important matters have been raised here. Yes, I have been in consultation with the Law Society on matters that have been brought up by noble and learned Lords. We dealt most particularly with what was to happen in the circumstance where a solicitor advocate had to respond to an instruction to appear in court. We discussed what happened in relation to other professional obligations that he had already taken on. It was for that reason that at the beginning of subsection (7) the amendment says about those instructed to appear in audience in any of the courts mentioned,
"those instructions shall take precedence before any of his other professional obligations".
I am open to criticism and I shall look at the wording again if that does not properly meet the point that has been made. It is certainly meant to ensure that if the solicitor has other professional obligations and instructions to appear in court, those instructions to appear in court secure precedence.
The other point about which the Law Society was concerned referred to the early days of the introduction of solicitor advocates. There may be no solicitor advocates and a request could be made that where possible one should be provided to appear in one of the courts mentioned. That is the reason for the wording in subsection (7) (b). If there are no solicitor advocates, clearly they cannot be instructed.
I shall certainly look at the provision again. I am not anxious to establish anything that is significantly different between the provisions for advocates in Scotland and the new breed of solicitor advocates. The important point is that, as I said in my opening remarks, any rules that are made are subject to the approval of the Lord President.
I also indicated that I am aware that in the 1988 Guide of the Faculty of Advocates an order of precedence is set. It indicates, for example, that the High Court of Justiciary exercises its appellate jurisdiction before that of the inner House of the Court of Session. I assume that that is a matter that was settled with the court before the Faculty of Advocates introduced it.
1054
Furthermore, as my noble friend Lord Renton indicated, there may be important issues as to how we deal with a partially heard case. Those provisions in the Faculty of Advocates Guide include that point and seek to cover it. Again that is what I anticipate would be provided for by the Council of the Law Society in rules that would be approved by the Lord President.
Lord Emslie: If I understand what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said, he will not take the amendment away and consider it. I fully understand what he has said. However, I do not understand what he said about the importance of establishing an order of precedence. As I understand it, he said that in any case any rules made by the Council of the Law Society are subject to the approval of the Lord President. The poor old Lord President will have a difficult job if subsection (7) (a) remains as it is.
Surely what the noble and learned Lord ought to do in this subsection is to give clear guidance to the Law Society as to what kind of content the rules must aim at. As the Lord President in Scotland for 17½ years I have been on the receiving end and have found it extremely hard. I know perfectly well that to have a series of half-baked rules based on inadequate premises makes the Lord President's job far more difficult than it need be. It is difficult enough, in all conscience.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I certainly did not want to indicate that I would not reconsider this matter. However, as I said, the Faculty of Advocates has set out an order of precedence. I suppose it would be possible to set out an order of precedence on the face of the Bill, but I think that would be wrong. The court itself should consider that matter in discussion with the Law Society. If it disapproved, it is open to the Lord President to refuse to accept that measure. However, in opening I said that the rules would doubtless equate broadly with similar rules made by the Dean of Faculty in relation to advocates. I put that in that slightly cautious way because there may be some differences, but to all intents and purposes I would expect them to be identical.
Lord Emslie: I hope I shall be forgiven for intervening again. We know perfectly well that the faculty has rules about the order of precedence and the obligations of an advocate in relation to instructions to appear in particular courts. However, there must be flexibility here. This subsection does not prescribe that the Law Society's rules shall as nearly as possible correspond with those which apply to advocates. I am making this point to be helpful and I am sure the Committee will understand that. Surely what one could do to make a much better job of this subsection is to state that the council shall make the rules to which the new section is directed on the question of precedence of courts inter se with the advice of the Lord President. At the end of the day he is the ultimate authority.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If it will bring matters to a conclusion, I agree to look at that point.
Lord Grimond: I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can assist me on a matter which no doubt I should be able to find out for myself. I understand that an advocate such as a barrister is not liable in negligence. Will a solicitor advocate be liable? Can one sue a solicitor advocate for negligence?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: What is proposed is that where there is immunity from suit for advocates, that would apply equally to solicitor advocates.
Lord McCluskey: I have one other point to make in reply to what the noble Baroness has said. It is not a criticism. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, has said that he was a solicitor for 12 years. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, was a solicitor for some years and I am also a fully qualified solicitor. However, none of us appears here to represent advocates. We are not advocates either. I used to be an advocate but I am now a judge. My concern is not the interest of the Faculty of Advocates but the public interest. I hope that I view this matter from a position of some impartiality because I am not a practising advocate. However, in so far as solicitors have a legitimate interest in this, I hope we can give a voice to it from our own experience as some of us have been solicitors.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: In case the wrong impression is getting around, I should add that it should not be thought that advocates do not have administrative troubles also when they are called upon at the last minute and have to cancel meetings with clients at great mutual inconvenience. It should be borne in mind that the advocate solicitor is a creature of statute. Anyone who seeks that status will know precisely the difficulties in administering a practice and appearing in the High Court.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that Amendment No. 223C be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion say "Content". To the contrary "Not-Content". I think the Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Contents have it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 223D not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: "If Amendment No. 224 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 224A. I now call Amendment No. 224 standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.
Lord Emslie Lord Emslie moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 23, leave out lines 40 to 42.
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment stands also in my name so, with the leave of the Committee, I hope I can speak to it. Amendment No. 224 relates to subsection (9) of new Section 25A. My difficulty is to discover what possible justification there can be for giving power to the
1056
Secretary of State, with or without the advice of the director general, to intervene in a matter which is concerned with the training regulations to be made by the Council of the Law Society with the approval of the Lord President.
The object of training regulations is to train people to the required standard. As far as I can judge, it cannot be said that the intervention of the Secretary of State is necessary to protect the public interest unless it should be suggested that the Lord President, in exercising his function of approval or disapproval, does not have the public interest very sharply in mind whenever he has to act. No doubt we shall be told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, that these additional powers in subsection (9) are simply one instance of a place where the new power is to be found and why the new power is thought to be for the public good.
So far as I can judge, no one has ever suggested that the Lord President, in the exercise of his function of approval or disapproval, has failed to have the public interest firmly in mind. It should be borne in mind that the subject matter of the Secretary of State's suggested intervention is rules concerning training courses which solicitors must undergo in order to be equipped to perform to an acceptable standard in the courts in which they would like to have rights of audience.
The same point is made under an associated amendment of mine, Amendment No. 225A, which is concerned with subsections (10) and (11). Those subsections deal with the conduct rules which are to be made by the council of the Law Society with the Lord President's approval.
I have a preliminary question because I do not understand what subsection (10) means. I find it hard to think of any possible justification for the Secretary of State's intervention in matters which are concerned solely with rules of professional conduct owed by an advocate or solicitor under the statutory right of audience to the court and to himself in the conduct of his career. There may, however, be some long-term good which it is thought that subsections (9) and (10) will serve. If I could be persuaded that that were so I should take a certain view about the amendment standing in my name.
For the moment, however, what worries me is the degree of intervention of the Executive in the operation of the courts and those who practise in them. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be able to allay my anxieties about those matters as he has occasionally done in the past about other matters. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Before my noble and learned friend replies, perhaps I may say that the difficulty that I as an English laywer find is this. Subsection (10), at the bottom of page 23, raises a situation which would conflict with the situation envisaged in the Government's new amendment which has now been added to the Bill— Amendment No. 223B. In that amendment we talk of precedents in certain courts. Here we find that comparisons are to be made with the work in the sheriffs court. Here we have a reference to directly or indirectly inhibiting the freedom of a solicitor to appear in court or undertake

1057
all the work preparatory thereto. Then we find that there may be consultation with the Director General of Fair Trading, who will generally not have a clue.
Lord McCluskey: Perhaps I may intervene. Those provisions will be transformed by the amendments which stand in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. It might therefore be better if we were to allow the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to proceed to the next amendment. In that amendment he brings in provisions which oust the present subsections (9) and (10) and replace them with considerations which are quite different. It may be that at this time of night we should not discuss the present subsections (9) and (10) at all. I suggest that that would be a simpler way to proceed.
Lord Renton: I naturally respect and am grateful for the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I was merely trying to help so that, when he came to reply, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate might be able to reconcile provisions which I find it difficult to reconcile. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, I find subsection (10) in itself very difficult. I should not go so far as to say that it is incomprehensible, but the working of it will be difficult.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The overriding objective of the reform of the legal profession has been to secure the provision of services which satisfy necessary consumer standards but are not unduly restrictive. It is for that reason that the Secretary of State and the Director General of Fair Trading, whose perspectives go much wider than the legal profession itself, have been accorded a significant role. The purpose of giving a role to the Secretary of State and the director general is so that any differences which do arise can be fully dealt with. I hope that in most if not all cases it will be possible for any differences to be resolved without recourse to the formal provisions of the clause and that those will serve largely as a reminder of the wider public interest which the Secretary of State and the director general will bring to bear.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, asked me if there was something further behind the provision and whether there was any relationship with other provisions. If he looks at an amendment which I have put down in relation to Clause 23— Amendment No. 257B— he will see that there is a provision on comparable lines which deals with the Faculty of Advocates.
I indicated previously at Second Reading that the purpose of that amendment is to ensure that rules relating to the Supreme Court conduct of advocates are treated in exactly the same way as those made by the council of the Law Society, for the purposes of ensuring that any disparity between those rules and corresponding rules in the sheriff court gives rise to no more restrictive a regime than is necessary in the interests of justice. The DTI White Paper Opening Markets: New Policy on Restrictive Trade Practices, which sets out the Government's proposals
1058
for forthcoming legislation on restrictive trade practices, makes it clear that any professional rule which has been approved by a government Minister will not be subject to challenge by the proposed competition authority. It may be that the noble and learned Lord feels that there is undue interference by the Secretary of State, but, in the context of the reform of legislation that would have a certain—
Lord Morton of Shuna: Are we discussing Amendment No. 257B now or shall we come to it later?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I was asked by the noble and learned Lord to explain whether there was anything further behind the provision. I thought that the clearest way to explain the matter— and in view of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Morton, I must have made a mistake— was to fix it in the context of what was proposed for the Faculty of Advocates.
Lord McCluskey: I am anxious that the debate should proceed in an orderly fashion. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that Amendment No. 224, which we are currently discussing, takes out subsection (9). In the following amendment the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate proposes to take out the same subsection. Similarly, my Amendment No. 225 takes out subsection (10), and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate's amendment. Amendment No. 225B, also takes out the same subsection. The end result is that we have to look at the new provisions which the noble and learned Lord proposes to put into the Bill. The new provisions are those to which he referred late on Tuesday night, about the consultation with the Director General of Fair Trading which precedes a decision by the Secretary of State. That is the matter that we ought to be discussing. I see no point in discussing subsections (9) and (10), which we are all agreed ought to depart from the Bill.
Lord Emslie: For my part, I think that I now understand what the Government are trying to do, which is to do good by stealth, having been told what the objective is. If I am satisfied that subsections (9) and (10) may result in the avoiding of greater danger of interference by a new or planned competition authority I shall be happy to accept the assurance that I have been given about the underlying thinking and to beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 224. I have spoken to Amendment No. 225A, but we shall no doubt come to that in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I call Amendment No. 224B. If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 224A.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 224B:
(" (9) The Council shall, after any rules made under subsection (5) have been approved by the Lord President, submit such rules to the Secretary of State, and no such rules shall have effect unless the Secretary of State, after consulting the Director in accordance with section 64A, has approved them.").
The noble and learned Lord said: On the first day in Committee, we dealt with this amendment and Amendments Nos. 225B and 156A which explained the involvement of the director general. I hope that I explained the position there fully. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate refers to an occasion when he was kind enough to accept an invitation from me to explain in advance his thinking on new Clause 64A and 64B. The Committee will see that, under the provision that we are now discussing, the rules, after being made by the council and approved by the Lord President, are to go to the Secretary of State. He then consults the director in accordance with Clause 64A. Committee Members will find that listed under Amendment No. 275H in the Marshalled List of Amendments. Clause 64A is on page 18 of the Marshalled List. The Committee will see that it states that, before considering any rule, the Secretary of State shall send a copy of the proposed rule in question to the director. The director will consider it purely from the point of view as to whether it restricts, distorts or prevents competition to any significant extent. It then comes back to the Secretary of State. Under Clause 64B, the Secretary of State considers the advice of the director and
"whether the interest of justice require that there should be such a rule".
He may approve or refuse to approve the rule.
My objection to that situation, which is brought into effect by the amendment that we are now discussing, is that it makes the Secretary of State the final and therefore the sole arbiter of what the interests of justice require. I do not believe that that can be right. The interests of justice in relation to the conduct of litigation and the conduct of practitioners who engage in litigation must be a matter for at least sharing with the Lord President who acts on behalf of the court and consults the other judges and then makes Acts of sederunt or, as Lord Justice General, makes Acts of adjournal along with the other judges. That is my objection to the present amendment as it stands. It brings into force Clause 64A and therefore Clause 64B.
Lord Renton: Four agencies will have to take decisions or at least be consulted before finality is reached as to the way in which a solicitor in Scotland is to exercise a right of audience. I have had to deal with many solicitors in Scotland in their ordinary advisory capacity and helping to deal with estate matters, and I find them admirable people. I should not have thought that it was fair to impose upon them this tremendous palaver. It is fair enough to involve the Council of the Law Society; that is their governing body which is democratically elected by them and is, I hope, a trusted body. Then there is the Lord President. It is right that the chief judge of Scotland should have the opportunity of approving the rules and no doubt he generally does so. But then, after that, they must go to the Secretary of State who may not be a lawyer at all. Fortunately, the present Secretary of State is a member of the Bar and understands everything. Then the Director General of Fair Trading must be consulted as well.
1060
Are we not being a little over-zealous in trying to achieve justice for the consumer which could be achieved just as well by more simple means and at less public cost?
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may be greatly daring— I feel that it is greatly daring in this legal society— and ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether he believes in the doctrine of separation of powers. All along, the Government appear to put the Executive over the judiciary. That is completely contrary to the doctrine of separation of powers. Does the noble and learned Lord believe in that doctrine?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Yes, I do, but it is clearly not entirely absolute and it is a matter of allowing rights of audience. It is not a matter of trying to interfere with the constitution of the court or any such matter.
Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that I hope that he at least liked this point about new Clause 64B; namely, that, where the Secretary of State goes at it to approve it, first, it is only advice that he receives from the Director General of Fair Trading and, secondly, he has to apply a test of the interests of justice. Those are the circumstances in which he looks at the matter. That is an appropriate way to address the matter.
On the noble and learned Lord's point as to whether it should be a joint decision between the Lord President and the Secretary of State, I should like to look at that matter again. However, for the reasons that I have already explained, it may be important that the Secretary of State is involved in the process.
Lord McCluskey: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for saying that he will look at the matter again, but I must warn the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that it is dangerous to make the point that she made. I made that point on Second Reading and was told that I was being mischievous, so I have not made it again tonight.
However, there is a deep constitutional point here which the Government seem not to appreciate; namely, that for the first time in our history a Government Minister— an elected Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland— comes in to overrule the Lord President and the Lord Justice General in relation to the conduct of persons inside the two courts. That is unprecedented. It is, as I shall point out a little later, not permitted by the Act of Union unless for the better administration of justice, and I do not yet hear an argument which persuades me that the Secretary of State has suddenly become the guardian of the administration of justice. He is so interested in this Bill that he has not even sent along the person whose name appears on the back of it; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden.
When the Secretary of State, whoever he may be— whether for trade and industry or foreign affairs— considers the matter, he addresses his mind to great issues of policy, but most of those matters are first processed through echelons of civil servants who are asked to consider the interests of justice. I ask the Government to think deeply about the

1061
constitutional novelty of what is proposed in a Bill entitled the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate left us in a state of considerable confusion on the previous occasion. I understood from what he said as regards the previous amendment, when we called a Division but did not appoint tellers, that he would withdraw his amendment in order to consider it. It is unfortunate that he gave us such an indication or led us to believe that. It may be entirely my fault. It is a late hour, I am an old man and I sometimes find it difficult to follow what is going on in the House at this hour of the night. However, if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate intends to move the amendment, he should make it clear that that is his intention. If he intends to withdraw it, he should make his intention equally clear.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: With respect to the noble and learned Lord, there is a clear distinction between those matters. If I wanted to withdraw the amendment, I should say so explicitly. If I was not prepared to consider the matter and was not prepared to move on it, the Committee could decide whether it wished to call a Division. I have indicated— this is a perfectly standard process— that I have listened to a point that has been made to me. I wish the amendment that I am moving to become part of the Bill, but I am giving the noble and learned Lord an indication, because of the point that he has made, that I shall look at it. If I consider that it should be amended, I shall amend it myself If I fail to do so, it is clearly open to the noble and learned Lord to repeat his objection at a later stage.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: When the noble and learned Lord is considering that matter, will he also consider another point which I find rather difficult? Can a man work hard at being an advocate and a solicitor at the same time or is that a quite impossible proposition? As I see it, it has grave difficulties. I do not understand how it can happen. I do not know what all this is about because one-third of the whole faculty consists of former solicitors. When I was "Boots of the Bar" I was with another man at that time who had previously been a solicitor. He afterwards became the Lord Justice Clerk.
Is there a practical way to do this or is one trying to break up a stone wall which cannot be broken? If so, we are wasting our time completely. I do not think it is practicable. I do not think that it is in the interests— and I thought that that is what we were studying— of the administration of justice. That is the main point. Apparently we are trying to put a solicitor into an advocate's hole and fit them together. That creates problems.
So far as I can see the noble and learned Lord has not worked the matter out at all. I have no clear explanation of how it is to be done. There are plenty of men with solicitors' experience in the faculty at the present time. To a large extent there always have been. What are we trying to do? Are we trying to copy an English method? Is that all that the noble
1062
and learned Lord is trying to do? If so, I think that we should be told so, quite frankly.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if the English method is to be copied, perhaps I may say that it is not a desirable precedent.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, perhaps I may respond very briefly. No, we are not trying to make solicitors and advocates identical. If that were to be done, we should simply say that all solicitors were to have rights of audience in both the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary. We are not setting out to develop such a scheme. We say that there are those solicitors who if they have the requisite training and qualifications may secure those rights of audience while still remaining solicitors.
I should envisage that the 6, 000 or so solicitors in Scotland, as the noble Earl indicates, will be perfectly content to stick to their business of soliciting. However, there will be some— a cadre of those— who I think will wish to take advantage of those rights of audience and provide a choice to clients who may wish to employ them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 225 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 225B.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 225:
Page 23, line 43, leave out subsection (10).
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall not take any time on this amendment. It raises exactly the same point. I think that what is required is to make it clear not just that the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading is confined to matters of competition policy but that the new Sections 64A and 64B which are now introduced into the Bill in advance, as it were, are ultimately rewritten so that the Secretary of State, having consulted the director in matters of competition policy, on that basis and on that basis alone can interfere with a rule that has passed the Lord President; but he should have no general jurisdiction to do so in the interests of justice. I shall make that point when we come to Amendment No. 275H. In the meantime I do not seek to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 225 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 225A is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 225B or 225C.
[Amendment No. 225A not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 225B:
Page 23, line 45, leave out from ("State") to end of line 3 on page 24 and insert:
(" (10A) Where the Secretary of State considers that any rule submitted to him under subsection (10) would directly or indirectly inhibit the freedom of a solicitor to appear in court or undertake all the work preparatory thereto he shall consult the Director in accordance with section 64A.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: I do not propose to divide the Committee on this matter. The fact that we allow this to go into the record— I shall not oppose this provision being inserted into the Bill at this stage and thus appearing in the Report print of the Bill— does not mean that I agree with it. I need not go on repeating that point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 225C:
Page 24, line 7, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("section 64B").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 226 not moved.]
Lord Emslie Lord Emslie moved Amendment No. 226A:
Page 24, line 19, at end insert:
("(12A) Where a complaint has been made that a solicitor has been guilty of professional misconduct in the exercise of any right of audience held by him by virtue of this section, the Council may, or if so requested by the Lord President shall, suspend him from exercising that right pending determination of that complaint under Part IV.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is designed to introduce a necessary and simple additional subsection to the new Section 25A. I understand in advance from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that he is minded to accept the amendment which I propose. If that is so, in the interests of saving time I shall not delay the Committee by explaining the purposes which lie behind it. I should have thought that the purposes were obvious but perhaps we should leave it to the noble and learned Lord to state his position on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Before the noble and learned Lord says anything, perhaps I may say a sentence or two. There should surely be a parallel power to this in Clause 22, if it is to be passed as a clause, and in Clause 21, because the power to suspend the non-legal advocate, if I may so describe the Clause 21 power, is just as important— or the non-Scottish advocate has the power to suspend the solicitor advocate.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord answers perhaps I may make a short point on the content of this amendment. I suggest that it is too draconian in its terms at the moment. If the noble and learned Lord will reconsider it, there should be some basis for the suspension rather than a complaint, because a solicitor could be bedevilled with complaints suggesting that he was guilty of professional misconduct when he was nothing of the kind. At the end of the day he could be suspended from practice and suffer considerable loss. I should have thought that there should be some reasonable basis for accepting the complaint before suspension; otherwise all sorts of damage could be done to perfectly honest individuals who are carrying out their practice.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am indeed content to accept the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, which I believe gives the
1064
council an important power to deal promptly with instances of alleged professional misconduct on the part of solicitors exercising rights of audience in the supreme courts. It allows the council to act swiftly in the interim, while allowing the tribunal proper time to deal definitely with the complaint. It is, of course, in the public interest that the administration of justice should not be impeded by repeated inappropriate conduct on the part of a solicitor-advocate in court.
So far as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is concerned, as it appears that the council may suspend someone when a complaint has been made, I envisage that it would undertake suspension only where it was a very serious complaint. However, when the complaint comes from the Lord President, when the senior judge in Scotland makes that request, I should have thought it indeed wholly appropriate that the council should be under an obligation to require that suspension. So far as concerns the point in relation to the other two clauses, I cannot immediately answer the noble Lord but I understand the force behind what he says.
Lord Emslie: May I come back, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, had to say? At the moment, the Dean of Faculty can order the suspension of any advocate against whom a complaint of professional misconduct has been made, pending resolution and disposal of that complaint. The object of this exercise is to introduce an equivalent power. It cannot be the Dean of Faculty who will exercise it. There is nothing equivalent to the Dean of Faculty in the Law Society of Scotland. The only person who can properly exercise the power is the Lord President of the Court of Session. He is in the best position to judge the necessity for instant suspension and the urgency with which that ought to be ordered. I do not know. I am attempting to explain the thinking behind this, and I am indebted to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for what he has said about the content of the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 227:
Page 24, line 20, leave out subsection (13).
The noble and learned Lord said: If noble Lords consult the Bill, they will see that on page 24, at line 20, we have the first manifestation of a particular subsection which appears in various places. It reads:
"Where a function is conferred on any person by this section he shall exercise that function as soon as is reasonably practicable".
This amendment is connected with a number of others which seek to bring about the demise of a similar subsection in other clauses of the Bill.
There are a number of points connected with this. One is that the Lord President is already heavily understaffed and the new duties which are imposed upon him by this and other clauses impose a real burden upon him. We shall have occasion later to refer to that. But to impose upon him a duty to act as soon as is reasonably practicable may not be a duty to act very soon, because the Lord President has not the staff or facilities to act very quickly in relation to a matter of this kind.
But this provision, and its counterpart in other clauses, raises in my mind five questions and I shall put them simply to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. The questions are: why, where, who, what and how? To elaborate to a small extent in relation to the first question, why include this provision? What is the justification for it? What is the reason for it? The second question is: where? Where did this provision come from? Where shall I find a precedent for a provision in a statute which lays upon the Lord President, the Director General of Fair Trading, the Council of the Law Society and the Secretary of State this particular duty? And who is it that Parliament is asked not to trust to act with due expedition? Is it the Lord President who cannot be trusted to act with due expedition, is it the Council, is it the director general, or is it the Secretary of State? In other words, which of them cannot be trusted? Is it not rather insulting to public servants of this kind, and to the council, to be so suspicious?
The next question, the what? question, is: what is the hurry? No solicitor has had the right to plead in the Scottish Supreme Court since 1532, yet once this provision is brought into force everyone has to rush madly about doing things as soon as is reasonably practicable.
Finally, there is the how, question: how is this to be enforced? If the council of the Law Society drags its feet, can a solicitor sue the council? If the Lord President is thought by the council to be taking an undue amount of time, can the council sue the Lord President? Or can anyone sue the Secretary of State? So is this intended to be enforced in some way, or is it just brutem fulmen as so much of the rest of the Bill is? So may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate please to explain why this very funny provision finds its way into this clause and other clauses? I beg to move.
Lord Eraser of Carmyllie: Certainly this provision is not meant to be insulting to any of those who are required to discharge duties and functions under this clause; when it comes to the granting of rights of audience to solicitors in the supreme courts. I have little doubt that all those mentioned will deal with the matter promptly. Nonetheless, the scheme for granting rights of audience and maintaining proper procedures in relation to how these rights are exercised is necessarily a little complicated and involves several office holders or bodies. The provisions about prompt dispatch of functions have been inserted as a reminder to all concerned of the importance of securing in practice the extended rights of audience conferred in law by these clauses. I appreciate, as the noble and learned Lord said, that the Supreme Court of Scotland has operated without solicitors for some time. Nevertheless it seems to the Government correct that there should be proper dispatch in this matter.
The noble and learned Lord raised another point which he raised for the first time during the course of his Second Reading speech. I can see why he would not like this provision imposed on the Lord President of the Court of Session at the same time as an identical provision is laid on him in Clause
1066
21. Prompted by the vary fair point that he made at Second Reading, there has subsequently been contact with the Lord President. The point about the overload on him in relation to these matters has, I hope, been resolved in this way. The Secretary of State has undertaken that Clause 21 as a whole should not immediately be brought into play and certainly should not be brought into play at the same time as Clause 20. It is hoped that by approaching it in this way the noble and learned Lord's concern about overloading the Lord President will be met.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is he saying that Clause 13 is nothing more than a prompter or reminder? Is that not a new concept in legislation? If that is all it is, it is surplus to requirements, and no doubt the responsible persons appointed to do these jobs will not require reminding.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I wish to make very much the same point. Just to avoid anyone being hurt by this provision, what will happen if a solicitor feels that the director general or the Secretary of State is being slow? How is a court to judge if it is a court that is to do it? If the Secretary of State or the director general says, "I will get round to this as soon as I possibly can but I have rather a lot to do", who in the court will be able to judge whether or not he is telling the truth? It is an impossibility. Surely we do not need to clutter up legislation with pious hopes.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not think I can expand on what I have said. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Macaulay, has picked up my wording. It is inserted as a reminder to all concerned of the importance of securing in practice the extended rights of audience which are being conferred by this clause. That is all that is intended.
The Earl of Selkirk: The rights would not disappear if they were not used for two years, would they?
Lord McCluskey: I do not know whether to laugh or cry when I hear these answers. Parliament cannot be asked to enact a provision which lays duties upon public office holders such as the Lord President, the Secretary of State and the Director General of Fair Trading— I do not include in that category the Law Society— when at the same time the Lord Advocate stands at the Dispatch Box and says, "I have no doubt that these persons and the council will act properly". If he has no doubt, why is Parliament being asked to enact a provision of this kind? This is absurd. I do not understand.
It gets worse, of course, because the same provision appears in relation to the barefoot pleaders, if I may call them that, who are to be enfranchised to plead in our courts by Clause 21. Whereas the statute says that everyone is to act as quickly as they can, the Lord Advocate is standing at the Dispatch Box saying, "But I give you this promise; the Secretary

1067
of State will not act for a long, long, time". As a matter of fact, I do not believe that he will ever act at all.
I do not know whether to laugh or cry when I hear these answers. It is a serious matter. I ask the Lord Advocate to think very carefully whether he needs to advance with his chin so fully exposed to the kind of attack which I am sure he will meet in another place where he will not be treated with the kindness to which he is accustomed to receiving in this Chamber.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble and learned Lord will be aware that I was equally conscious that I was leading with my chin on this matter. It is the Government's view that this provision should be included in the clause. If he wants to laugh rather than cry I would be happy enough with that. But I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCluskey: In a previous incarnation, if I may say that, I stood at the very same Dispatch Box where the noble and learned Lord now stands. When I felt utterly ashamed of the proposition which I had advanced and which had been torn apart from in front, from the side and from behind me, I used to say that I would speak to my right honourable friend. I am sure that the Lord Advocate could have said that. However, I do not require him to stand up and say that on this occasion because I hope he will say it another 10 or 20 times before the evening is out. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 20, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Emslie: My noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey and I have given notice of our intention to object to the Question. It is no secret that I have always been deeply anxious about Clause 20. It is a poor clause for three reasons. First, the provisions introducing new Section 25A are unnecessary in Scotland. Any solicitor who believes that he can learn to become an advocate can, if he applies himself and undergoes the training of pupillage, readily become a member of faculty and be admitted to the public office of advocate.
There are no artificial obstacles whatever to a solicitor becoming an advocate in Scotland. In some areas his position is better than that of an entrant who has not been a solicitor because under the regulations of the faculty he is required to undergo pupillage for a period of only six months. There is also the associated thought that the more solicitors who become advocates the greater will be the litigants' choice of persons to represent them in the supreme courts. So much for the lack of necessity in support of Clause 20.
Secondly, the clause carries an obvious risk about which I shall speak briefly in one moment. Let it be clearly understood that I hold no brief here to speak in the interests of the Faculty of Advocates. I have never believed that if Clause 20 passed into law it would materially injure the faculty; the quality of its members will see to that. However, I believe that
1068
there is an obvious risk of impairment to the quality and efficiency of the administration of justice. On Second Reading I explained the importance of the court's performance of its responsibilities and the fact that it should be listening to advocates of quality. There should be a continuing mutual respect and trust between the Bench and the Bar and also mutual respect and confidence between advocates. Without that quality of representation and trust, time and expense tend to be wasted. There is always a risk that the end product— that is, the judgment— will never be as good as it should be.
In my experience, advocacy at supreme court level is and ought to be regarded as a specialist skill. It can be developed to the required standard only by the sound initial training which advocates receive; furthermore, by the full-time commitment to the function of advocacy under the influence of the College of Justice. That is the position as regards advocates.
Contrast that with the position of solicitors, who by definition will continue to practise as such often with the cares of partnership upon them. Even if they receive adequate initial training as good as pupillage— and I rather suspect that to be the intention of the Bill— one cannot expect them to spend their whole time in the performance of the functions of an advocate in the supreme courts because they will only be instructed by their clients and because they will have the distractions of a general practice of solicitors which, so far as one can tell, they do not intend to give up. If they do, they should join the Bar. Part-time advocacy is not good for the courts, and I suggest to the Committee that therefore it cannot be good for the litigant either.
The third criticism of Clause 20 is that the justification now presented for it is flimsy in the extreme. The explanation on Second Reading was— and this is an echo of what appears in the White Paper— that if Clause 20 passes into law, it will give to some clients of some solicitors a wider choice of representation in the Supreme Court of Scotland.
I do not propose to develop that criticism. On Second Reading I suggested that the choice to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate addressed himself was hardly a choice worth having. A client who allows his own solicitor to conduct proceedings on his behalf in, for example, the Court of Session will inevitably be making an uninformed choice and will not have the advantage of the informed choice which is now available on the advice of a solicitor.
In the course of addressing the Committee, I have reached the conclusion that however strongly I feel about Clause 20, and its deficiencies and absence of principle to support it, I should not at this stage divide the Committee. However, it was right, it seems to me, that I should at least make it perfectly clear what are my views about this clause and the dangers which appear to me to be inherent in its survival.
Lord McCluskey: I also do not propose to divide the Committee on this matter because the clause which we are asked to approve is an entirely different

1069
animal from that which came into court. It came in as a kind of zebra and is going out like a camel or a dromedary. Eventually we shall have to discover what sort of animal we have. At present I am not quite sure.
I want to ask the question which goes to the heart of the matter. I do so at the risk of incurring the wrath of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, who said that we had an extended debate on this subject on Second Reading and that she would not wish us to reiterate all the arguments. With respect, I disagree with the noble Baroness on that.
On Second Reading we debated an enormous Bill with provisions about licensing, international arbitration, judicial factors, charities, rights of audience and conveyancing. It was impossible to develop the argument fully in the 12 minutes which I understand to be allowed on Second Reading— although I believe that there is no rule in this Chamber that one cannot speak for hours.
I do not propose to take up a lot of time this evening, but I should like to make a few points. First, before the publication of the Green Paper, there had been no support for this at all as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, the chairman of the Royal Commission, pointed out. Paragraphs 15.43 onwards consider two questions: whether there should be fusion, and if there was no fusion, whether there should be extended rights of audience. I do not propose to repeat what was said by the noble Lord, but the greater part of the evidence was in favour of retaining the present divided profession.
The arguments for and against fusion are then considered and I need not go into those. The noble Lord went on to say that the conclusion that the profession should remain divided did not deal with the question of rights of audience. However, that was considered by the Royal Commission and the proposal that there should be extended rights of audience to solicitors was rejected on the view that there was a danger that that might inevitably lead to the demise of the Faculty of Advocates and bring in fusion by the back door.
It so happens that I agree with the judgment of my noble and learned friend Lord Emslie, that the Faculty of Advocates will survive. That is one reason I emphasise the point that we are not here to defend the chicks against the storm; they will survive perfectly well. The question is in the interests of justice.
The principal advocate of this change not taking place was the present Lord Chancellor. He was Dean of the Faculty of Advocates in 1976 and onwards and presented evidence on behalf of the faculty both orally and in writing at great length against fusion and rights of audience. I felt it would be unfair some years later to repeat what he said, had it not been for the fact that at the Committee stage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill the Lord Chancellor repeatedly emphasised that he stood by what he said. I should like to remind your Lordships of what he said.
The Royal Commission put quite specific questions to the Faculty of Advocates. The first
1070
question to which I should like to draw attention is No. 56:
"What would be the advantages and disadvantages if solicitors had a right of audience in all courts?"
The Lord Chancellor, as Dean of the Faculty, replied:
"This question really raises, in a different form, the issue of fusion of the two branches of a profession. The Faculty considers that it would not be practicable to permit solicitors to be heard in all courts while retaining a separate Bar."
The answer continues, but I shall not go into it in detail.
I come to Question 45 which concerns fusion. I can now deal with the matter of fusion, because the Lord Chancellor, as Dean of the Faculty, said that they led to the same thing. He said:
"While the Faculty is aware that there is pressure for fusion from some quarters… it does not believe that… the existence of a divided profession in this country is the cause of any dissatisfaction among members of the public."
I make it clear that I read that short, but I hope I do not read it unfairly.
He added— again I read selectively:
"The Faculty … believes that it lies with those who assert that the Faculty should be abolished to demonstrate public dissatisfaction with the way that the profession is organised at present and also that fusion would provide the public with a substantially better service taken overall."
Again I emphasise the point that it was he who said that extended rights of audience of the kind now proposed ultimately lead to the danger of fusion.
The Lord Chancellor then made the point that my noble and learned friend Lord Emslie has repeatedly made, that such a proposal could:
"in turn also lead to a general lowering of the standard of pleading and presentation both in the Supreme Court and elsewhere. In cases of a routine nature this might not matter very much, but in more difficult cases the consequences to the litigant could be very serious…
The benefits of the collegiate structure of the Faculty of Advocates would be lost. The advantages of this system in a small country such as Scotland are considerable."
There are many more passages, but I do not propose to take your Lordships through them. Your Lordships will find that those passages persuaded the Royal Commission unanimously to reject both fusion and extended rights of audience. If that is what the evidence led to, what is the Government's justification for this sudden change of mind? We need to be told, because no one has ever answered the question.
We guess that because of events in England over which we in Scotland have no control— Scotland in this regard is another country— the Government have decided that they cannot make the changes in England and allow the Scots to continue a system which would be a kind of reproach to the way they developed in England; so they will do it in Scotland. Worse still, I learnt over the weekend that the Government propose to introduce the same system in Northern Ireland. Whereas we have the advantage of being able to come to the Committee and discuss the matter line by line and clause by clause, in Northern Ireland no such right is to be accorded. The whole matter will be put in an order and voted upon yea or nay. No one will be allowed to change a word of it. That is deeply distressing.
I asked the president and the secretary of the Law Society of Northern Ireland what the position was

1071
and whether there was dissatisfaction. They said there was not. They did not ask me to take their word for it. They had been invited on to a programme by the BBC to discuss the state of dissatisfaction with the position there. The BBC made its own inquiries of the Consumers' Association and others. They all said that they were perfectly happy as things stand. Therefore, these provisions are to be introduced into Northern Ireland and Scotland for no reason that I can understand. The Government have never given a reason.
I do not know, even now, who supports these proposals. The Law Society of Scotland supports the principle of extended rights of audience but states in its briefing to me,
"As drafted the Bill will impose obligations impossible to fulfil".
The Scottish Consumer Council supports the proposals but its document contains only eight lines of bald statement in relation to training and nothing else. It is obvious that the Scottish Consumer Council has not come to grips with some of the issues now before us.
I should like to know from the Lord Advocate who, prior to the publication of the Green Paper for Scotland in the spring of 1989, made representations to the Government that the system ought to be changed either in respect of rights of audience or, indeed, the other matters that go with it. I particularly want to know— I shall certainly repeat the question until I receive an answer— who on earth suggested the whole prospect of allowing to plead in our courts the barefoot pleaders, the persons with no legal qualifications at all.
There is one other option that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and I discussed yesterday. I hope the noble Lord does not object to my mentioning it on the Floor of the Committee. If we are right in thinking that someone has judged that what is good for England must be good for Scotland, why do we not have a provision in the Bill to let the English get on with it for two years, five years or 50 years, and at the end of that time assess the experiment to see how it works? If it works for England then we can adopt it for Scotland. In the meantime, we should leave out Clause 20.
Lord Grimond: As my name has been mentioned, perhaps I may be allowed to add a few words to the debate. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, but I do not want to pre-empt what I hope to say on Monday, when I hope to have the noble and learned Lord's support. As regards the present situation, I speak as someone who is not averse to widening the rights of audience. However, I must repeat what I said at Second Reading: the ordinary person's view about the law is, first, that it is too expensive; secondly, that the delays are sometimes inordinately long; and thirdly, that it is uncertain.
I have to say that during these debates I have heard nothing which encourages me to believe that this Bill will tackle any of those mischiefs. I can see grave dangers to the College of Justice which we are only justified in incurring if the mischiefs to which I
1072
have referred are clearly tackled in the Bill. However, from what I have heard so far I cannot see that this Bill will necessarily make the law cheaper, quicker or more certain in Scotland.
To pre-empt what I might say on Monday, I have to say that I suspect the Bill has been introduced largely because of troubles in England. If there were not an English Bill before the House there would not be a Scottish Bill. It cannot be said too often that the sheriff court and the lower courts in Scotland are, in my experience— I have had some experience both as a Scottish Member of Parliament and, for a short time, as an English barrister, but I have no experience of the supreme courts— an efficient and relatively cheap way of dispensing justice and give widespread satisfaction compared with most of the courts in this country.
Lord Ackner: Reference has been made to England, so perhaps I may make a few comments. The reference to trouble in England is a media creation. There is a desire by the solicitors to increase their rights of audience merely because they are to lose their conveyancing monopoly. They were content with the position and content with the Royal Commission under the chairmanship of my noble and learned friend Lord Benson, which published its recommendations 10 years ago and which this Government have successively approved.
At no stage in the English Bill did my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor suggest for one moment that there was any basis for saying that alterations made to the rights of audience would be a basis for contemplating any reduction in expense. He was unable to say that for two very good reasons. First, the Royal Commission had said that it would prove more expensive and it had gone into the matter in detail. Secondly, he had to concede that the Government had embarked on no studies, no research and no form of consideration of the expense factor.
In the English Bill the only suggestion for dealing with expense was to hive off from the High Court a whole mass of potential litigation to the county courts. The House learnt to its surprise that the county courts were in such disarray at the moment that they were incapable of dealing with their present workload let alone any additional work. We invited my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor— and I imagine that Members of the Committee here will have no greater success with my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate— to indicate why there had been this volte face, unresearched, and the result of no consultation, unless it was because of the populist clamour that something should be done about the so-called restrictive practices of the lawyers.
I add one final point. I met a circuit judge at a dinner two days ago. He had just come back from America. He had been invited there in order to visit the various places where they were opening Inns of Court in order to follow the philosophy, which is enjoyed both north and south of the Border, of a divided profession. The American former Chief Justice has always been a strong adherent of the philosophy that specialisation resulted in greater

1073
efficiency and reduced costs. The message that the circuit judge brought back was that the Americans thought we were quite mad to start going into reverse and copying their situation with all the disadvantages which will result.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: From where the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, sits, he may be unconcerned about incurring the wrath of my noble friend Lady Carnegy by repeating what he said at Second Reading. However, from where I stand it might be more politic of me to make a short response to this matter, otherwise I shall be repeating what I said at Second Reading.
We recognise that this is a major reform. It does not slavishly follow what is introduced in England. It starts from a materially different point. In Scotland at present something like 90 per cent. of jury trials are already conducted by solicitors. In civil matters in the sheriff court, where there are rights of audience, the jurisdiction of the court is very extensive. It is correct to say that the Royal Commission did not come down in favour—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend. Not only did the Royal Commission not come down in favour, it came down against the proposition.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I was about to say just that. I am anxious to point out to noble and to noble and learned Lords that before the Royal Commission was the question of looking at extending the rights of audience essentially against a background when fusion was in the air. What is now being considered is not to give extended rights of audience to all, but only to certain solicitors of particular competence.
It is for that reason that we have spent as much time as we have on the matter. I do not quarrel with the amount of time that we have used. The purpose is to ensure that those solicitors who acquire extended rights of audience under this Bill and this particular clause, should be those who have sufficient quality and competence to make their appearances before the courts truly appropriate. There is absolutely no desire whatever to see the business of the respective courts in any way slowed up or damaged. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, with his 17 years' experience as Lord President, has had a great deal to contribute to the administration of justice. We should not like to see the advances and improvements made during his time set back. It is for that reason that I obviously have to pay particular regard to what he said.
There has been some support for this proposal in Scotland. It may be that the Scottish Consumer Council dealt with it shortly, but nevertheless it approved of it. As I understand it, all the major political parties in Scotland see in principle now that there should be an extension of rights of audience, although I accept that on all sides there are concerns that we should introduce it carefully and properly so that the administration of justice is not damaged.
The Law Society has had some concerns. One revolved around difficulties which I trust have now been resolved by an amendment that I moved earlier.
1074
However, I suggest to the Committee that the clause should not be divided against. I readily acknowledge that there have been a number of amendments moved which have materially improved the clause as it stands and in at least one respect— which I believe has been important to the noble and learned Lords who contributed to our debates on Clause 20— I have said that I shall look to see how their proposal might be met.
With my thanks to those who have contributed to the various debates on Clause 20, I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he explain his figure of 90 per cent. of jury trials taking place in the sheriff court? He will be very well aware that the judges of the Court of Session, through the offices of the then Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk, made submissions on the White Paper which showed that those figures were entirely wrong. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that the figures of my noble and learned friend are wrong?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If the noble and learned Lord will give way, I shall stand corrected on the figures. The fact of the matter is that in comparison with England, where I understand that what rights there are at present for solicitors to appear in jury trials are non-existent or very limited, in Scotland there is an extended right for solicitors to appear before juries. That is further extended by recent legislation which allowed me as Lord Advocate to direct that some cases which would attract a sentence of as much as three years' imprisonment ought to be heard in the sheriff court. I should have thought that many people would have considered that that was a very wide right of audience.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord repeated the figure of 90 per cent. when it has been specifically challenged by the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk. He did not inform the Committee that those figures were so challenged; nor did he suggest where the figures were wrong.
Lord McCluskey: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may say one or two words. The purpose of our flexible procedure at Committee stage is to allow Members to ask the Minister questions and to seek answers to those questions. I did not ask the Minister who approved this proposal. I told him that the Scottish Consumer Council approved it in a bald statement of eight lines long. I asked him: who suggested it? That is the question to which I wish an answer. Who suggested this provision before the publication in England of the three Green Papers?
Secondly, no one imagines for one moment that what is provided for in Clause 20 slavishly follows the provisions in England. Indeed, that is a matter of deep complaint from that very consumer council. It wants an advisory committee set up on the same lines as that which was set up in England.

1075
I also think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate should have answered the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and echoed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Have the Government studied whether or not the introduction or implementation of Clause 20 will reduce the cost of litigation to anyone? If the answer is yes, with what result? If the answer is no, we should be told.
Finally, the time is 10 minutes to 10. It is unfortunate that as I came into the House tonight to attend this Committee an English Member stopped me and said, "I can assure you that an English Bill of this importance would not be treated in this fashion". I cannot comment on that; I simply narrate to the Committee what was said.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 228:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause: ("Complaints to Tribunal.
.At the end of section 51 (3) (b) of the 1980 Act (Complaints to Tribunal) there is inserted—
"(bb) the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates in respect of the conduct of a solicitor exercising a right of audience under and in terms of section 25A of this Act; ".").
The noble and learned Lord said: I understand that this amendment is acceptable to the Government. I should explain it so that at least this part of the Bill may be understood by anybody who wishes to know its purpose.
Section 51 of The Solicitors (Scotland) Act provides for a limited number of people who can complain to the discipline tribunal. They are the Council of the Law Society and various other people, including the Lord Advocate, any judge, any auditor and the lay observer who is to be transmogrified into the ombudsman.
The purpose of the amendment is to add the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates to the list. This is necessary because he has the discipline power over the Faculty of Advocates which will provide the majority of the advocacy in the higher courts. There is nobody else who can easily fulfil the function that is necessary so that a solicitor with the right of advocacy should be under somebody's discipline with somebody to make the complaint to the discipline tribunal. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am content to accept the principle of the new clause. As I understand it, it was suggested by the present Dean of Faculty. It is an important and worthwhile clause. However, I should like to reflect further on the precise wording and the best location in the Bill for the provision. I undertake to come back at Report stage with an amendment which has a like effect.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Certainly. I only inserted it where I was informed by the Public Bill Office I could insert it. The noble and learned Lord may insert it where it fits more suitably. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience]:
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 24, line 23, at beginning insert ("Notwithstanding the terms of the Act of Union or of Article XIX of the Treaty of Union set forth therein").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment introduces into Clause 21 the barefoot pleader clause. The opening words are:
"Notwithstanding the terms of the Act of Union or of Article XIX of the Treaty of Union set forth therein".
This is not unconnected with Amendment No. 269. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner will be interested to know that I am endeavouring to answer the question that he repeatedly asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when we were discussing the Courts and Legal Services Bill. Why is it that laymen are to be appointed to the Bench in England, but are not to be appointed to the Bench in Scotland?
This is what I would call a probing amendment. In England and Wales the laws of competition in the market apparently require not only that laymen be allowed to practise in the highest courts but that they should also be eligible for appointment to all the highest judicial offices. That is in Clause 50 of the Bill introduced at Committee stage in this House.
However, in Scotland, although laymen are to be allowed to practise in the highest courts, they are not to be allowed to become judges in these courts. Why should these laymen who are granted rights of audience under Clause 21 be denied the ambition to become judges? Is this some new, subtle form of discrimination?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I had thought that the Lord Chairman of Committees had called Amendment No. 229 regarding the concern of the noble and learned Lord about the Act of Union.
Lord McCluskey: I am speaking to Amendment No. 229. If the noble and learned Lord had listened, he would have heard me explain that this amendment is not unconnected with Amendments Nos. 269 and 239. The same point is involved, as he will discover if he contains himself a little longer.
English lawyers and others have asked why it is that the Scots are to be denied the chance to reach the Bench. This is the position as I understand it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be able to confirm that this is the right answer. Since 1532 the administration of justice in Scotland has been in the hands of the College of Justice. An authoritative article by a former professor of constitutional law at Edinburgh University states:
"The College of Justice is the collective name given to those persons who take part in the administration of justice in the Court of Session. The membership of the College of Justice was declared by an Act of Severance passed on 23rd February 1687".
That was the provision that was in force at the time that the Treaty of Union was signed and incorporated into two Acts of Parliament, one of the English Parliament and the other of the Scottish

1077
Parliament. Article XIX, which was the important enactment, states:
"The Court of Session or College of Justice do after the union and notwithstanding thereof remain in all time coming within Scotland as it is now constituted by the laws of that Kingdom, and with the same authority and privileges as before the union".
The Court of Session and the College of Justice are seen to be the same thing. Now we come to the point upon which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate no doubt seeks to found. Article XIX continues:
"subject nevertheless to such regulations for the better administration of justice as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain".
Under that fundamental constitutional document, the Parliament of Great Britain has a right to alter the constitution of the College of Justice only for the better administration of justice. The same provision is made in relation to the qualifications which may be made for capacitating persons to be named ordinary Lords of Session. They also,
"may be altered by the Parliament of Great Britain".
The treaty continues with another important point. It states:
"The Court of Justiciary do also after the union and notwithstanding thereof remain in all time coming within Scotland as it is now constituted by the laws of that Kingdom and with the same authority and privileges as before the union, subject revertheless to such regulations as shall be made by the Parliament of Great Britain".
At the heart of this provision is the fact that changes may be made by this Parliament if they are seen to be for the better administration of justice. This Parliament, however, did not exist at the time of the treaty.
It appears to me that the Government are prepared to argue either that solicitors can become or do become members of the College of Justice, or that, if they are licensed under Clause 20, they become advocates in the sense in which that word was used in Article XIX, or that their licensing will somehow lead to the better administration of justice. I can understand those arguments although I do not agree with them. However, the Government are not prepared to argue in respect of laymen that making them judges will lead to the better administration of justice in Scotland. I believe that is the answer to the question that has been asked and has not been answered.
I want the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to answer the following questions in relation to this amendment. First of all, does he agree that Article XIX has a bearing on this clause? Secondly, is he saying that lay persons who acquire rights of audience in the Court of Session are to become members of the College of Justice? Thirdly, does he maintain that this clause is,
"a regulation by Parliament for the better administration of justice"?
If it is, why are qualified laymen to be denied promotion to the Bench? Those are the questions that this amendment raises. I hope that I shall receive an answer to them tonight. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord. I did not hear him say that he was
1078
speaking to other amendments at the same time and they are certainly not grouped. The purpose of Amendment No. 229 is to ensure that the provision of the clause should take effect notwithstanding the terms of the Act of Union between England and Scotland in 1707 and in particular of Article XIX of the Treaty of Union.
As the noble and learned Lord rightly pointed out. Article XIX preserves the constitution, authority and privileges of the Court of Session following the Union. The clause, however, in providing for persons other than lawyers to obtain rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience in relation to court proceedings does not affect the constitution, authority or privileges as such of the Court of Session itself.
Furthermore, the noble and learned Lord has anticipated me in saying that, even if the view were taken that the provisions of the clause did so affect the Court of Session in some way, Article XIX of the Act of Union gives Parliament the power to make regulations for the better administration of justice. It may be that the noble and learned Lord and others do not agree that what is being put forward in terms of Clause 21 achieves the better administration of justice in Scotland. Nevertheless, it is clear from the terms of that article that that is a matter of judgment for Parliament itself.
Among the broad objectives of the clause are to allow members of the public a wider choice of representation in relation to proceedings in court and to allow persons other than lawyers who have an expertise in a specialised area of law to obtain rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation after satisfying the Secretary of State and the Lord President in terms of the requirements of the clause. Those objectives are in the interests of the better administration of justice, and I conclude that the provisions of the clause do not conflict with any provisions of the 1707 Act.
I understand why the noble and learned Lord is particularly concerned with the possible introduction of individuals other than solicitors or new solicitor advocates into the supreme courts of Scotland, namely the Court of Session or the High Court. I appreciate that he is aware of the point, but it may help if I emphasise the matter at this stage. In providing for the extension of rights of audience in Clause 21 we are not only looking at the extension of rights of audience into the Court of Session or High Court. It may well be that one of the professional bodies or other persons who seek rights of audience may do so in a very much more limited area, seeking rights of audience only in the sheriff court.
A question which the noble and learned Lord has also put to me in the context of this amendment relates to the appointment of anyone who might have secured rights of audience in the High Court or Court of Session under Clause 21. He asked why they are not being given the opportunity to become senators of the college and to become judges. That is a hypothetical question. We are not seeking to do that. It has been a policy decision in Scotland that that should not take place. When I do not propose that that should happen I am not sure how fruitful

1079
it is for me to discuss with the noble and learned Lord whether that would be prohibited by Article XIX.
Lord McCluskey: Before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate sits back in his seat perhaps I can ask him to answer my question, which he did not answer. Is he saying that lay persons who require rights of audience in the Court of Session are to become members of the College of Justice?
While the noble and learned Lord thinks about the answer to that question perhaps I may say this to him. He said that a policy decision had been taken in Scotland. We know that a policy decision has been taken in Scotland because the Bill does not empower it. I did not ask what the decision was. We know the answer to that. The question is, why. Why is it that barefoot pleaders can sit in the House of Lords if they are Englishmen but cannot do so if they are Scotsmen? What happens if a Scottish case reaches the House of Lords and there are five barefoot Englishmen sitting as the judges? Are they to be allowed to decide Scottish cases, or have the Government not thought about that? I want to know why.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: With one breath, the noble and learned Lord and others indicate that we are doing this only because it is being done in England. When it comes to Scotland, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken his own policy decision.
Lord McCluskey: But why?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: That is a matter for the Secretary of State. As the noble and learned Lord wants me and the Secretary of State to keep such persons out of the Court of Session— he does not even wish to see them appearing as pleaders— I find it inconceivable that he wants them to be there as judges. If he were arguing that they should be there, I could see why he might press me to explain why I am not prepared to see them there. He does not want them there and, in those circumstances, the matter should rest there.
Lord Renton: Does my noble and learned friend agree that he is the Government's spokesman in this House? There is collective responsibility of the Cabinet of which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is a member. It goes without saying that this is a Scottish Bill which the Secretary of State, as well as my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, is responsible for presenting to Parliament. The Bill is in the name of the Minister of State for Scotland, who is one of the team in the Secretary of State's department. I assume that, when the Bill goes to another place, it will bear the name of the Secretary of State. We in this House are just as much entitled as the other place to know the reasons for the Government's decisions, unless there is a strong security, or rather confidential, feature about them. However, there is no such confidential or other matter involved in this. It is a fundamental and indeed constitutional matter on which we are entitled to an answer.
Lord McCluskey: Perhaps I may say in supplement of that that it is vital that we have an answer. The one thing that we cannot do is to summon the Secretary of State to the Bar of the House and say to him, "The Lord Advocate won't tell us. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, hasn't been seen within the walls for some considerable time, so will you kindly tell us?" We cannot do that. The Lord Advocate is the Government when he stands at the Dispatch Box and he must answer that question.
It is vital that the noble and learned Lord should answer it for this reason: the question was put repeatedly to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who happens to be a member of the Cabinet as well as a member of the Government, and he declined to give the answer. He speculated for all kinds of reasons which one can follow through. It is an interesting pursuit. But the House is entitled to know the answer. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is not prepared to give it on this amendment and if he needs time to read what is coming to him from the worried-looking officials who are sitting in the background I shall give him time because we shall return to the matter in relation to other amendments. The Committee is entitled to have an answer from him.
Lord Ackner: Perhaps my noble and learned friend will bear in mind the fact that the present situation carries with it a rather unattractive innuendo. South of the Border, the layman who has achieved rights of advocacy is apparently fit to obtain judicial office for an unexplained reason. A similar layman north of the Border, having achieved rights of advocacy, is not fit. There must be some explanation for that.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I can only say yet again that, on these matters, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is entitled to take policy decisions that affect Scotland alone. He does not have to decide to follow what is being done in England any more than my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, in introducing his legislation, had to follow what was being taken on board in Scotland.
It has been the decision of the my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that, although he is prepared to put forward a scheme, subject to all the safeguards that we shall discuss in due course, so that such lay persons may have rights of audience, he does not consider it appropriate to permit them to take that final step and sit as Senators of the College of Justice. The noble and learned Lord may think that there is less than completeness in the driven logic of the situation. But the fact of the matter is that he has not taken that step.
If I appear slightly startled, it is because, as I understand it, that is exactly what the noble and learned Lord would consider is the position that my right honourable friend should adopt. I do not think that I can elaborate on it other than to say that the noble and learned Lord asked me one question which I do not think I have answered; namely, that about the members of the College of Justice. Yes, if they have rights of audience in the Court of Session, it would follow that they become members of the College of Justice.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has raised the spectre of what he calls, I think, five ex-bare-footed pleaders sitting in this House judging a Scottish case. It is a very interesting thought. I do not think that the question has been answered. I must say I had not thought about it until I heard the noble and learned Lord raising the point, if that is what he was raising.
If it comes as a novel proposition to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, will he go back to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and try to exercise some influence on him about that situation? It is perhaps a pretty frightening prospect.
Lord Eraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may briefly respond to that. No. If there are those who become Members of this House and sit on appeals that come from Scotland, it has never been the practice to look behind their elevation to the highest court in the land to discover whether or not they have had any experience either as judges or as pleaders which would help them to decide upon the law of Scotland. The opposite also holds true. I find the prospect of five of those so-called barefooters sitting in judgment in this House a little on the fanciful side, shall I say? However, if they have, by their experience and abilities, come all the way up through the courts to sit here in the highest court, it does not seem to me as a Scots lawyer that I should look behind that experience and ability.
Lord Emslie: I should like to ask a question. Perhaps I did not hear what the noble and learned Lord said. Does he intend to tell us that there is anything in this Bill which will make any solicitor who acquires a statutory right of audience a member of the College of Justice? Is he going to suggest that there is anything in this Bill which will make what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, calls a "barefoot lawyer" a member of the College of Justice? The two things are quite distinct. To have a statutory right of audience is one thing; to be a member of the College of Justice is quite another. If he can point out to me anything in this Bill which innovates upon the constitution of the College of Justice, I shall be glad to hear it.
Lord McCluskey: There is one matter that I want to mention. Today is the fourth birthday of my grandson. Occasionally he is a naughty little boy and when I say to him, "Don't do that", he replies, "Why not?" to which I answer, "Because I say so". That is the answer that we keep hearing from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I keep asking, "Why is this being done?" and he says, "Because the Secretary of State decided to do it".
The Committee will note that I have asked this question time after time and have not been given an answer, That is absolutely and totally unsatisfactory. Were it not for the lateness of the hour, I should certainly divide the Committee on this amendment, but I promise that I shall be back again with this matter.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble and learned Lord withdraws his amendment it occurs to me that the government of the day have not included the so-called barefoot pleaders as potential judges because they think that the people of Scotland would prefer it otherwise. They do not think that it would be appropriate. I understood that and that is my feeling.
If the noble and learned Lords, who, if I may say so, have been bullying the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in a most unattractive way, feel that they want barefoot pleaders as judges, they should table an amendment at Report stage and the House will vote on it. I shall probably vote against it but I do not know and I shall listen to the arguments. However, to go on like this is honestly not what the people of Scotland would want. I have a funny feeling that in this instance the Government may well have got the matter right in the view of the people of Scotland.
10.15 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: The noble Baroness intervened while I was technically still on my feet. May I just say that she has given an answer. Surely as a respected Member of this House of many years' standing she must agree with what I say, that the answer as to why the Government are acting as they are ought to come from the Government. It should not be left to Back Benchers.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have said now repeatedly in this extended debate that the Secretary of State considers that it is not appropriate. He is the policy Minister in Scotland. I do not think there is anything between what I have said and what the noble Baroness has said.
Lord Emslie: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would answer the question which I put with specific reference to the College of Justice and the potential membership of that college of persons who acquire in one way or the other statutory rights of audience.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I stand corrected. I do not want to develop the point and I can discuss it with the noble and learned Lord later. But I understood that, for example, a solicitor is a Writer to the Signet. Is that person not a member of the College of Justice?
Lord Emslie: It is in the Act of Union.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 230:
Page 24, line 23, leave out ("or other").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is in the names of my noble and learned friends and myself. It is apparent that whoever this barefoot lawyer may be is totally unclear. There is something perhaps to be said, though apparently we get no reason, apart from that the Secretary of State thinks it should be so without telling us why. Surely we are entitled to know what other bodies are in the mind

1083
of the Secretary of State if he thinks it is appropriate that a non-professional other body should have a right of audience. Surely we are entitled to know who they are.
My noble and learned friend at Second Reading suggested some potentials, and I do not want to cramp his style if he wishes to add to the list. But "Any professional or other body" is so imprecise that we are surely entitled to know, if the Government have anybody in mind, at least who that other body might be. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: My reason for putting down this amendment in association with my noble friends was to get answers to certain questions. One of them I asked on Second Reading and I did not get the answer then. But the questions are these, and I hope that it is not bullying to ask the Lord Advocate of Scotland, who holds one of the five great offices of state of Scotland, a question in the House of Lords.
First, which bodies have in Scotland expressed an interest prior to the publication of the Green Paper in having these rights of audience? Secondly, which bodies, if any, suggested these rights of audience? Thirdly, whom does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate have in mind? I understand it to be suggested that possibly patent agents might be such persons.
I introduced into this House and conducted the Committee stage and other stages of the Patents Bill in the late 1970s. At that time what the patent agents wanted to do was to take all the patent work from Scotland to London where they believed it belonged, because there is very little work indeed in Scotland. So I do not know whether the patent agents are the ones that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has in mind.
It has also been suggested that it might be insolvency practitioners. It may be, but in any event I say no more than that both of these are professional bodies. We want to know who are the non-professional bodies that will be given a right to come in as barefoot pleaders. That is what I am interested to know.
But the real deep question, and the one to which I must have an answer at the risk of being accused of bullying, is this. Which body, and in particular which non-professional body, is to be accorded the right to license its members to conduct criminal jury trials in the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland? That is what the Bill permits. It may be that the Lord Advocate has in mind nothing more than that CAB people will appear in the district court or the sheriff summary courts. If that is so, that is what the Bill should say. But who on earth are the people who are to appear as non-lawyers conducting criminal jury trials in the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland?
Lord Grimond: I support the amendment. The provision is extremely widely drawn. It refers to other bodies which are not professional bodies. I do not know whether there is a definition of professional body. The provision may have been inserted because there is no such definition. But as it stands it can
1084
mean a body with no qualifications, with no standards of conduct and with no rules. If that is the case I should like to know why the provision does not say "any body". If any non-professional body can apply for audience, why cannot any person do so?
Lord Morris: I want to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, a question. In the dim and distant past he was a member of a previous government. Am I right to assume that he has given my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate notice of his questions? In the interests of good debate and order, am I right in assuming that he has done so? I sincerely hope that he has.
Lord Renton: The noble and learned Lord is not obliged to.
Lord McCluskey: Whether or not I am obliged to, the answer is, yes, I have. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, attended the Second Reading debate and took part in an earlier debate on this matter. If he reads the report of the Second Reading debate he will find that I asked the specific question; which body does the Lord Advocate have in mind to be able to license its members to conduct criminal jury trials in the High Court of Scotland? I asked that question. The other questions that I have asked are implicit in the amendments to which I have already referred relating to the better administration of justice and to the appointment of laymen to the High Court. These amendments arise later on. They are all connected and that is why I mentioned them.
I should have mentioned one other point. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was Dean of the Faculty of Advocates he addressed himself to this very question. Question 52 asked: is it considered that any existing monopoly should be maintained, and if so, why? On page 83 of the official note of the proceedings, the noble and learned Lord addressed himself to the particular question of whether or not there should belay pleaders. He came to the conclusion that that should not happen. He said in regard to solicitors:
"It is thought that the fact that some solicitors are capable of presenting cases to a high standard does not of itself justify opening the superior courts to the solicitors' profession as a whole".
The conclusion was that the existing monopoly provides a reasonably satisfactory solution. He then went on to consider the specific matter of the lay pleaders and said finally:
"We feel that, having regard to the availability of legal aid, there is no compelling reason for opening lower courts and tribunals to lay representatives. The proper functioning of all judicial bodies does require a basic understanding of the procedure and of relevancy. However hard this might bear on occasional individuals, the overall administration of justice might be seriously imperilled by lay representation".
I repeat that phrase:
"the overall administration of justice might be seriously imperilled by lay representation".
That was the view of the Lord Chancellor when he was Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. That is the view to which he said he still adhered when answering questions in relation to the Courts and Legal Services Bill. This is a matter of great

1085
importance. I am not bullying the Lord Advocate. I am asking proper questions which go to the heart of a Bill of great importance. I hope that that will be acknowledged by the Committee.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The side note to Clause 21 reads:
"Rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience".
That is commendable and I take no objection to the principles outlined. I am aware that lawyers are now being criticised for not being up to the mark in specialist fields such as social security. It is almost impossible for a lawyer to keep up-to-date with all the legislation that is being passed. It may well be that there are bodies, or persons representing them, which are better informed on a factual basis— and sometimes on a legal basis— than are lawyers.
Would it not be better to limit those initially being given the right to conduct litigation to members of a professional body— earlier the noble and learned Lord mentioned accountants— and see how the scheme works when such people obtain the extended rights of audience? If the scheme works— and only time will tell— no doubt other bodies which wish to obtain the right to conduct litigation will make their voices heard if they believe they can do the same as the professional bodies.
The Earl of Selkirk: Anyone who wishes to train can become a member of the Faculty of Advocates. It depends on one's intelligence, ability and so forth. One is putting forward a special class of people, somewhat ill-defined, and saying that they will have special entry. Can we have an explanation of that? Why should certain people at a certain age have special entry? They merely have to present themselves and they can become members of the faculty. Indeed, they can also become solicitors. What then is the advantage.
If the noble and learned Lord reads The Scottish Legal Profession: the Way Forward, a document which was published three or four months ago, he will see that the Secretary of State said that many such ideas came from England. He said that there were other consultations but we do not know with whom. They do not appear to have been with those in Parliament House, although I may be wrongly informed. From where does the inspiration come and who put forward the ideas? We are studying the administration of justice, as is the Secretary of State, and a litle connected logic would not be wholly out of place.
The Earl of Balfour: Before we go much further I wish to draw the Committee's attention to Amendment No. 245A at the top of page 7. I did not want to intervene earlier because it was clear that Amendments Nos. 229 and 230 could be easily incorporated into the new clause. However, shortly I shall become completely lost if we carry on with Amendment No. 231 and others.
The new clause, which will be introduced by my noble and learned friend, will become part of the Bill and whatever discussions we have on the old Clause 21 will not make much sense. I am not fully
1086
familiar with the proceedings of the Committee but it appears that we shall quickly become lost if we talk about new or old Clause 21.
Lord McCluskey: The noble Earl asked a proper question but I differ from him. If we go straight to Amendment No. 245A there is no way in which we can deal with the individual points as is possible if there are individual amendments. We should deal with the clause as a whole and that would be all. The only way in which we can discuss the particular matters is to do so in the way in which they are now set forth. After seeing Clause 21 I deleted those of my amendments which could be dealt with properly in relation to Amendment No. 245A. The only way in which we can deal with individual points in Committee, as distinct from on Report, is to do so in this way. I ask the noble Earl's indulgence.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Eraser of Carmyllie: I readily understand my noble friend's confusion. However, as was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, if a new clause is introduced it is correct that various points which may re-emerge should be discussed at this stage.
Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord that I have sat on the Front Bench while a sort of crossfire has gone over my head. I am not concerned whether or not the noble and learned Lord bullies me. What I am concerned about is that I hold high executive legal office in Scotland and the noble and learned Lord is a serving judge in Scotland and is a senator of the College of Justice. It would be utterly unbecoming of me in my capacity as Lord Advocate to be seen to be either sharp or in political disagreement with the noble and learned Lord. That holds true whether it is in this House or outwith. The proper attitude for me, in a legal context, is deference to a senator of the College of Justice. There may be times, as happened to me the other night, when I resort to silence rather than involving myself in a political battle.
If the noble and learned Lord had been at this Dispatch Box— as he once was and where he served with some distinction— and I had been on the other side, the relationship might have been rather different. Now he is a senator, I treat him with that regard.
This clause is unnecessarily restrictive. I readily accept that if there are to be any bodies coming forward to take up the opportunity provided by Clause 21, I should expect them to come within the classification of being a professional body. Patent agents were mentioned and there may be the possibility— although they have not approached the Secretary of State or myself— that accountants see that there are certain areas of law in which they can act as may be the case with insolvency practitioners, and so on.
I emphasised— and I say this to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk— that the powers given here to acquire rights of audience are not only in relation to the Court of Session or the sheriff court or the High Court. They could also be rights of audience which do not exist at present to appear in the lower courts.

1087
I have in mind particularly the sheriff court. The only group of persons of which I can think which might explain my standing here is that there has been a tentative approach made to the Secretary of State from those persons who have a great deal to do with the law of adoption. As the noble and learned Lord will appreciate, where adoption matters are dealt with in the sheriff court, they are not dealt with in an adversarial pleading fashion but in a rather different manner as the best interests of the child are properly considered.
It may be that such a group of persons could very satisfactorily provide a good service in the sheriff court. They may not happily fall into the description of a professional body and that is why the word "other" is allowed for.
While there is not a long list of those who wish to come forward, it is difficult to elaborate on it. However, it is for that reason that it goes wider than "professional body". Thus, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, rather strayed into discussion of his Amendment No. 231. Where the word "natural" is used, that is a term of legislative art which makes the distinction between an individual person and a body corporate which may also be described in a statute as a person. The word "proper" as proposed in his amendment does not make the same distinction and therefore would not be an appropriate replacement.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 231:
Page 24, line 24, leave out ("natural") and insert ("proper").
The noble Lord said: In view of what the Lord Advocate has already said, I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 231 not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 232:
Page 24, line 25, leave out ("members of the public") and insert ("other members of that body").
The noble and learned Lord said: I repeat that this amendment is not to be moved on the ground that we can look at this matter when we come to look at the new clause.
[Amendment No. 232 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 233 not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 234:
Page 24, line 35, at end insert—
(" (v) what is to happen if in the course of the proceedings there are raised matters of law in relation to which neither membership of such a body nor the training referred to in paragraph (b) hereof confers any knowledge or expertise, ").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment raises a point of which I gave notice to the Lord Advocate at Second Reading. I trust that he has had plenty of time to produce an appropriate answer. The point is a fairly straightforward one which any lawyer can understand, but it is also not difficult for anyone else to understand.
The point is that one might have a situation in which a person is very well skilled, for example in relation to an insolvency or patent case, and so becomes qualified to act in relation to proceedings of that particular type. He comes into court and finds that the defence which is raised is nothing to do with that branch of the law in which he has special skills; it is in relation to fraud or something of that kind. I have a number of examples from the insolvency and bankruptcy Acts, but at this time of night I will not go into them in detail.
I do not suggest that this amendment is technically sound— it is no doubt technically highly deficient— but my point is that there has to be some way of dealing with the situation which arises when a person, having been allowed to practise in a limited class of proceedings, comes forward and finds himself faced with legal questions which his training does not qualify him to deal with. That is my point, and I should be interested in the answer.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble and learned Lord's amendment is defective in that it does not have a question mark at the end of it. I appreciate that there are groups of specialists who wish to have rights of audience and that surrounding that area of specialisation other legal issues may arise.
There are two answers to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord. First, if a body came forward with its eye on a specific narrow range of legal work, when the Lord President looked at the scheme proposed I envisage he would expect it to show an expertise in the surrounding areas of law, not only in the one at the core of its interest.
Secondly, there are clearly difficulties from time to time. However, it would be vain and foolish to pretend, particularly in the present day, that lawyers are competent and confident in every area of law. There may be times when they encounter difficulties and need to get out of appearing in a particular case.
That is all I can say. If for example, I go back to my adoption law proposal, it is unlikely in such circumstances that those who appear would need expertise in patent law. From what the noble and learned Lord said, however, I am sure that there are areas where one needs to know a bit more than the core subject. That matter can be properly dealt with in any scheme prepared.
Lord McCluskey: It is a pity that I did not go into the details of the insolvency and bankrupty Acts in order to illustrate my point. Those Acts contain provisions which make certain things a criminal offence. In this Bill an insolvency practitioner may perhaps appear as an advocate in a criminal court dealing with insolvency matters. I could give example after example of circumstances in which he may appear for the defence in a case of alleged breach of one of the sections of those Acts and find that he was simply unable to deal with the matters, which fall totally outwith his training and experience.
It is an astonishing answer that the Lord Advocate gives, that the only body which has expressed an interest— I take it that is since the publication of the Green Paper— is a body connected with adoption in

1089
the sheriff court. If that is the position, why on earth are we conferring these rights in civil and criminal courts, right up to the highest courts in the land, on all kinds of people none of whom has expressed an interest? I am disappointed but I do not propose to pursue the matter at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 234A:
Page 24, line 38, after ("training") insert ("and educational").
The noble Lord said: This is a short amendment and I should have thought that its purpose was obvious. Unless a person is properly educated he cannot be trained. It would perhaps partly answer the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on his previous amendment as to how the professional body, or member of it, can be gauged as having the requisite educational requirements. This would, of course, cover training in the law relating to his particular expertise. At least it will go some way towards meeting the problem posed by the noble and learned Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: While I have some sympathy with the amendment— I hope this is not too small a point to take— with great respect I think education should come before training.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Subsection (2) (b) (i) already makes clear that any application submitted under this clause would require details of the training requirements which the body would impose upon its members if it were to be successful. I therefore suggest that the first two of these amendments are unnecessary. The word "training" here is not confined to "practical training" and is therefore wide enough to encompass the acquisition of knowledge as well as skills.
In this respect we have a difference from the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, Section 5 of which refers both to "practical training" and to "education". Because of the unqualified reference to "training" there is no need to refer here to "education". Amendments Nos. 234C and 234D would likewise add little.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that answer. To reply to the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I made the point that a person has to be educated before he can be trained. If the amendment were to be taken on board, that could be corrected.
I am not happy with the answer given by the noble and learned Lord but I do not propose to press the amendment. I should also have discussed Amendment No. 234B, to which the noble and learned Lord also replied, but in view of the lateness of the hour I do not intend to take up the time of the Committee on that matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 234B to 234D not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: I call Amendment No. 235. If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 236.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 235:
Page 25, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
The noble and learned Lord said: I can be brief on this amendment. The Committee will see that subsection (3) empowers the Secretary of State to regulate,
"such other matters as may be prescribed by [him] ".
I believe that to be a classic example of what was frequently referred to in the Courts and Legal Services Bill as a Henry VIII clause. We are giving the Secretary of State power to do we know not what.
I do not know why that power is there. I do not believe it is the practice of this Chamber to accord such powers to the Secretary of State unless he tells us what they are for. I am anxious to hear from the Lord Advocate what powers are covered by those words. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The purpose of the amendment is either to remove entirely the power given to the Secretary of State under subsection (3) to prescribe in regulations further matters to be included in any draft scheme submitted by an applicant body under this clause, or to pass the responsibility for so prescribing to the Lord President. The Committee will readily appreciate that to remove this power entirely would be a potentially dangerous step.
The list of matters to be included in any draft scheme is not exhaustive and it is important that the Secretary of State should have a long stop power to add further requirements should circumstances develop in such a fashion as to demand this. I cannot accept that the court would be an appropriate body to exercise this task, since the breadth of the court's responsibilities cannot be compared with those of the Secretary of State. For instance, I return to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. If there were problems about training and if questions of education arose, it might be appropriate for the Secretary of State, by way of regulation, to include such matters.
Lord McCluskey: I shall study that answer in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 235A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
10.45 p.m.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 236:
Page 25, line 15, leave out from ("the") to end of line 16 and insert ("the Court by Act of Sederunt or by Act of Adjournal").
The noble and learned Lord said: Members of the Committee will see that what is proposed here is that the draft scheme submitted under this clause is to include proposals
"in relation to such other matters as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State".
My noble and learned friend Lord Emslie and I have put our names to this amendment. The prescription

1091
should be by the Court of Session, that is to say, the judges, by Act of Sederunt or, as the case may be, by Act of Adjournal. If these matters are to be of importance they should certainly be regulated, along with the Secretary of State, by the Lord President and the other judges. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I thought that we were addressing this matter when speaking to the last amendment.
Lord McCluskey: Perhaps I have not made myself plain. I did beg to move Amendment No. 236 which stands in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Emslie. That is the amendment that I have spoken to; it is also the amendment that I moved.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: In answering Amendment No. 235 moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate made reference to subsequent amendments which have not been moved at the moment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble and learned Lord said that he would read what I had said in relation to the last amendment. I had covered what I thought we were dealing with in a coupled fashion; namely, his Amendment No. 236.
Lord McCluskey: Perhaps one of the reasons why matters are becoming somewhat unsatisfactory is that we had understood that proceedings were to end at 10.45 p.m. A number of other Members of the Committee have retired in that belief. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 25, line 16, at end insert:
(( ) "The Lord President shall have power to engage such additional staff as he considers necessary for the performance of his duties under this section.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I understood that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would deal with this matter and we spoke about it earlier. The point is a general one. The wording of the clause is perhaps unsatisfactory, but the meaning is plain. Clauses 20 to 22 place additional responsibilities on the Lord President. My noble and learned friend Lord Emslie was going to deal with this matter because, having been Lord President for 17½ years, he could speak with some feeling on the fact that his staff consists of one typist. He has the assistance of two part-time counsel who assist in the drawing up of rules, the regulation of fees and other matters of that kind. He is to be given a great many additional responsibilities as regards all these matters. It is very important that the Government should recognise that. We should get some undertaking from the Government.
The other point is that, in giving that undertaking, I ask the Lord Advocate to indicate to what extent
1092
he believes that there will be additional work involved. In other words, does he think that there will be such a demand from professional and other bodies for schemes of this kind and for rights of audience under this clause that extra staff will be required by the Lord President? If the noble and learned Lord does not think that, then what is it all about?
Lord Grimond: While I agree with the purpose of the amendment, is it customary to embody such provision in legislation? I never remember seeing anything like it before in an Act. Does the Secretary of State not have power to authorise the Lord President to have the staff and expenses necessary for carrying out an Act of Parliament?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I rise briefly to support the amendment. In so doing I draw attention to the fact that in Schedule 1, paragraph 8, in setting up the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board, it is said that,
"The Board may employ such officers and servants as they think fit, on such terms as to remuneration and conditions of service as the Board may determine".
We find a similar provision in relation to the ombudsman in Schedule 2, paragraph 10, although it is the Secretary of State who appoints the staff there. It seems to me that the Lord President is being put in the position notionally— it may not work out that way— of setting up another department equivalent to the board or the ombudsman. It would be only fair in order to take the burden off the shoulders of an individual that he should be allowed to consider whether extra staff are necessary to carry out the legislation imposed.
Lord Renton: On a financial matter of this kind one would expect to find some reference in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum under the heading "Financial and manpower effects of the Bill". Although the extra cost expected under various other clauses is mentioned, there is no mention of the extra cost to the Secretary of State, the Director General of Fair Trading or indeed the Lord President as a result of the two clauses which the noble and learned Lord mentioned, namely, Clauses 20 and 21, which will establish a very considerable administration.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The amendment seeks to provide the Lord President with a power that he simply does not need. I accept that the duties imposed on the Lord President by this Bill may give rise to further work for his office. He does not, however, need a power in primary statute to engage additional staff, presumably at some cost. That may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, appreciates, a rather startling idea. If, however, the Lord President feels that it is necessary, he can approach the Secretary of State, who is responsible under the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933 for the appointment of staff of the Lord President's private office, and that has to come from general taxation. However, I think that it would be an undesirable precedent to give the Lord President a power in this way.

1093
Perhaps I may also repeat that, with regard to Clause 21, in view of what has been said to the Lord President about commencement, I hope that any extra work that is imposed upon him will at least be levelled out.
Lord McCluskey: That is a satisfactory answer. I am happy to accept it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 237A:
Page 25, line 16, at end insert:
(" (3A) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made under this section make provision

(a) requiring applications under subsection (1) above to be adverlised;

(b) for draft schemes to be published or otherwise made available for inspection by members of the public; and

(c) for the making and consideration of objections or representations by members of the public or interested bodies.").

The noble Lord said: This is an amendment to ensure that the Secretary of State shall, by regulations, make provision for applications under this section to be properly advertised and published so that the members of the public can give the Secretary of State their views on the nature of the application. It may be that some members of the public might have more knowledge about the matter and about the individuals involved than the Secretary of State or anyone else. It is an amendment made in the interests of the public and public involvement and indeed to promote a public interest in the clause.
This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 242B, the purpose of which is to ensure that having advertised and received representations in accordance with the regulations proposed under the new clause, the Secretary of State will take the public response, if any, into account in making a decision.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. There is some risk that in the way it is approached it might appear that a scheme is being approved in a somewhat clandestine manner. Obviously it is not our intention to do that. Nor would it be our intention to set up a too elaborate arrangement or set of complicated duties with regard to intimation, advertisement and the like. We certainly would not want a measure such as one finds frequently under such legislation as the town and country planning provisions. However, I understand why there might be a desirability to have some intimation, perhaps to such bodies as the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society. I should be grateful if the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment and let me take it away for further consideration.
Lord McCluskey: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may say that we shall shortly come to some amendments which will take
1094
me a considerable time to develop if we deal with them tonight. Accordingly I am happy to say that I support the principle of this amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: In putting the amendment forward I was not suggesting that there was anything clandestine in the actions of the Government. I am happy with the answer that has been given by the noble and learned Lord and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 237B not moved.]
Lord Emslie Lord Emslie had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 237C:
Page 25, line 43, at end insert:
(" (c) in determining whether or not to approve any such scheme the paramount consideration to which the Lord President shall have regard is whether or not the acquisition and exercise by such persons of such rights would, in his opinion, be likely to further the administration of justice".).
Lord McCluskey: Perhaps the Lord Chairman of Committees could assist me. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, has left the Chamber because he wished to catch the train back to Edinburgh tonight. He understood that this matter would probably not be reached because the Committee was likely to rise. That does not matter because he intimated to me that he was quite content that the amendment should not be proceeded with since the same matter is covered by Amendment No. 239. We can deal with Amendments Nos. 237C and 238 quite quickly but certainly not Amendment No. 239.
[Amendment No. 237C not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 238:
Page 25, leave out lines 45 and 46.
The noble and learned Lord said: I do not propose to move this amendment because it does not appear in the new clause. Therefore there is no point in discussing it.
[Amendment No. 238 not moved.]
Lord McCluskey: I intend to move Amendment No. 239 if the Committee continues to sit.
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.

Nottingham Park Estate Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes before eleven o'clock.

  HOMELESSNESS
  HOMELESSNESS
  HERITAGE ORGANISATIONS: GRANTS
  HERITAGE ORGANISATIONS: GRANTS