Sitting of 1 May 1990

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

    Out-patients
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of out-patients currently being treated by the National Health Service; and how many were treated in 1979.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): In the calendar year 1979, some 7·7 million new out-patients attended NHS hospitals in England. In the year ended 31 March 1989 the equivalent figure was 8·4 million.
    Mr. Thompson: Do not those figures give the lie to continual talk about cuts and financial difficulties in the Health Service? Can my hon. Friend confirm that in the Norwich health authority area 60,000 more outpatients were treated in 1989 than in 1979—an increase of 25 per cent.? Is that not a good record of which Norwich health authority and the Government can be proud?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right, and I confirm his figures. For the country as a whole, real expenditure on out-patient services has increased by 26 per cent. in the past 10 years.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures clearly illustrate that the massive sums spent by the Government have reduced waiting lists and, in real terms, have allowed many more patients to be treated? That is surely what the Health Service is about, and we must continue to get better and more efficient use of the vast sums of money that are put in.
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Most hon. Members would agree that we can do even better in terms of service in out-patient departments, particularly appointment times. In December last year, the Department of Health issued a report recommending how out-patient waiting times can and should be reduced to give a better appointment system.

    General Practitioners
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current level of general practitioners' remuneration; and what it was in 1979.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): From 1 April 1990, the intended average net remuneration
    880
    for general practitioners will be £33,280 and the average reimbursement of expenses £42,843. On 1 January 1991, the figure for remuneration will rise to £34,680. The corresponding levels of remuneration and expenses in 1979 were £12,830 and £11,355 respectively.
    Mr. Marshall: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the British Medical Association, will he suggest that it gives publicity to those figures, which are responsible for the fact that we now have more general practitioners than ever and the average GP patient list is shorter than ever?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall put my hon. Friend's excellent suggestion to the BMA when I next meet it. It is certainly the case that the number of GPs in this country has gone up by almost one fifth and lists have become much shorter while the Government have been in power. I expect that the number of GPs will continue to rise because of the attractive figures that I have described, and that lists will continue to fall.
    Mr. Spearing: In respect of future remuneration of GPs, is the Secretary of State aware of the anomaly produced by the Jarman indices? Is he aware that in future GPs in the London borough of Newham are scheduled to receive different additional payments in relation to the wards in which their consulting rooms are located? He must surely know that ward boundaries, in his constituency and elsewhere, are arbitrary and that a GP's patients will not necessarily live in an adjacent ward. Will he look at what appears to be an arbitrary and unsatisfactory system for an area which is greatly in need of medical services?
    Mr. Clarke: I am keen on the idea of increasing remuneration for those GPs who work in deprived districts, particularly inner city areas. I am glad that I reached agreement with the BMA on that subject. We have agreed that we should apply the Jarman index, but in applying it, it is inevitable that once boundaries are drawn some GPs will be disappointed if they are just the wrong side of them. We have introduced a significant extra incentive to GPs to give the higher levels of service required by people in deprived districts. I shall keep the operation of the arrangements under review, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be excellent if more members of the public realised that general practitioners are so well paid? However, will he bear in mind the problem for some GPs with the immunisation bonus payments, which require four separate actions for the child and unless all four are completed the GP will not be deemed to have carried out the treatment?
    Mr. Clarke: The public should be aware that GPs are well paid, and I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it is right that they should be. No one has ever sought to interfere with that. Our new arrangements carefully spell out, for the first time, what we expect the best practices to deliver and how they will be paid for the best levels of service. It is true that immunisation targets will be met only when full immunisation has been given; otherwise, the child would not be properly protected. I am confident that the targets will be achieved by GPs, although I am the

    881
    first to acknowledge that it involves considerable hard work and application by a practice to achieve the higher targets that we have laid down.

    Residential Homes
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals requiring the disclosure of criminal convictions by persons who are, or intend to become, proprietors, managers or care staff in private residential or nursing homes.
    Mr. Stott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals requiring the disclosure of criminal convictions by persons who are, or intend to become, proprietors, managers or care staff in private residential or nursing homes.
    The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Registering authorities should ask an applicant for registration to provide details of any previous criminal convictions. We plan to strengthen that by requiring applicants to declare previous criminal convictions when the regulations made under the Registered Homes Act 1984 are next revised.
    Mr. Turner: That appears to be progress. It is clear that hon. Members and many people outside the House do not understand why there are different criteria—that which applies to children's homes and those who work in them and that which applies to the elderly and the handicapped. They are all vulnerable groups and they need protection. I hope that what the Minister has said will be enacted quickly.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am most sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman has said. We are already having discussions with the Home Office. He will be aware that work has started to ensure that criminal records are available for those in the public sector who look after children. There is a new development in voluntary child care, which will be an additional area of activity.
    Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend knows that anxiety about criminal records is felt on both sides of the House. Does she agree that a valuable step in controlling that sort of abuse will come from both the operation of contracts and the work of care managers? Does she further agree that if that is done properly it should make a big difference?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable about these matters. There is no doubt that our community care proposals will enhance the safeguards for individuals who are the subjects of community care—not only the contracts, but making complaints procedures freely available. Those additional safeguards for the frail and the vulnerable, whom we all seek to help, have been written into the Bill.
    Ms. Harman: Is the Minister aware of the case of Olive Wareing, who is in prison for the latest in a string of criminal convictions against elderly people in her care in old people's homes? Does the Minister share my concern that when Olive Wareing leaves prison she can set up an old people's home again and avoid registration provided that there are fewer than three residents in her care? Will the Minister act to plug that dangerous loophole in the law?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady frequently mentions names in her questions. The name in the minds of many Conservative Members is Nye Bevan lodge. Whether in the public or the private sectors, standards must be maintained and protected. As the hon. Lady well knows, during our discussions on the Bill we sought to find a way to introduce controls over smaller homes which did not come within the scope of the Bill. We have made it clear that we are seeking a legislative opportunity to ensure that there is some control over the smaller residential homes.
    Mr. John Greenway: May I refer my hon. Friend to the report that the Select Committee on Home Affairs published last week about the National Identification Bureau? The report makes a number of recommendations to improve the availability of criminal records, which is rather haphazard at present—there certainly seems to be no uniform policy. No doubt my hon. Friend will wish to discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary just how those proposals could help to monitor those who have access to individuals, whether through care homes or in any other part of the Health Service, particularly those dealing with children and elderly people? Will she also take care to ensure that, whatever standards are set, the private sector is not discriminated against?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I shall certainly study the report to see what further progress can be made. Those responsible for frail and vulnerable people are concerned that such people should be protected. Those responsible for them are in a position of trust. I fully endorse my hon. Friends comments. We seek a mixed economy of care whether in the private, public or voluntary sector. We want high standards of care, with dignity and choice for the elderly.

    NHS Reform
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the total estimated costs of the opting-out submissions made for the National Health Service hospitals; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Applications for NHS trust status will not be invited until Parliament has given approval to the necessary legislation. We have made no estimate of the cost of preparing such applications.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Secretary of Health accept that people will regard it as an outrage if a single pound is spent on opting-out submissions, particularly in areas such as Bradford, which has the highest infant mortality rate in the Yorkshire region. If the Minister is so confident about the opting-out process as the first step to towards privatisation, why does he not hold a ballot in Bradford and other areas? Why does he collaborate with serville administrators who are the enemy within the National Health Service led by the Minister as chief saboteur?
    Mr. Clarke: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will try to get the public to feel a sense of outrage about almost anything that happens in the Health Service in Bradford, but I do not recognise his description of current events. I am pleased that he has turned his mind to the possible deficiencies and weaknesses in the standard of care provided in Bradford at the moment. I hope that he will give his support to all those local people in Bradford

    883
    who want to address them and that he will support anybody in Bradford who thinks that being given more local control over how they tackle the problems might improve things.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that none of the real benefits of self-governing trust status will materialise without a clear commitment for regional health authorities to produce speedy and workable plans for weighted capitation? Will he give them a clear message that there must be no room for backsliding or fudging because money travelling with the patient is the essence of those reforms?
    Mr. Clarke: We are committed to ensuring that money is placed in the hands of the districts according to the number of their population adjusted for the age and propensity to sickness of that population. We will have to phase in progress to that end to make sure that there is no disruption of the system. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that as from next year, districts such as his own will receive funds on the basis of what they are now spending on their service—which, not surprisingly, is the basis of the present allocation. I am pleased to hear that in Hertfordshire people are now considering how they could use that money to improve the service further. I am sure that GPs, patients and others will be thinking about how to use the funds allocated to them on the new basis.
    Mr. Battle: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Leeds, West, where the community health council balloted the staff at the Leeds General infirmary on proposals for opting out, nine out of 10 voted against the proposals? Now that the proposals have been widened to include other hospitals and institutions in Leeds, West, and detailed plans have been put forward, will he assure me and the House that there will be a full ballot of staff and people in the area before those proposals are taken a step further?
    Mr. Clarke: If the staff are given a description of NHS trust status which makes their blood run cold and their hair stand on end, one tends to find that in a subsequent ballot nine out of 10 say that they are against it. Ballots of that kind remind me of "Beyond the Fringe", many years ago, in which one of those who took part said that when they balloted people on whether they wanted their wives and kiddies fried to a frizzle in a nuclear holocaust 90 per cent. said no, 5 per cent. said yes, and 5 per cent. did not know. Such ballots do not add to public understanding of our Health Service reforms.
    Mr. McCrindle: Would it not be a helpful if the first task of the newly recruited public relations adviser to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State were to take steps to persuade the general public and, apparently, some Members of Parliament that the term "opting out" is a misnomer and that in no circumstances will hospitals which choose to take part, be operating outside the National Health Service?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not have a public relations adviser and I do not intend to have one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I shall continue to tackle the problem of explaining the NHS reforms to the public myself. The difficulty, which is not encountered in the commercial world is that the public are constantly being given counter-explanations by those who make sensational statements about opting out and
    884
    what it might mean. When we come to the reality and people can look at local plans put forward by local doctors, nurses and managers, we can have a sensible debate about what NHS trust status might do to improve the Health Service in many areas, including possilbly Bradford and Leeds.

    Hospital Closures, Sheffield
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the chairman of Trent regional health authority to discuss hospital closures in Sheffield.
    Mr. Freeman: Ministers will meet the chairman of all the English regional health authorities, including Trent, at the next regional meeting in May.
    Mr. Duffy: When Ministers meet the chairman will they ask him how he defends Sheffield's preferred overall pattern of acute hospital services for the future, which does not take into account bed requirements and will undoubtedly lead to the closure of two support hospitals? Will the Minister also ask the chairman about future demand for beds for the elderly and the possibility of future major accidents?
    Mr. Freeman: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has said, from next year we shall begin the process of funding district health authorities on the basis of weighted capitation. Therefore, over a period of years there will be a fair allocation between different parts of the country—for example, between Sheffield and Sevenoaks. As I understand it, there are not yet any formal proposals for Sheffield. There is merely a plan. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if specific proposals are made, to which the community health council has objections, and if those objections are maintained by the regional health authority, the proposals will be brought to Ministers and the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to put his view directly.
    Mr. Sayeed: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the revenue of Trent regional health authority has once again increased faster than inflation? Would he care to compare that with what happened to the health authority under the Labour Government?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that the total increase for hospital services in the current year is about 8·5 per cent. in cash terms. In real terms the increase in funding for the National Health Service in the past 10 years is about 40 per cent. Every region in the country has benefited from increased expenditure this year. Every region has benefited from a real terms increase.

    Community Care
    Mr. Morley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the funding arrangements for local authority community care.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We have received many representations about the new arrangements for funding community care outlined in our White Paper "Caring for People".
    Mr. Morley: Is the Minister satisfied that the concept of community care is being implemented in our communities when local government is suffering from the imposition of the poll tax and in many instances bizarre calculations of the standard spending assessment have been made? The SSAs do not take into account local needs in areas with large numbers of elderly people. Elderly people have particular problems in terms of mental illness. Is the Minister aware that in some areas local hospitals have had to turn away people with mental problems who need mental care because the facilities for them are not adequate due to lack of funding? Will the Minister ensure that the necessary funding and commitment is given? We want action and results, not promises.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Many local authorities are making good progress in drawing up their plans for care in the community. We are having discussions with the local authority associations about the precise nature of the funding which will be required when those plans come into effect.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that Inward, which does admirable work in my constituency for ex-drug users, is worried about the new funding rate? I have written to my hon. Friend today about that. Can she do something to ensure that the valuable and unglamorous work that that organisation does is not in any way frustrated?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I should like to reassure my hon. Friend that many voluntary organisations which over many years have had a precarious financial base, will have their position safeguarded under the community care plans. Not only will the district health authority have to look to the health needs of the local population, but the local authority, in drawing up its community care plans, will need to see how especially needy groups can have their needs met. If my hon. Friend has any further difficulties, no doubt we can discuss the matter further.
    Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister list for the House those organisations which support the Goverments's stance not to ring-fence money for community care?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am unable to list them at this moment, but I will let the hon. Gentleman have a reply. The key point about ring fencing is that it essentially undermines local accountability. I hope that the hon. Gentleman wants to see that the money set aside for community care is put to good effect. Local authorities have well safeguarded their personal social services spending over the years. It has risen by 38 per cent. I do not believe that one needs to undermine the basic principle of local Government accountability to achieve the end that we both share.

    Nurses and Midwives
    Mr. Bright: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses and midwives there are in the National Health Service now; and how many there were in 1979.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: At 30 September 1988, there were 403,900 whole-time equivalent nursing and midwifery staff in the National Health Service in England. The comparable figure for September 1979 was 358,400
    886
    whole-time equivalents. That is an increase of 12·7 per cent. The increase in qualified staff over the same period was 26 per cent.
    Mr. Bright: Does my hon. Friend agree that, once again, those figures nail the lie that the Government are making cuts in the National Health Service? Is it not also a fact that since 1979 the average nurse's pay has risen by about 43 per cent. in real terms?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend, as ever, is extremely well informed. I can confirm those figures. Once again, they are a clear indication of the Government's support for the Health Service. I can inform my hon. Friend further that in inner London, for example, a top-grade sister is now earning £17,000—50 per cent. more than she would have done 10 years ago.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister recall her own parliamentary answers to me which showed that there was a bigger increase in the number of nurses and doctors in five years of the previous Labour Government than there has been in 10 years of this Government? Is not the achievement on which she is inviting the House to congratulate the Government the achievement of having managed to more than halve the rates of increase in both professions?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I find it surprising that the hon. Gentleman should wish to draw attention to his own record in Government when those very nurses—my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) referred to their considerable pay increase of 43 per cent.—saw their pay fall by 21 per cent. under the Labour Government.

    Day Patients
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of day patients being treated annually by the National Health Service; and how many were treated in 1979.
    Mr. Freeman: Between 1979 and 1988–89 there was an increase in day-case admissions for England—from about 600,000 to just over 1 million, representing a 70 per cent. increase.
    Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that in the Kingston and Esher district health authority, which covers part of my constituency, the increase has been getting even better? During the past two years, the surgical day unit has treated 20 per cent. more patients, and last year it dealt with 5,431 patients. Is that not a sign of increasing efficiency in the unit which bodes well for the work of the NHS trust project team?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. An increase in day surgery is good for patients because they appreciate the chance to have their operations done more quickly and perhaps less invasively, and it is good for the National Health Service because the resources needed to care for the patient coming in for day surgery are clearly fewer. Many hon. Members and their families may have cause to be thankful for day surgery in the coming years—especially, for example, for cataracts, grommets for their children or female sterilisation, three operations now performed by day surgery but which hitherto required a long in-patient stay.
    Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend accept that day care represents a cost-effective way of delivering more care to more patients more quickly, provided only—perhaps my hon. Friend can confirm that this is so—that there has been no decrease, but rather an increase, in the number of patients who have been admitted to hospital for operations and other treatment?
    Mr. Freeman: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. There has been an improvement in day surgery figures and out-patients and ward attenders—those who go to a ward for minor surgical treatment—have also increased in number, as have in-patients coming in for longer stays. The average length of stay is decreasing, and that is good for patients and for the National Health Service.

    Internal Contracts
    Mr. Conway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the National Health Service has any experience of the use of internal contracts.
    Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what experience there has been of internal contracts within the National Health Service.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The recent document "Contracts for Health Services: Operating Contracts", which is in the Library, contains examples of contracts between NHS bodies. Most come from various district health authority pilot projects supported by my Department to prepare for the implementation of our reforms of the National Health Service. They demonstrate how contracts will benefit patients by specifying the services and quality of care to be provided.
    Mr. Conway: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. As most health authorities have experience of internal contracts, is not it nonsense to suggest that the schemes are untested? Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that he will not delay his reforms until all the pilot schemes have been implemented?
    Mr. Clarke: A clear majority of authorities have experience of contracting with various bodies; the figure is well over 60 per cent. There are some established and running internal contracts. For example, the contract between Harefield hospital and South Glamorgan, has run without controversy for some time. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must continue to pilot contracting by continuing to finance the work being undertaken at present so that we can be ready by April next year. There is no case for delay because active preparation is well advanced.
    Mr. Page: But does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the National Health Service is not necessarily the swiftest organisation to take on board new ideas and bring them into practice? A number of authorities are slightly concerned that a blockbuster approach may be used. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a simple and more evolutionary approach would be better in the introduction of this method, and would benefit patients?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I reassure him that we have been urging a simple and evolutionary approach on health authorities since last summer. We
    888
    expect the majority of health authorities to begin with block contracts with straightforward specifications of what they want. We envisage that health authorities, hospitals and GPs will begin by getting their existing pattern of referral of patients in place within the contract system. Thereafter, they will know what they will spend on each part of the service and what quality they are getting and they can work together to make the system more sophisticated and improve the quality of care that they give to patients.
    Mr. Redmond: Does the Secretary of State accept that the National Health Service is far too important for the same mess to be made of it as the Government have made with the poll tax? Before he spends one penny on training staff, will he ensure that the public have the chance to have their say through the ballot box, or is he frightened of democracy?
    Mr. Clarke: I certainly agree that the National Health Service is far too important for us to make a mess of reforms intended to improve it, although I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comparison. We certainly do riot intend to make a mess of the National Health Service reforms. The answer lies in the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page). There will not be a sudden transformation of the world next April or a blockbuster change to the system. We shall have improvements for which everyone has worked and prepared. Thereafter, we shall see steady improvements throughout the 1990s, as the benefits of better management work their way into the service and we concentrate on quality.
    I am all in favour of consulting at every stage—for example, over the National Health Service trusts—but I do not think that the rather foolish local ballots being organised by the trade unions and the Labour party are helping to explain the issues or allay public concern.
    Mr. Kennedy: Does the Secretary of State agree that if he is to push ahead with the contracts, everybody will want to judge how well they are operating, and that a key factor in making that judgment will be the flow of information available which will depend heavily on the ability of hospitals and health authorities to introduce proper and full computerisation? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore pay heed to the point that I have raised with him before—that many people in the National Health Service are saying that the money and time required to computerise to the level of sophistication necessary to monitor the system and make it work as the Government want it to are not available?
    Mr. Clarke: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Health Service needs to be computerised and that it needs information systems to enable everyone concerned to run it better. That would have been needed whether or not we reformed the Health Service and it will take some years to achieve a good up-to-date level of information systems.
    However, I do not accept that we cannot start the process of reform until we have completed that investment. The experience of contracting was not based on modern information systems. We are allocating a lot of money to update those systems, but we can begin with the basic contracting system next year on the basis of the

    889
    information that we already have. We can start it simple and then sophisticate it afterwards as the information systems come along.

    Royal Colleges of Medicine
    Mr. Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the royal colleges of medicine; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On 4 April, I met representatives of the medical royal colleges along with representatives from the dental, midwifery and nursing royal colleges to discuss ways of safeguarding and securing improvements in clinical standards for National Health Service patients after the introduction of our NHS reforms in April next year.
    Mr. Burt: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that he dug the first turf at the new general hospital in Bury a few years ago, thereby demonstrating his and the Government's commitment to high quality and good service in the NHS? When does he think that the royal colleges will finally realise that that same determination for quality and service runs through the health reforms that my right hon. and learned Friend is pursuing? When does he think that they will finally welcome some of the quality initiatives that we have taken instead of being so keen to criticise?
    Mr. Clarke: I well remember turning the first sod in my hon. Friend's constituency and I still have the spade in my study to remind me of that happy event. I am delighted that that new hospital is now operational.
    With regard to quality, I accept that the royal colleges still have some concerns about the impact on clinical standards although I do not believe that those concerns are well founded. For that reason, I have been having a dialogue with all the royal colleges and I want them to make a positive contribution by helping to monitor clinical standards in the improved NHS in the 1990s. I detect a preparedness on the part of the royal colleges to contemplate that and a willingness to reach agreement if we can.
    Mr. Winnick: As the royal colleges have expressed some concern about opting out, should not they be told by the Secretary of State that a referendum was organised in my borough by the local council with questions that were approved by the local health authority and that more than 78 per cent. said that they were against opting out? If there were referendums in other parts of the country, is not it clear that the results would be the same? That is why the Secretary of State is so hostile to balloting and why he is so fearful of people being able to express their views. All the public relations advisors in the world will not be able to sell that idea to the British public.
    Mr. Clarke: The Labour party is quite bereft of any contribution to the debate on National Health Service reforms. Labour prefers to publicise ill-founded fears about what might occur and then carry out ballots afterwards like a lot of demented amateur Gallup pollsters. That is not a sensible approach to NHS reforms.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: How does my right hon. and learned Friend equate his remarks in respect of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill with
    890
    remarks made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health to people from MIND when he said that hundreds of mentally ill patients have been dumped on the streets and that he is determined to give those people a new deal? Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State tell us how the Government are going to give a new deal to those hundreds of mentally ill people who have been dumped on the streets because of a lack of places in appropriate hospitals?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health used slightly different language and a slightly more analytical approach to a serious problem about which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) feels strongly. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said yesterday, he has put a great deal of work into preparing an initiative on that subject because we all know that mentally ill patients have fallen through the net and become homeless in London. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is ready with the details, he will announce what I believe will be an extremely valuable new initiative to tackle that serious problem.
    Mr. Robin Cook: I congratulate the Secretary of State on having achieved unity among the royal colleges for the first time in the 40-year history of the NHS. Did he see their joint statement in the week he met them in which they concluded that there was no evidence that his changes will improve the standard of care, access to care, choice of care or even the cost-effectiveness of care? Why do Ministers persist in thinking that more than 20 colleges have got it wrong and that only they have got it right?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman should stop taking questions from my Parliamentary Private Secretary and answering them. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the royal colleges support the vast bulk of what we are doing, including the introduction of the resource management initiative and the introduction of clinical audit, in which the royal colleges are playing a leading role. I have already recognised that they still have some concerns about the consequences of the reforms, but at my meeting it was clear that the royal colleges wish to reach agreement with the Government on how standards can be monitored and supervised after we introduce the reforms next year.

    Clinical Standards
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's proposals for future monitoring of clinical standards in the National Health Service and the terms of reference of any monitoring agency.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On 4 April, I invited the presidents of the dental, medical, midwifery and nursing royal colleges for talks on the assessment of clinical standards for National Health Service patients after the proposals in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill are implemented. I put forward ideas for setting up a national multi-professional clinical standards advisory group. That was broadly welcomed by the professions, but further discussions will be needed on the way in which such a group might operate.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that he and the Department are most enthusiastic about the new proposal and getting the system right? Will he say a little more about the composition of the advisory group? It will be of critical importance in reassuring all opinion—lay and medical—that the standards will e properly monitored.
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because, in broad terms, his reaction is the same as that of the presidents of the medical, nursing and dental colleges. We all agreed that we need more talks about how such a system might work, be financed and so on. On the whole, the composition of any group would need to be determined by the medical, nursing and dental royal colleges, and comprise representatives from all the professions to work on a multi-disciplinary basis.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that perhaps we could learn a lesson from the United States, where peer review organisations examine about one in four operations and determine whether it was necessary in the first place, at what cost it was done and how successful it was? Such detail is more likely to result in patient satisfaction than some overall national body.
    Mr. Clarke: I do not envisage a national body taking over the detailed operation of local services. I envisage a national body that will be available as a source of advice if people encounter local difficulties. I agree with my hon. Friend that we require what I call systematic quality control, which is usually described as audit control. We are drawing on American experience, but the royal colleges and the Government would like an even better system introduced in all branches of the National Health Service.
    Dr. Kim Howells: On the monitoring of the health of any community, will not the Secretary of State admit that family practitioner committees are extremely worried about the lack of morbidity statistics in terms of their ability to play a constructive role—if that is not a contradiction in terms—in how the NHS reforms are now being applied?
    Mr. Clarke: We have morbidity statistics. I have not had representations from English medical practitioner committees about the inadequacy of the statistics, but I shall certainly make inquiries to see whether the federation believes that it is a problem or whether there is a particular problem in Wales.

    General Practitioners
    Mr. Hanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of general practitioners in the National Health Service now; and what it was in 1979.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: At 1 October 1988 there were 25,322 GPs in England. That compares with 21,357 at 1 October 1979, an increase of 18·6 per cent.
    Mr. Hanley: Bearing in mind the substantial increase in the number of GPs and the fact that our population is static, will my hon. Friend explain why some doctors believe that service to patients will reduce because list sizes will increase?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am quite unable to explain it. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the population remains static. There are more GPs joining the lists each year and we have seen lists come below 2,000 for the first time. That is a major achievement and it leads to better patient care.

    Mental Handicap
    Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve the availability and quality of day care services for the mentally handicapped.
    Mr. Freeman: Local authorities are primarily responsible for providing day services for mentally handicapped people. The recent social services inspectorate report, "Inspection of Day Services for People with a Mental Handicap", suggested a number of ways in which day services could be improved within existing resources.
    Mr. O'Brien: Because of the haste to close mental handicap hospitals and discharge mentally handicapped people, because of the problems facing local authorities—with restrictions on financing and the fact that the money allowed to them is not ring-fenced and there is no guarantee that there will be a sufficient increase to allow for inflation—and because every pound spent above the level of assessment set by the Government under the poll tax arrangements for services for the mentally handicapped means a £4 increase in the poll tax, when does the Minister intend to do something to provide real services for the mentally handicapped?
    Mr. Freeman: There is no rush to close mental handicap hospitals. The closure programme and the discharge of patients back into the community from mental handicap hospitals is relatively slow. As for the transfer of resources from the Health Service to local authorities for patients discharged, we are looking at the future of joint finance—of finance passing from the Department of Health to the Department of the Environment—and we shall bring to the House in due course our proposals for ensuring adequate funding for such patients.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Andrew Smih: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Prime Minister accept responsibility for the chaos and confusion at the heart of Government over the poll tax? Does not she owe it to the House and the people before they vote on Thursday to give a straight answer to a straight question? What, precisely, is she going to do about the poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: Had the hon. Gentleman read he Official Report of the debate we had on that subject last week, he would have known the answer. We are looking to see whether any adjustments need to be made to the community charge for next year. Some of those were

    893
    indicated in the debate, and there is no surprise about it. When one goes from a rate tax to a community charge, adjustments will, of course, need to be made, and we are looking to see which ones need to be made for next year—[Interruption.] If there is any confusion or any high rates, that is in the minds of Labour local authorities. High community charges are due to local Labour councils. Most councils have got out their charges with the rebates and the traditional relief included in them.
    Mr. Wood: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong for a local authority to cave in to threats of a politically motivated strike, particularly to secure the reinstatement of a leading member of Class War who hailed the Trafalgar square rioters as heroes?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that Hackney suspended a person who hailed the Trafalgar square rioters as heroes, that the National and Local Government Officers Association threatened to go on strike and that Hackney then caved in. That tells us a lot about the people whom Hackney employs, a lot about NALGO and a lot about what life would be like under Labour.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us now, is she or is she not going to introduce legislation to change the poll tax in this Session of Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: When we have a statement to make we shall make it—[Interruption.]—and it will be far more detailed and thorough than any statement we hear from the right hon. Gentleman about roof tax.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall telling me just a few short weeks ago that she thought:
    "The community charge will he very popular?"—[Official Report, 22 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 1231.]
    Does she still believe that, and if she does, why is she sending her Ministers off in every direction, desperately searching for an escape route from the poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: The community charge is a much fairer charge than rates—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: —and a far fairer charge than the alternative roof tax. I notice that when the right hon. Gentleman gave an interview to The Independent on 21 April, it stated that Mr. Kinnock—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister was asked a question. She must be given a chance to answer.
    The Prime Minister: It stated:
    "Mr. Kinnock then gave a strong indication of his own thinking. He said 'the tax base for rates was imputed rents and that's one thing we can take into account now and bung into the computer.'"
    Does not he know the old computer saying, "Garbage in, garbage out"?
    Mr. Kinnock: Cannot the Prime Minister understand what just about everybody in the country now understands
    894
    —that the poll tax will never be fair? It cannot be amended; it must be got rid of, even if that means that the Prime Minister goes down with her own flagship.
    The Prime Minister: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman understand that domestic rates have been abolished; that they were a most unfair tax; and that the enemy is not the community charge, but the high-spending Labour councils?
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as only 19 million people paid the rates and 36 million people will now pay towards community services, the community charge is already infinitely fairer for over half the adult population?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. I noticed that in a recent poll over 70 per cent. of people thought that everyone should make some contribution to local authority spending. That is precisely what the community charge does, with more generous rebates than have ever been given before and with generous rebates for transitional relief. It is a much fairer tax than either the rates or the roof tax.
    Dr. Owen: Is banding of the poll tax one of the adjustments that the Prime Minister has in mind, so that people can pay on the basis of their ability to pay, or is the Prime Minister opposed to that in principle? Or are there practical arguments, in which case perhaps she will enumerate them to us?
    The Prime Minister: Those who cannot afford to pay get generous community charge rebates—far more generous than ever before. Some 9 million people will benefit from them. Those who have a sharp difference between the old rates and the community charge are eligible for transitional relief. That applies to some 7 million people. The people who do not get sufficient transitional relief live in the areas of high-spending labour councils, which care nought for their citizens but are more anxious to dig their hands deeply into their citizens' pockets. People who are better off pay far more to local services because the taxpayer is the greatest contributor to local authority spending. The top 10 per cent. of income earners pay 40 per cent. of the income tax yield and therefore pay more for local services than the people in the bottom 10 per cent.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend spare a moment to commend Medway city council on setting the lowest community charge in Kent? Will she list the five local authorities that have the worst education record, the largest number of empty council houses and the highest rent arrears?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly pay—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has been asked a question.
    The Prime Minister: I gladly pay—[Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This kind of hilarity is very unseemly.
    The Prime Minister: I gladly pay tribute to the eficient Conservative authority in Medway.
    With regard to my hon. Friend's question about the five worst education authorities and so on, I am sure that the House is avidly waiting to hear my reply. The five councils with the worst education results are Knowsley—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Waltham Forest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Barking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Newham—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; and Sandwell—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."].
    The five authorities which have most empty council houses are Manchester—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Liverpool—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Sheffield—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Salford—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; and Birmingham—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]. Between them, those Labour-controlled authorities have more than 20,000 empty houses.
    The five authorities with the highest rent arrears are Southwark—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Lambeth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Liverpool—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Brent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; and Islington—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]. Between them, those authorities are owed £86 million in uncollected rents.
    Mr. Cummings: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cummings: Is the Prime Minister aware of the many thousands of people in the United Kingdom who have been discriminated against because of a hostile interpretation of rules governing concessionary television licences for the elderly and the disabled? Although they live in identical circumstances, because of the regulations they are being denied what is rightfully theirs. In the twilight of the Prime Minister's premiership, will she now find it within her heart to instruct her Ministers to give to retired people that which is equal and just?
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any discrimination in interpreting the regulations. Interpreting
    896
    the regulations is a matter for the Department concerned and I am sure that if people are entitled to receive a concessionary licence they will do so.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 6,000 people in Ealing have been sent bills for the full community charge, regardless of their rebate applications? Some of those people are pensioners and students who are entitled to pay only one fifth—£87—but instead are being required to pay £435 by Ealing's Labour council, which will not process their rebate applications until after the local elections next Thursday. Is not that another wicked Labour con trick?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Most local authorities have been thoughtful enough of their residents to deduct the community charge relief and the transitional relief from the bills, so that they do not raise needless fears. That is naturally good administration. If there are any who have not done it, it is bad administration and demonstrates sheer lack of consideration for their own citizens.
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Prime Minister recall those heady days when she described the poll tax as her flagship? Now that Thursday's election torpedo is fast approaching, despite the captain's apparent order to change course, does she recall the fate of another flagship, the Belgrano?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman could have done rather better than that.
    As regards the community charge in Scotland, where it has operated for a considerable time, far more councils are now either holding the charge or reducing it. Accountability in Scotland is at last beginning to work, as this year councils know that they cannot blame increases on anyone but themselves.

RAF Shackleton (Crash)
3.30 pm
Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the crash of the RAF Shackleton in the Outer Hebrides.
Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order after the statements in the usual place.
Mr. Beith: My point of order arises out of Prime Minister's questions.
Mr. Speaker: I know. The hon. Gentleman knows that I take points of order in their proper place, after the statements.
Mr. Beith: My point of order arises out of Prime Minister's questions.
Mr. Speaker: I know. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that I take points of order in their proper place, after the statements.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archibald Hamilton): It is with much regret——
Mr. Beith rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very senior Member of the House. He knows that I take points of order in their proper place, after the statements.
Mr. Beith: My point of order arises out of Prime Minister's questions.
Mr. Speaker: I know. I repeat to the hon. Member, who has been here as long as I have, that I take points of order in their proper place, after the statements.
Mr. Beith rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hamilton: It is with much regret that I have to confirm to the House——
Mr. Beith rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member can hear what I am saying to him. I am saying that I take points of order in their proper place after the statements—and that I will certainly do—and not now. We are still in the middle of Question Time. This is a private notice question which I have granted.
Mr. Beith rose——
Mr. Speaker: I must now order the hon. Member to sit down.
Mr. Hamilton: It is with much regret that I have to confirm to the House that an RAF Shackleton airborne early warning aircraft based at RAF Lossiemouth, crashed on a hillside near Northton on the isle of Harris in the Outer Hebrides yesterday afternoon around 12.30 pm. Tragically, all 10 RAF personnel on board the aircraft
898
were killed. I am sure that the House will join me in extending our deepest sympathy to the families of those concerned.
A board of inquiry has been convened. As the House will be aware, until the board's investigations are complete it would be inappropriate to speculate about the causes of the accident.
Mr. Rogers: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I join the Government in extending to the families of the airmen who were killed our most sincere condolences and sympathy.
I would also like to place on record our tremendous regard for the aircrews of No. 8 squadron who have to fly the Shackletons, often in extreme conditions, and also for the groundcrews of the squadron who have the incredibly difficult task of keeping these 40-year-old aircraft in service. The task has been made extremely difficult in recent years because of the reduction of operational Shackletons from 11 to the current six. During this time, planes which have gone out of commission have been cannibalised to keep the rest in the air, which is a significant achievement.
The provision of early warning planes has had a sorry history in this country——
Hon. Members: What is the question?
Mr. Speaker: This is a private notice question, not a statement.
Mr. Rogers: We find it difficult to understand why the Shackleton seems to have had no upgrading in recent times. Apart from the many questions relating to the condition of the aircraft there are questions peculiar to this crash that need to be answered.
One matter of great concern is the role that the aircraft was playing at the time of the crash—[Interruption.] We are investigating a crash in which 10 aircrew were killed.
I understand that the RAF spokesman said that the Shackleton was participating in a missile-firing exercise, but he went on to say in the same statement that no missiles had been fired for at least an hour and a half before the plane crashed. If the plane went on to do flight training, as we were told in the statement, perhaps the Minister will tell us why it was flying at 700 ft when the normal operational mode is 6,000 to 8,000 ft, levels at which the plane is not equipped to fly. It has no terrain-following radar or all-weather radar—it has only the Doppler radar which is required for its functional role.
Why was no warning given to the aircraft by the air defence radar, which is only 20 miles away on the mainland and which was acting as an air control station during Exercise Elder Forest?
The Opposition have drawn to the attention of the House the fact that the cuts of recent years have led to a fall in the operational efficiency of the RAF. It is because of such cuts that tragedies like this occur.
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman referred to cuts. I remind him that one or two of these aircraft at a time are operational, out of a fleet that was six, so there is no question of putting lives at risk when flying these aircraft. They have kept up the high standards of maintenance that we have come to expect from the RAF, particularly during peace time, and there is no question of anyone having been put in danger.

899
The board of inquiry has started its investigations and it would be wrong to pre-empt their outcome. It is up to the board to decide what happened.
I wish to put the hon. Gentleman straight on one matter. The aircraft was not participating at this stage in the exercise that was taking place at the time. That had finished some hour or so before, and the aircraft was 60 miles away from the training area and was on a training flight.
Sir Hector Monro: I join all hon. Members in expressing my deepest sympathy to the relatives of those killed in this tragic accident. As one who is closely involved with RAF Lossiemouth, may I emphasise the exceptional record of that station and of No. 8 squadron in maritime reconaissance and air-sea rescue work?
I share the Minister's view that we should not speculate on the causes of the accident before we hear from the board of inquiry. Does he agree that no Royal Air Force aircraft of whatever age ever flies unless it is fully serviceable and airworthy?
Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks and for his experience in these matters. He is absolutely right to say that we have had an exceptional record with these aircraft. The last one that crashed was in 1968, and it was a maritime patrol version of this aircraft. In 1972 the aircraft were given strengthened air frames and were updated for the airborne early-warning system, and none of these updated aircraft had crashed until this regrettable tragedy.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As the local Member of Parliament for Lossiemouth, I thank the Minister and all other hon. Members who have expressed their deep sympathy to the people of Lossiemouth and the men at the base. I left Lossiemouth only this morning, and it was a numbed and stunned community. It has not been a stranger to tragedies in other aspects of its life. At a time like this, our thoughts and prayers must surely be with the families of the bereaved, some of whom are known to me personally.
May I ask that there be no further idle speculation about the possible causes of the tragedy? As the inquiry proceeds, will the Minister ensure that the privacy of the families in Lossiemouth and the surrounding areas will be fully observed, and that all action is taken to expedite any practical matters which may help the bereaved?
Mr. Hamilton: I can, of course, give the hon. Lady that undertaking. I remind the House that the board of inquiry is sitting. If it comes up with prima facie evidence of technical faults or something to do with the structure of the aircraft which would cause disquiet, the fleet would be grounded at once.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that when accidents occur, personnel at Royal Air Force stations are always shocked and their thoughts are with the dependants of those who died? Does he further agree that the Shackleton aircraft has a remarkable safety record and that Royal Air Force pilots and aircrew sign only for aircraft which have been passed as fit and fully operational, and that under no circumstances do RAF aircrew take into the air aircraft that do not meet those criteria? Speculation should therefore not be allowed at this time.
Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. It is certainly true that the RAF maintains the highest possible standards and there is no question here of those standards having been in any way lowered.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: As the Member for the area in which the accident occurred, I add my condolences to the relatives of those who were killed. The whole community in the islands feels very deeply for the relatives and colleagues of those who died. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the emergency services at the scene of the accident? Does he agree that they responded in an efficient, prompt and thoroughly professional manner?
Mr. Hamilton: I join in the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the emergency services. It was a tragedy that there was so little that they could do when they arrived on the scene of the crash.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My hon. Friend will have read that, according to the newspapers, the aircraft of No. 8 squadron were grounded following the tragic accident. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is not the case, despite press speculation, and that the fact that the aircraft are not flying is a mark of respect for the sad loss?
Mr. Hamilton: That is absolutely right. As a mark of respect, the aircraft are not flying today, although there is one standing by in case of emergency. There is no question of the aircraft being grounded unless the board of inquiry comes up with something that causes it disquiet, in which case it would ground them. At the moment, we have no evidence that the accident was caused by a technical fault.
Mr. James Wallace: May I assure the Minister of the sympathy of my right hon and hon. Friends for the families and service colleagues of the bereaved? He has already confirmed that it is too early to speculate on the cause of the accident. It is distasteful to try to make political capital out of speculation. It is a tribute to the Shackletons that they are still in service after so many years, carrying out the role assigned to them. Can the Minister give us any indication of when the AWACS replacements will come into operation?
Mr. Hamilton: We are not happy with the capability of the Shackleton as an airborne early-warning aircraft. We are happy about its operations capability and the safety of the crew, but its ability as an airborne early-warning system is not good and we should like to replace it as soon as we can. The AWACS will be coming in the spring of next year. We hope that the whole order for seven aircraft will be completed within about 12 months from then.
Mr. Derek Conway: Will my hon. Friend undertake to take a personal interest in the welfare of those who are bereaved, bearing in mind that in the case of my constituent who was widowed by an RAF helicopter crash it took nearly two years to reach a settlement? Such a delay is too long and must never be allowed to occur again.
Mr. Hamilton: I take my hon. Friend's point that two years seems a very long time. We shall certainly do all that we can to make sure that settlements for widows are speeded up.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: As a member of the Select Committee on Transport, which has gone into the whole question of RAF and civil flying, may I ask the Minister to ensure that the inquiry removes any suspicion that flying in the normal flight paths could endanger the safety of the public?
Mr. Hamilton: We are always mindful of the need to ensure that air safety is kept at the highest possible standard, but we should not anticipate the outcome of the inquiry. We do not know the cause of the accident. We must wait until the board of inquiry has reported and we have a clearer idea of what happened.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: As we join together in mourning the loss of the flight crew of No. 8 squadron, will the Minister confirm that it matters not the age of an aircraft so long as during maintenance no structural fatigue or inter-crystalline corrosion is found? Does he also agree that an aircraft's age should not be predominantly in the minds of people when they make certain assumptions?
Mr. Hamilton: I totally sympathise with my hon. Friend about that. We are aware of the stress and fatigue problems in terms of the air frames. That is why they are carefully checked on aircraft of that age, and it is because they are so carefully checked that we are happy that it is a safe aircraft when in the air.

European Council (Dublin)
3.45 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the informal meeting of the European Council in Dublin on 28 April, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The text of the Council's conclusions has been placed in the Library of the House.
The Council was convened for two main purposes: to consider the consequences for the European Community of German unification; and to discuss the way ahead in the Community's relations with eastern Europe. We made useful progress on both issues.
The Council agreed clear guidelines for the detailed discussions which will be necessary in order to incorporate East Germany into the Community, taking account of the interests of other member states. Those discussions will cover trade, agriculture, fisheries, the environment and many other issues. It will be for the Commission to make proposals for any transitional arrangements which are necessary. I emphasised that derogations from Community law and practice should be brief; and that we must avoid unfair competition and disruption to trade. Those points are well understood by the Federal German Government.
In the period before unification, East Germany will have access to normal Community funds which have been set up to help eastern Europe: and will also be able to benefit from full access to the European investment bank. Chancellor Kohl indicated that the federal republic is not seeking any special fund for Community financial assistance to East Germany.
A very welcome feature of the discussion on German unification was the strong support expressed by Heads of Government for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and for the view that a United Germany should be a member of NATO. That corresponds very much with our own views and those of the United States.
As regards eastern Europe, the Council reached two main conclusions: first, that assistance from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development group of 24 countries ought to be extended to East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Romania, as well as to Poland and Hungary as at present; and, second, that, as soon as possible, we should negotiate association agreements between the European Community and those eastern European countries which are making decisive progress to market economies and genuine democracy. That responds to a British initiative before the Strasbourg European Council last December and we very much welcome the decision.
The Council also provided an opportunity to take forward discussion on other items of European Community business, in particular political union. That has never been defined: and it was clear from our discussion that there are widely differing views on what it covers. I pointed out that the term political union raises anxieties among many people about a loss of national identity, national sovereignty and national institutions. I suggested that we should all make clear that political union does not mean, for example, giving up our separate Heads of State, or our national Parliaments, or our legal or electoral systems, or our defence through NATO.

903
I also proposed that we indicate that we do not intend to alter the role of the Council of Ministers as the Community's main decision-making body, with Ministers each accountable to their national Parliaments; and that we are opposed to centralising powers in Europe when decisions are better taken by national Parliaments and Governments. If we could agree that none of those things would happen as a result of political union, we could show that many of the fears about it were groundless.
I suggested that the positive way forward lay instead through ever closer co-operation among member states and reform of the Community's existing institutions to make them more effective and more efficient. We shall ourselves have constructive ideas to put forward for that.
I found a number of these views shared by other Heads of Government. Indeed our discussions during the day, particularly on matters concerned with foreign affairs and defence, showed very clearly that in practice we all continue to think in terms of keeping certain key issues as matters for national decision.
We therefore agreed to instruct our Foreign Ministers to analyse more thoroughly what political union should cover and report back to the European Council at the end of June, with a view to a decision then on the holding of an intergovernmental conference. Such a conference can, of course, be convened by a simple majority of member states, but its decisions have to be reached by unanimity and approved by national Parliaments.
I will summarise briefly the other main issues that we discussed. First, the Council confirmed the commitment to complete the European single market by 1992.
Second, we agreed to intensify preparations for the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union, which will start in December this year. We also set an objective of finishing the work of that conference in time to permit ratification of the results by the end of 1992. It is rather early to say at this stage how feasible such a target is. The results of that conference would have to come before the House, which has already expressed its views on stages 2 and 3 of the Delors plan.
Third, we confirmed our commitment to a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round of trade negotiations in the GATT.
Fourth, we repeated our desire to strengthen relations with the EFTA nations and extend the single market to them.
Fifth, we asked our officials to make proposals, in time for the next European Council, for improving the effectiveness of the Community's co-operation against drug trafficking and drug abuse.
Foreign Ministers also discussed a number of international issues. They agreed a statement on Cyprus, as well as guidelines for our approach to the CSCE summit, which we expect will be held later this year. Those texts are annexed to the Council's conclusions.
The additional meeting of the European Council set the way ahead for the Community on several important issues. It was also an opportunity to put clearly on record Britain's views on what political union should and should not mean, and not least our determination to defend the powers of this House.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thank the Prime Minister for that statement. I welcome several aspects of the Dublin communique agreed by the Heads of Governments, in particular the improved co-ordination of action against
904
drug trafficking, the statement on Cyprus—which will have resonance for many hon. Members—the new arrangements for dialogue with the United States of America, and the undertakings given by the German Government on the process of unification.
While we welcome the Council's conclusion relating to support for the economies of eastern Europe, and want that to be extended, will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that any commitment by Britain in that direction will not result in a reduction in the resources that we allocate to Third world countries, whose needs remain as great as ever?
I wish to raise two issues relating to the Community. First, has the Prime Minister made any progress in efforts to locate the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in London, which is where it should be located? Secondly, in the light of the Chancellor's prediction yesterday on the rate of inflation, can the right hon. Lady update the House on the timing of Britain's entry into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system?
The Dublin summit obviously reflected the process of events immediately before it. Was the Prime Minister personally consulted by Chancellor Kohl or President Mitterrand before they sent their letter to Lithuania last week? If so, why was not Britain associated with that constructive initiative? Was she personally consulted by either Chancellor Kohl or President Mitterrand before their letter of 19 April to the Community Heads of Government, setting out their proposals to convene an intergovernmental conference on European political union?
Has it occurred to the Prime Minister that, when Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand are taking important and significant initiatives and Britain is not directly involved, it is because the right hon. Lady has put our country on the sidelines and left others to determine the course and the nature of the new Europe?
We are just six weeks away from a Community summit which, contrary to the Prime Minister's professed wishes, will now consider proposals for an intergovernmental conference on political union. Is not it obvious that the Prime Minister has no positive strategy for that summit? Do not those events make it crystal clear that, because of the way in which the Prime Minister has conducted affairs, she has been pushed to the fringes from which she can exercise only marginal influence on events? Is not it plain that the Prime Minister has made herself merely a spectator, the lame duck of the Community, and she has only herself to blame?
The Prime Minister: I shall go through the points which the right hon. Gentleman has made. Help for the economies of eastern Europe should not diminish help for the Third world. That is very much in the minds of all our colleagues and we do not intend that it should diminish help for the Third world. Help for eastern Europe has been provided out of a special fund.
With regard to the new European bank, we have applied to have it in London. Of course, it is not a Community bank; it is much wider than that, so we have also been in touch with the United States and others who will contribute to it. Many people feel that it should be in London. There is also a battle going on, if I might refer to

905
it in that way, about who should be president or governor of that bank. I suspect that the two issues will be settled together.
With regard to inflation, I have nothing to add to the Madrid conclusions about when we shall join the exchange rate mechanism. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, some countries have yet to have full freedom of capital movement and to remove their foreign exchange controls. It is expected that Italy will do that before the beginning of July. There is still not full freedom of financial movement, but the main thing is to get inflation down now before we can join the exchange rate mechanism.
The statement on Lithuania issued by Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand was done at one of their bilateral meetings. May I point out that, when all the Foreign Ministers met the week before, they jointly issued a communiqué on our approach to Lithuania under the terms of the political co-operation treaty which requires us all to consult one another before we make statements, if possible, so the Foreign Ministers have made a joint statement.
Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand did not consult others before they issued their statement, although it was inside the political co-operation treaty that they should have done so. I am not surprised or disappointed that they did not. The fact that we agree on political co-operation does not mean that we relinquish our sovereign right, unilaterally or bilaterally, to make our own statements. I thought that it was rather on my side that they were giving practical evidence that they did not intend to give up their sovereignty unilaterally or bilaterally, although they were talking about political union without any definition whatsoever. The document that they put before the Council on political union talked a great deal about political union without defining it. Certainly in the first stage they meant increasing the efficiency of Community institutions and increased political, economic and monetary union. It is difficult to define political union by reference to other unions by repetition of the word. They also meant increasing co-operation on security matters, but, of course, one has to remember that each of the nations of the Community takes a very different view. Many of us are fully under NATO; some are not militarily integrated into NATO and some are neutral. So it did not seem a very good example of political union.
On the right hon. Gentleman's final point, may I remind him that Britain was one of the principal political players in that informal session. Many people supported what I said and we got our own way in asking Foreign Ministers to analyse what was meant by political union.
Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that she was absolutely right at Dublin to seek a clearer definition of European political union? Does she accept that there is, indeed, a strong case for political progress and development in Europe but that it should be constitutionally based on strengthening the role of national parliaments and not on bureaucratic centralism or simply increasing the power of central institutions without proper accountability? Does she agree that that is an excellent case which can be put well by the British, that she has made an excellent start in putting it, and that she should continue to do so with great vigour?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I agree wholeheartedly with him. There has been a tendency to increase the central powers of the Commission. That is going the wrong way. The Commission needs some increase in powers in one respect—a quasi judicial respect—it needs powers to enforce some of the directives. In other respects we need a greater distribution of powers for decisions. Those should be taken through the national Parliaments and the Council of Ministers. We have particular proposals to put forward about strengthening the Court of Auditors. The Commission's accountability on finance could be greatly improved.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Following our exchanges in the House last Thursday, is the Prime Minister aware that her strong, clear statements in defence of parliamentary sovereignty accurately reflect the views of people not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that it reflects our views. We are by far the oldest Parliament and we probably report far more often to our Parliament about everything that goes on in the Community than do many other Heads of Government. The fact that at the outset other Heads of Government were not prepared to put any limitation on political union was alarming, but it could mean that they go step by step towards relinquishing the things which are absolutely vital to our parliamentary traditions.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, far from being isolationist or lacking in influence in Europe, the outcome of the Dublin summit proves that we are leading Europe from within and, furthermore, we are doing so on the basis of our insistence on real parliamentary democracy and asking simple questions of those in authority?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is absolutely wrong that people should use phrases without defining them. It is our task as Heads of Government to define them and set strict limits on them. I could not possibly come back to the House without doing precisely that. It took a good deal to do that at the informal summit, but it is now being done. In precisely the same way, and by being isolated at first but obtaining a reasonable settlement, we obtained a rebate of £1·7 billion this year. If we had not taken that path at previous summits, we should be paying £1·7 billion more to the Community than we pay now.
Sir Russell Johnston: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people in all parties throughout Britain do not necessarily believe that it is in Britain's interest that she gets her own way? Is the right hon. Lady aware that many people feel that here attitude in Dublin was negative and insular? Does she accept that many people believe that the development of a federal Europe, far from being a threat, is the best protection of our pride, realistic sovereignty and economic well-being? As for our electoral system, the sooner that we get rid of that wretched and unfair system, the better.
The Prime Minister: It is not my way that one achieves. It is the way that the Government feel is best for Britain. The Government have done well for Britain in finance,

907
agriculture, trade, competition and so on. In particular, we have obtained a realistic budget and seeing that we had a realistic contribution to make. I noted what the hon. Gentleman said. Clearly he does not mind losing little by little, or even faster, the powers of the House to a federal Europe. I disagree with him. We should stop any more centralisation and make certain that the future of the Community is implementation of measures through the national Parliaments.
Rev. Ian Paisley: As the President of the European Commission has made it clear that he envisages European political union in a structure in which the majority of decisions that affect the people of this nation will be taken in Brussels, and as Chancellor Kohl made it clear at Dublin after the summit that he saw increasing power being vested in the non-elected Commission members, will the Prime Minister give the House today a categorical assurance that if the conference moves to add to or change the treaty of Rome she will give this nation the opportunity by referendum to say whether it will go on that course?
The Prime Minister: We shall receive the report of the Foreign Ministers at the next meeting in Dublin in June when doubtless they will give a number of proposals about the way forward. I believe that an intergovernmental conference will then be set up because most people want it and that could be done by a simple majority vote. We shall have our own proposals about making institutions work better. We are very much aware of the enormous powers that are vested in the non-elected Commission. We do not believe that those powers should be increased. There would, of course, be a tremendous attempt to increase them under monetary union and economic union, and that is where the main battles will come. Everything, fortunately, will have to come back to this House for approval. One remembers that the whole time when one is negotiating and believes that one has the feel of this House that it does not wish to yield up any more of its sovereignty than it has already.
Mr. Peter Shore: Although the communiqué rightly welcomes the unification of Germany under a European roof, is not it a pity that the communiqué was not similarly forthcoming about the now independent countries of eastern Europe? Would not it be a good thing if they, too, were brought under a European roof? Is not it a fact that the whole priorities of the Community are distorted and that the achievement of a wider Europe should be the first and central aim? Would not an enlarged Europe be a far more effective counterweight to over-arching German economic power than these half-baked proposals for political and monetary union in western Europe?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I share his view about the proposals on monetary and economic union, and the House made its views clear in a debate. With regard to what I call the wider Europe, I am very conscious—and I made a speech about it—that Europe and European civilisation were created long before the treaty of Rome and the European Community. I am, therefore, very much aware that eastern Europe is also a part of Europe.
I do not think that eastern Europe could come under the European roof straight away. East Germany is an
908
exceptional case, because it is being incorporated into Germany. It is lucky to be able to plug straight into a system of law, a market economy, a whole banking system, a financial system and a system of company law, whereas it is a long time since the other countries in eastern Europe knew all the structure of a market economy and they could not come in without having gone through the process of getting to that structure and full democracy. That is why we have taken the present route with them. First, we are creating a trade agreement—and many trade agreements have been concluded, as the right hon. Gentleman knows—and, secondly, we are creating special association agreements with them which will have certain common features and some clauses tailored to the particular circumstances. Some of us will think beyond that. We shall think of full membership and believe that that is the right and better way for Europe to go. That could not be done before they had a proper democracy and a market economy.
Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend accept that she spoke for the people of Britain when she insisted that the meaning of European unity be spelt out in detail? Surely it is of the essence that the future position of our sovereign, of our national government and indeed of these historic Houses of Parliament should be clarified and accepted as essential realities in any move towards a wider European unity.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that what one has noticed over the past 10 years is that the rhetoric and the practice often vary very much in countries in the European Community. We must define our terms, or we shall have artificial debates and arouse needless fears. [Interruption.] No, I am the person who does the analysis. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Did I hear correctly when I heard the Prime Minister say that defence was among the matters discussed? Surely that is not normally a matter for the EEC. I should find it even more surprising if the Taoiseach, who is the President and whose country is neutral and deliberately has nothing to do with NATO—and that is its business—chaired a meeting at which defence was discussed.
The Prime Minister: We discussed the importance of East Germany when incorporated into a unified Germany, with the unified Germany as a whole being in NATO. We did not, of course, go into detail, and we could not possibly have done so. France is not militarily integrated into NATO, but is every bit as concerned as the rest of us t hat a unified Germany should be in NATO. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Taoiseach is neutral.
I again refer to what Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand said in their letter to the Community about political union: they suggested that one of the things that should be discussed was security. One pointed out that we were not the organisation that was the decisive organisation on defence matters, and I did not see how that could possibly be a definition of political unity.
Mr. Ian Stewart: My right hon. Friend has rightly expressed herself cautious about extending the powers of the Commission, which is a non-elected body. In any future discusson of political plans for the European Community, will she be wary of

909
increasing the powers of the European Parliament in relation to finance? Over the years, the Parliament unfortunately seems to have been more interested in increasing public expenditure in the Community—often in areas that overlap public expenditure in individual member states—than in protecting the interests of taxpayers in Britain and in the other member states.
The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend. We should be wary of further increasing the powers of the European Parliament, particularly over finance. The Parliament often wants to spend more, but the responsibility for raising the money lies elsewhere. I know that those powers have been increased both in the lifetime of the previous Labour Government and during the lifetime of this Government. I agree with my hon. Friend: I think that we have gone far enough.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that, following the historic events of the past 12 months, it is quite proper that we should be having an open debate about the future of Europe but that the debate is not between nationalists and federalists but among a much wider range of people than that? Many of them, like me, would like to see a wider Europe, with nations of different traditions harmonising by consent and cooperating politically and economically without the domination of a central body. That view must be allowed to appear upon the agenda. Those who have rejected Gospan, which is not elected, will similarly reject the Commission, which is not elected or the Bundesbank, which is not elected. I hope that the Prime Minister will agree that before the June meeting the House can discuss the matter fully.
I have one further question, about the role of the House of Commons. As all laws emanating from the Council of Ministers—a legislative body—are made in secret by British Ministers using the Crown prerogative of treaty making, the House of Commons has lost all its powers, and accountability has simply become a vote of confidence in the Government of the day. It is not just European political union but the present arrangements and the 1992 arrangements that have reduced the House to municipal impotence. We are spectators of what is decided by Ministers in our name, without any authority, either in advance or afterwards, for the decisions that they have reached. Can that also be discussed?
The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, when those draft directives are being negotiated, the negotiations are long and detailed. The right hon. Gentleman is right in that the Commission has the only right of initiation of draft directives. Draft directives may be withdrawn and others introduced. Separate countries cannot amend such directives. It might take four, five, six or even seven years for Ministers to approve a draft directive because, as a result of that directive being taken back and changed, it is very different. Where it is vital, such directives must be agreed by unanimity, on other occasions by majority. We would propose that the Commission should not have the only power of initiation. Ministers should be able to amend the draft directives.
The more important point raised by the right hon. Member related to the Community's wider aspects. It was started as the European Economic Community and we
910
had to give up all powers directly over our own agriculture and that is now negotiated in the Community and a similar process applies to trade. Therefore, we cannot appear at the Uruguay round as a separate country. We negotiate through the European Community and the Community has an economic character in which it must have fair competition and try to get rid of heavy subsidies. We cannot discard that, because that is fundamental to the Community.
I would disagree with the suggestion made by the right hon. Member that we should widen the debate. I would have a different solution from that. The Community is the place in which we negotiate on economic matters and perhaps on political matters, because we have political co-operation, but that must be considered. We negotiate defence in NATO, but that is still not enough. That is where the importance of the Helsinki accords and the conference on security and co-operation in Europe come in. That was signed by 35 nations on both sides of the political divide in Europe and that is why many of us want that conference to meet more often, possibly with Foreign Ministers meeting twice a year, so that we achieve that essential discussion between nations of different political characters. We can then see more and discuss more of the problems and perhaps prevent some of them from arising and have a greater understanding of them. However, that is a separate task for the CSCE framework and we hope to meet later this year to consider that further.
Mr. Ian Gow: Did the Council of Ministers agree that it was the duty of every member state at all times and in all circumstances to do its utmost to cleanse Europe of the evil of terrorism? Did my right hon. Friend make it clear to the President of the Council that, as a result of the recent events and decisions of the Supreme Court in Dublin, many hon. Members consider that the Republic has become a safe haven for terrorists and that that is wholly unacceptable to the House?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I have raised that matter before and have been very forthright about it—just as forthright as my hon. Friend is now. A rule of law matters very much to us and part of that is apprehending those who are suspected of crimes and, if they are guilty, seeing that they are convicted as guilty before properly appointed courts and that the sentence is carried out.
We have been very concerned about terrorism and with the greater freedom of movement of people, particularly across the mainland of Europe and the removal of some internal borders. We have not yet made sufficient provision for catching terrorists or people dealing in drugs or other articles who cross borders. We have raised that matter on many occasions. We are in a special position because we are an island and we can exercise such controls at our ports and airports. However, we do not have a satisfactory way of achieving that more generally.
Mr. Jim Sillars: I welcome German unification. However, given that in international law East Germany as the GDR is a separate state, on what legal basis will East Germany be incorporated into the Community? Will it require the unanimity of the current 12 member states?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has used the correct word. It will not be annexed and therefore we do

911
not have a separate treaty negotiation as we would have if we were taking on a wholly different country. It will come in under article 23 when the GDR becomes incorporated into Germany. Therefore, we are negotiating in a completely different way. We do not have to have unanimity under each facet of negotiation, for example, in agriculture, fisheries, trade, competition and environment, but it will go under the ordinary Community law.
In the meantime, we are aware that many things need to be negotiated, and they are being negotiated in a pre-unification way because the GDR has totally different kinds of farming from that in Europe. It has enormous co-operative farms. Also, it produces a great deal of wheat, barley and potatoes, and of course some of those could come into a Community that already has a surplus and is getting rid of its surplus, and that must be negotiated. It has a fishing fleet twice the size of that of the Federal Republic of Germany and very few waters, and that will have to be negotiated and very carefully indeed. Then, of course, it has many subsidies and a Communist economy at the moment, and we really cannot have goods coming across and undercutting us. All those matters, therefore, are for the Commission to be negotiating at the moment.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for robustly defending the interests of this country at the European talks, and particularly for committing this country to the thoroughgoing discussions on European political, economic and monetary union, which, of course, in reality will enhance the sovereignty of this country. Does she agree that there is no reason on earth why the proposals and procedures to be adopted should not enhance the sovereignty of this national Parliament, particularly in its developing work with the European Parliament, itself exercising accountability over the European Commission?
The Prime Minister: I am aware of the argument that my hon. Friend uses. It is used frequently, particularly by some of the smaller members of the Community, who say that, because they are part of a bigger organisation, they have influence where they would never have had it before. I think that there are distinct limits as to how much further that view can be taken. For example, we cannot, as I said, negotiate as a separate nation in the Uruguay round.
Mr. Dykes: It does not matter.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend says that it does not matter. I should not say that it enhanced our sovereignty—not in any way; it may pool our sovereignty. It could diminish our influence if we were only one country in 12. On the whole, we make our views felt and sometimes we get the right answer because we have the right proposals. I know that that will continue to be so.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Prime Minister aware that what she said about parliamentary democracy and the powers of this House will receive some assent here and outside, but do not two questions follow? First, is not it high time that the House agreed to the unanimous four-year-old request of the Select Committee on European Legislation that its powers be slightly extended so that it may give full information to the House about matters relating to the EEC and its legislation? Secondly, whatever may have happened in the past, is it now appropriate that all the documents that will be put before the future Council of Ministers, future European
912
Councils and, indeed, intergovernmental conferences be placed before the House for debate on a substantive motion before Governments commit themselves? If our friends and neighbours in Europe are to take seriously what the Prime Minister and others are saying about parliamentary democracy, surely the answer to both questions must be yes.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware of my general view that I believe that he and others who have taken a particular interest—indeed, the whole House—should have as much information as possible, first, because of the traditions of the House and, secondly, because some of the decisions that we shall take in the next five years will have a fundamental effect on the future of our children. We wish to do the best for them, but we think that the best is done by a combination of belonging to the European Community and being influential in that, but also of being a very proud nation state, and one of 12 proud nation states. We think that it is better to co-operate in that way than trying to merge more of our sovereignty, as we have done in the past. I shall do my best to look into this matter and see that as much information as possible comes before the House, because that can only enhance the quality of the debate and help Ministers when they are negotiating.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations for injecting such a welcome note of British realism into the proceedings arid for asking just the right kind of searching questions on some of the dreams of European political union? Was she surprised this afternoon when the Leader of the Opposition, on the basis of minimal information, apparently committed himself and some of his party to going along with the Franco-German theory of political union, a theory which can only result in a massive shift of power away from this House and contrary to the wishes of the British people?
The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition has ceased to surprise me—[Interruption.]—and perhaps I might ask him to go into these matters rather more closely and in greater detail.
Mr. Harry Ewing: In relation to the important issue of the unification of Germany, may I ask the right hon. Lady to confirm that, when she refers to article 23, she is referring to article 23 of the basic law of the Federal Republic's constitution and that unification will take place under that law? Will she confirm that the proposal is that the five regional areas of East Germany will merely be added to the 11 laender of West Germany and that we shall be faced with a 16-laender Federal Republic of Germany becoming part of the EEC? Is the Prime Minister aware that I am 110 per cent. in favour of that new state being a member of NATO?
Is the right hon. Lady aware that the achievement of the wider European family—if, as we hope, the new Germany becomes a member of NATO—will require confidence-building measures, bearing in mind the attitude of the Soviet Union? Does she accept that if that were not to happen there could be tensions in Europe that, to say the least, would be difficult to handle? Is she convinced. in view of all of that, that sooner rather than later we should have a major debate about the direction in which Europe is travelling?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the first point. The article 23 to which I referred is article 23 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, which is so well known that I did not identify it. He described the procedure as I understand it—that East Germany will divide into five laender, that they will be annexed and that they will become one unitary German state.
The hon. Gentleman went on to speak of the wider European fabric, and perhaps one can divide it into three. First, there are the immediate east European countries that were part of the Warsaw pact and which now wish to have association agreements with us, so we shall get closer that way, and they may eventually want to join. Secondly, there are the six EFTA countries with which we are renegotiating a new agreement—again, a wider grouping, and some of them may wish to join. Austria has already applied, and that is another neutral country.
I do not think we can go beyond that, except within the existing framework. When considering the future, I have always thought that we were fortunate in having those three frameworks. We have the European Community, we have NATO for our defence, which locks us in, both sides of the Atlantic—the defence of freedom is both sides of the Atlantic; it locks us into the United States and the United States into us—and we are able to use the Helsinki accords to go across the divide.
There will obviously be much more difficulty in getting a free market economy in eastern European countries, and particularly in the Soviet Union, and the greater the discussions we have with them the better. The framework exists, and I believe that it would be best to use that framework.
Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her statement this afternoon and the questions that have followed represent one of the most important events in the life of this Parliament? Is she aware that we are dealing with the fundamentals of our national life, not only for ourselves but for our children and our children's children? Is she further aware that she stands in the line of great Prime Ministers of this country who have stood up for Britain and have had the support of the vast mass of the people? We are fortunate to have my right hon. Friend, rather than the inexperienced Leader of the Opposition representing us abroad.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is extremely important that we stay in NATO and that we keep the United States in Europe to ensure both our freedom and our rule of law. It is important that we retain our national identity and our ancient traditions and heritage, which have done so much for the world. It is also important that we play a part in the development of Europe. However, we must remember that the civilisation of Europe, which is now seen the world over, was built up over centuries and that it belongs to more countries than just to the 12. Indeed, it was built up before Europe had any central authority, partly because of the variety within Europe and because there was always another place to go for those who sought more freedom than they found in any particular state.
Therefore, I agree with my hon. Friend and with Opposition Members who have said that this was one of the most important summits. That is why one finds it a
914
tremendously responsible and exciting job. We are shaping the future for a long time ahead and we shall do so carefully, with full respect for the traditions of this House.
Mr. Ron Leighton: If, contrary to the assurances that were given in the referendum, we were to have economic, monetary and now political union, and if, as Jacques Delors suggested, 80 per cent. of our policy was decided in Brussels and taken from this House, does the Prime Minister have any proposals to reduce the salaries of Members of Parliament by 80 per cent? As the Palace of Westminster would become rather redundant, does the Prime Minister have any plans to privatise it and to link it to the Greater London council building and turn it into a hotel, or perhaps it could be turned into a museum with a variety of artefacts that would remind tourists of the old days when Britain was a self-governing parliamentary democracy?
The Prime Minister: I realise that the hon. Gentleman worked hard at that supplementary question, but he is slightly out of tune with the spirit of the House today. We are all working anxiously for the future of Europe and the wider world and to extend freedom and the rule of law ever wider, along with wider prosperity. However, the hon. Gentleman has touched on something fundamental. There will be fierce debates about economic and monetary union. Those debates will be fierce because from what we have seen of Delors stages 2 and 3, which have been rather general, we do not like or accept the idea of going to a single currency or locked currencies or the idea of a central bank, which would take powers away from this House, as was described in the Delors report. We have already gone some distance because it has been made clear that that organisation would not have as many powers over the general budgetary decisions of this House as Delors set out. That issue will be hotly fought because a number of others want to go much further than we do.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who earlier spoke about the need for more information, was right to say that we shall need as much information as possible. That issue will be much more fiercely fought at the moment than that of political union, because political union is much further behind and we have stopped it meaning things that we did not want it to mean.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: May I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend both on her statement this afternoon and on all the ways in which she works for the British interest both in Europe and elsewhere in the world? In her discussions on the exchange rate mechanism, was she aware of the growing unease of many of the member countries about a fixed exchange rate mechanism covering such a broad spectrum when there is so much uncertainty about German monetary union? Is there really a good case for returning to fixed exchange rates after this country's unhappy experience from 1949 to the early 1970s? Therefore, are not we wise in being extremely cautious before we hand over our money supply to a third party?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. It is one thing to join an exchange rate mechanism with certain quite wide margins within which the currency can fluctuate, as has been necessary. We should consider Spain's experience since joining the exchange rate mechanism because that has not been an

915
easy option for Spain. It would be much more unwise to go to locked exchange rates. Some of us remember the times of fixed exchange rates under the Bretton Woods system when we used to hear in the House details of public expenditure cuts, of how we had to let go a great deal of our reserves, and of high interest rates—all at once. Those problems arose from the fixed Bretton Woods exchange rate system. It was broken, and we should be wary of returning to such a rigid system.
Mr. Giles Radice: In the past, the right hon. Lady has expressed concern about the consequences of German unification. In the circumstances, does she think that it is wise to go on harping—as she does—about national independence, national sovereignty and national identity? Is there not something to recommend the approach of President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl, who believe in a common approach that would bind a united Germany more closely to the Community?
The Prime Minister: Again, if I may say so, those are merely words. The Federal Republic is a member, and was a founder member, of the Community. Britain, too, is a member of the Community. We are all bound by the same rules, and we must all agree if we wish to change them. Why should being in the Community bind Germany more firmly that the rest of us? Again, it is a phrase which people are using rather easily.
Naturally, Germany will probably be one of the dominant countries in the Community because she is far larger and very rich. The rest of us would be right to have regard to that. That is one reason why people feel that we should extend the Community. If there is one dominant member in the Community, the other members must have regard to their national identity and to their traditions. Britain's parliamentary traditions go back further than those of any other Community member. Therefore, we have a specific balancing role to play—as we have always had—in Europe.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that mutual self-interest is the best binding agent for the EEC, and that political union could be divisive? We talk about German unity as if it was a matter of fact, but does the Soviet Union still retain some residual powers ahead of a peace treaty?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are in the Community because we believe that membership is in our interests and because we believe that we should co-operate on those things. That will give our children more scope and opportunities than we ever had. That is a good thing.
The Berlin four powers and the two Germanies have yet to decide how to wind up the present arrangements in Berlin. We took the view that we should be wary to ensure that that forum was not used to discuss wider defence matters but should be confined to that purpose. Any residual business to be completed will have regard to our duties—as an old occupying power—towards East Germany. Britain will do that with the greatest possible understanding. The Soviet Union is a member of the Berlin four and we will have to negotiate with it on the question of the peace treaty and German unification, even though many of us think that that is not necessary. However, there is a call for such a settlement, especially one that has regard to the borders of Poland. My hon.
916
Friend knows that both Germanies have now undertaken to honour the Oder-Neisse line. They say that as separate states. When they are unified they will have a treaty to that effect.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The right hon. Lady must be aware that I absolutely oppose and detest everything that she has done in relation to this country. The right hon. Lady is totally wrong when it comes to our internal situation here, but she is not wrong on everything; on odd occasions she can be right. She must also be aware that I used to be a staunch supporter of this country entering the Common Market until I realised the effect that it would have on ordinary people. It was that realisation which determined me to resign as a Labour Minister, because I believed that what the Government were doing at the time was wrong.
I still believe that the ordinary people of this country are not getting a good deal from the Common Market and that it is, therefore, right to ask the questions that the right hon. Lady has asked in regard to political union and what it means, and I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench are being too easily conned on these questions of the European Economic Community.
I believe in a socialist Europe. I want a united socialist Europe. I do not want the type of system which is being proposed at present. So I suggest that we need to be much more serious about this question—at present, some of our people are only too keen to rush into it.
While I disagree, therefore, with everything that the right hon. Lady says in relation to this country—[Laughter.] It is no laughing matter; it concerns the future of our people, and our people mean a lot to me. They may not mean a lot to some people, but I left a Government job because of them. While I disagree with her on everything else, she is right to ask the questions that she is asking.
The Prime Minister: I respect the hon. Gentleman as a sparring partner in domestic politics, and I enjoy sparring with him. I disagree with him and I am sorry that he does not accept that this country has had much greater prosperity during the past 10 or 11 years and a much higher international reputation.
With regard to the European Community, the future generation will take a different view from those of us who have lived through different experiences, but we will share this with them: they will have greater opportunities because of the European Economic Community, because of the way in which people can set up businesses and practise their professions in Europe and the way in which they can travel in Europe. It will be of great advantage to them. I hope that they will take that opportunity and perhaps be better at languages than we have been in the past. It is our job to create a better future. We do not disagree about that.
The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted a united socialist Europe. I do not. Eastern Europe is trying to get away from centralised socialism. The thing that always puzzles me about the hon. Gentleman is that he demands centralised socialism while being himself a great individualist.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people in this country arid throughout Europe will wholly support her in seeking to define more precisely and in practical terms what

917
European union means? On the exchange rate mechanism, will she acknowledge that many people feel that our interest rates in this country are much too high—almost double those in the European Community—because we rely solely on interest rates rather than on the co-operative mechanisms of the European monetary system? If, for example, we were to join the exchange rate mechanism tomorrow, would our interest rates be higher or lower? I suggest to my right hon. Friend they would be lower, to the benefit of our people.
The Prime Minister: We should all define our terms. I am always amazed that I have such difficulty in getting that across to some of my European colleagues.
With regard to the advantages or otherwise of going into the exchange rate mechanism, Spain may well have had some of the hopes expressed by my hon. Friend, but her interest rate has not moved at all—it is still high—her inflation rate has not moved and her trade deficit has not moved. One must be wary of assuming that by going into the exchange rate mechanism one has an easier ride or one's interest rate will suddenly come down. One should look at the experience of others who have joined it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Hungary, will the Prime Minister ask her senior Ministers to study the report of the Government adviser, Paul Hare, professor of business studies at Heriot-Watt university in Edinburgh, a Hungarian-speaker, to the effect that in the past few weeks Hungarians have been anxious about becoming over dependent on capital from Dusseldorf and Frankfurt, want greater British participation and feel that the Department of Trade and Industry could do rather more than it has done? Can this be studied?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right; some east European countries are a little wary of the dominance of German capital going into their countries and are very anxious that as much capital as possible from this country and others should also go into their countries so that they have a variety of investment. One must obviously choose investment very carefully and make it only in those things that we are good at, but we think that our capital could do best in Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. I will have a look at that report.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it must be obvious from today's exchanges in the House that her critical but none the less constructive approach to these big questions in the Community is broadly supported in the House? Does she equally accept, however, that the way in which the Community has developed in recent years and is continuing to develop suggests that it will be the private sector which will lead many of these developments and that it will be for national Governments and Community legal bodies to follow and ensure that Community law is adequately enforced?
In that context, does my right hon. Friend realise that her proposals for increasing the enforcement powers of the European Commission and for strengthening the European Court will point the way ahead in the Community?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is the private sector which will lead the way, certainly in
918
some of the matters connected with eastern Europe. The limiting factor is that when they go into eastern European countries they find no company law, often no contract law, often no credit law and sometimes no banking system, so some companies are naturally a little apprehensive. All those things automatically go to East Germany from West Germany, of course.
I agree with my hon. Friend that this has been a very constructive discussion. We are all conscious of the importance of the decisions that we make for the future and anxious for them to be right.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that, as one who believes that West Germany is getting too big for its jackboots, I cannot accept her rhetoric about the future of Britain, inside or outside the Common Market? We heard all the rhetoric before from the Prime Minister when she threatened to bring barrow-loads of money back from the Common Market in respect of the rebates. That is why invisibles are now in deficit—because of the massive amount of money that we are having to hand over to the Common Market. That is why every family in Britain is forking out £16 a week for the common agricultural policy.
We heard the rhetoric before about the single European market and how the right hon. Lady was going to stand up for Britain. What happened? She guillotined the Common Market legislation and dragged her troops through the Lobbies to get Britain into the single market. I do not believe the rhetoric.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. May I ask him to recall that, had we left the financial arrangements where his beloved Government left them——
Mr. Skinner: Nowt to do with me.
The Prime Minister: If we had left them where the Labour Government to which he was extremely hostile had left them, we should by now have paid £7·5 billion more to the Community than we have. It is because of the actions of this Government that we have paid £7·5 billion less. So the British people are £7·5 billion better off under a Conservative Government than they were under Labour.
Mr. Richard Alexander: My right hon. Friend will recollect that in the 1976 referendum Britain voted by a majority for economic union in Europe. May I reassure her that her reservations on political union are far more in tune with the views of the vast majority of people in this country than many of her detractors and critics would seem to suggest?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that that is so. I think that people are fearful of political union; they want considerable limits to it; and they want to know what those limits are.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who describe the genuine fears of people about political union and its effects on national sovereignty and this Parliament as "piffle" fundamentally misunderstand the views of the British people? Furthermore, the British people would rather be represented in the European Community by a bulldog than by a poodle.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Clearly there must be limits to political union. We must set them out and see that we do not go beyond them.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in practical terms we have shown the way in Europe and that there are fewer cases outstanding against us than against any other major European country? We have led in a number of initiatives, including the recent one on reducing air fares which would have been of real practical value to European citizens. Finally, it is not Britain that is dragging its feet in extraditing terrorists, whether to Dublin, Brussels or elsewhere.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I entirely agree that in practical terms we lead the way in implementing Community legislation. I think that that is generally recognised.
With regard to air fares, it was ironic that during a week when others were calling for political union France rejected our application for cutting air fares to Paris and Germany said that it was going to slap an extra tax in July on all lorries that went through German territory.
Mr. Tony Marlow: In the final statement from Dublin my right hon. Friend agreed that further decisive steps should be taken towards European unity. That seems like a cheque that other people might want to cash. Can she define which decisive steps she would agree to?
The Prime Minister: No. I think that if my hon. Friend looks at the statement, first we said that before we would agree to setting up an inter-governmental conference, which would have to be added to the treaty, we must analyse what is meant by political union—and there are several different models. Most people would want to co-operate more closely, but there would be some doubt about whether we needed a new treaty. If we do, we have a number of proposals to put forward that will make the existing institutions work much better. That would seem constructive and preferable to what we have now.
With regard to economic and monetary union, as my hon. Friend knows, we agree fully with what is called Delors stage 1—the completion of the single market. We are very wary indeed about Delors stage 2, and absolutely against stage 3, on which we shall also put up other proposals of our own. But I think that that matter will be contested more vigorously than anything else before us now.
Mr. John Greenway: Is it not clear from the brief debate this afternoon that the whole House is behind my right hon. Friend's stand in Europe, and that those who have criticised her position in recent months should be made to eat their words? Is it not also clear that, while some continue to promote a certain political ideology, she has continued to pursue practical solutions? May I comment on just two of them?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Make it one.
Mr. Greenway: It is crucial that while people are moving around more freely in a freer Europe we must maintain our borders against drug traffickers and terrorists. I warmly welcome the stand that my right hon. Friend took in Dublin to promote the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which was a British initiative. It was clear from the evidence that we took in the Select
920
Committee on Home Affairs that this should be pursued, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bring all her formidable powers to bear to ensure that that is done.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful. We have got it about right and I think that people are with us in the approach that we are taking. I entirely agree that we do not yet have the issue of borders clear. Britain has good, clear borders because we are an island, but we must remember that other people can get in a car and travel from one side of Europe to the other without going through many border checks. We do not yet have sufficient checks to apprehend drug dealers, criminals, or those who launder money, and such checks must be put in place. When the unification of Germany takes place, it is important that there be effective controls on the East German border with eastern Europe, because the less effective such borders checks are across Europe, the more important they are at the entrance at any point to Europe, whether by land or through an airport or seaport.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Did the Council of Ministers consider the forthcoming elections in Romania? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern that European aid to that country has effectively been hijacked by the National Salvation Front, which is basically a group of former failed communists who, are taking the political credit for European generosity?
The Prime Minister: No, we did not discuss Romania. We did rather well to discuss what we did in the time that we had. But we are very much aware of the previous credentials of some members of the National Salvation Front, and of the point that my hon. Friend makes.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Did my right hon. Friend discuss the social charter at the European Council? We voted one to 11 against that charter, but many people, particularly in employment agencies that provide temporary staff, are worried that, despite our voting against, regulations and directives will come through on majority voting which will make their businesses unviable. Will she comment on that?
The Prime Minister: We did not discuss the social charter at this meeting, but my hon. Friend is right to think that, although we did not agree to, and therefore knocked out that social charter, separate directives will come. They will be looked at then, not on the basis of rhetoric but on that of what they propose. We may have far more allies with us on that than we should have had on the general social charter which, had we approved it, would have extended the powers of the Commission beyond some of the treaty powers. That is why we were right not to go along with it. In any case, I believe that our social policy is far better than that represented in the social charter.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the personal attacks made on her before she went to Dublin will rebound on those who made them? Does she also recognise that her performance today at the Dispatch Box was an experience that no other European Prime Minister has to face, and that her answers in depth were classics that will long be remembered? Does she further recognise that, as Conservatives and Unionists, we know what union means? We expect others to spell out exactly what they mean by it.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I shall cherish the memory of his kind question.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the words of the late Matt Monro, "She's our kind of girl"? Does she realise that during her impressive performance at the Dispatch Box today she has clearly demonstrated to the British people and to Her Majesty the Queen that she is in Europe fighting for Great Britain? Does she also realise that it is quite impossible to talk about political union of Europe unless the French and Germans are prepared to define exactly what they mean by it? There is no doubt that our Prime Minister has got it right, and I hope that she has gained the admiration of the nation this afternoon.
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend very much. I shall continue to be a fighting Maggie for Britain.

Points of Order
Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The reason why I sought to raise this point of order about one and a half hours ago was that I wanted it to be heard while the Prime Minister and others who had been involved were still present—[Interruption.] I see, however, that she wants to leave the scene.
The point that I wanted to put to you, Mr. Speaker, was this: is it really a proper and sensible use of the limited time in Prime Minister's Questions to turn it into a ritualised, scripted chanting that sounded more like an audition for "A Chorus Line" than an opportunity to question the Prime Minister on issues such as the poll tax? The result is that other hon. Members and parties were excluded entirely from the questioning. Is it something that you would wish to see repeated, or would deprecate?
Mr. Speaker: It is entirely in the hands of the House. As long as we persist with the open question, we are bound to get much noise at Prime Minister's Question Time. If hon. Members were to table definitive questions, I think that Prime Minister's Question Time would be as it used to be in the past, and would proceed in the same good order as ordinary Question Time.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that yesterday I raised the sub judice rule and the Court of Appeal decision of last Friday. Have you had time to reflect on the position and come to a conclusion?
Mr. Speaker: As I undertook to do yesterday, I have looked at the questions and answers relevant to yesterday's points of order. I find that on 19 October 1988, the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) tabled a question to the Home Secretary for written answer on the following day asking whether he intended to propose amendments of the law concerning the right of silence in England and Wales. The Home Secretary in his reply favoured such a change and announced that he was setting up a working party on the subject. He also announced that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was laying before the House a draft Order in Council relating to the general criminal law in Northern Ireland. No corresponding question had been tabled to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but an answer was given by him on the same day, 20 October 1988, in the form of information "pursuant to" an answer on the general criminal law in Northern Ireland that he had answered on 20 July of that year. In the supplementary answer, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gave details of how the proposed changes in the law of Northern Ireland relating to the right of silence would work.
I am satisfied that neither the question from the hon. Member for Stockton, South nor the answer by either Secretary of State was in breach of the sub judice resolution of the House. A forthcoming general change in the law of evidence could never be announced to Parliament if cases currently being tried under the existing law prevented it. In addition, from what I have seen of the reports of proceedings in the Court of Appeal, the comments of the court do not appear to relate to the parliamentary answers themselves, but to interviews on television.

923
The Table Office will continue to examine questions for compliance with the sub judice resolution, but nothing in conflict with our own rules occurred in this case.
Mr. Bennett: Further to the point of order and to your statement, Mr. Speaker, would you consider the position further? If a Minister makes a statement on television pursuant to remarks made in the House, the Court of Appeal will take that into consideration. I think that you should consider that point as well.
Mr. Speaker: It is not a proceeding in Parliament. What happens on television and what hon. Members say outside the House are not protected in any way.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may consider that a matter of privilege arises. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) that when the Court of Appeal examined the answers given by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he was being questioned in an interview not about the case but about the legislation that he was bringing by way of Order in Council to the House. That makes it a different matter. I do not expect an answer from you at this stage, but would you consider referring the matter to the Select Committee on Privileges?
Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me. Statements made outside the House are not covered by privilege.
Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same point?
Rev. Martin Smyth: No, but you have said, Mr. Speaker, that you are not responsible for what happens on television. Has your attention been drawn to a press report today that television companies, particularly in Northern Ireland, have decided not to broadcast the next Northern Ireland Question Time because, of the first 20 questions, only two have been tabled by Members from Northern Ireland? I voted for television. One reason in favour of television was that it would be possible to broadcast to the regions regional affairs. Is it not a breach of that understanding if Northern Ireland Question Time is not broadcast?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should draw that to the attention of the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House. One thing that may be said about television is that it has greatly increased the number of questions on the Order Paper and the interest among hon. Members in Question Time.
Mr. David Ashby: Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is now televised and statements and answers to questions go over the air into the houses of potential jurors. Therefore, the sub judice rule will have to he considered again. Will you consider that aspect because a very important point has been raised?
Mr. Speaker: It is indeed a very important point. Proceedings in the House are totally privileged. If hon. Members say things to newspapers or say them on television, they are not privileged.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 30 March I submitted a
924
question for oral answer on 25 April to the Department of the Environment about the breakdown of local government revenue into central Government grant, the national business rate and the community charge. The question was brought forward for written answer on 20 April. I have not yet received a reply. I have been in contact with the Department of the Environment and I have discovered that the answer provided by the civil servants was on the Minister's desk on 19 April, but now the Department claims that it needs to investigate the figures further in order to provide an answer at a later date. I am afraid that the later date will be after Thursday's elections. The figures are relevant to the elections. It is the duty of the Opposition to press for information to use politically. Can anything be done to ensure that the information which I seek will be available before Thursday?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has done it.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, M r. Speaker. In the debate last evening on new clause 5 of the Environmental Protection Bill, I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and disputed some statistics that she was using. You will find that the record shows that the hon. Lady replied that what I had said was not true. I have had the opportunity to check the record——
Mr. Speaker: Order. A dispute between hon. Members in the Chamber is not a matter for me. The contents of Members' speeches are not my responsibility.
Mr. Bruce: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but I am asking for your guidance. When an Opposition Member accuses a Member on this side of an untrue statement, how can one get redress? Statistics supplied by the RSPCA were being used in a debate and it was claimed that 365,000 stray dogs are killed each year, yet its own report clearly states that only 90,000 stray dogs are killed each year. I need your guidance on how to get the point over.
Mr. Speaker: I listened to part of the debate when I was in the Chair. Even when I was not in the Chamber I heard what was going on. I understand that there was a good deal of disagreement on both sides of the House and indeed, on the Government's side about figures. It is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman must find other ways of raising that.
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have made a comment about the number of questions on the Order Paper. On quite a few occasions during the past 10 days we have got past questions Nos. 20 or 30, or even up to No. 40, because of the absenteeism of hon. Members, many of whom probably did not know that questions had been tabled in their names. Before questions are starred, Mr. Speaker, would it be possible for you to ensure that they have been tabled personally by the hon. Members? That would avoid duplication and ensure that those who genuinely want to ask questions are here.
Mr. Speaker: The Select Committee on Procedure has examined the matter, and I understand that its report is on the point of being published. I am avidly awaiting it. suggest that the hon. Member also studies it. He may find in that report the answer to his question.

Points of Order

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
  Ordered,
  That the Town and Country Planning General Development (Scotland) Order (S.I., 1990, No. 508) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Domestic and Part Residential Subjects (Scotland) (S.I., 1990, No. 630) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Non-Domestic Rates (Levying) (Scotland) Regulations (S.I., 1990, No. 788) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Community Charges (Levying, Collection and Payment) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations (S.I., 1990, No. 684) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Technology) Order (S.I., 1990, No. 424) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in English) (No. 2) Order (S.I., 1990, No. 423) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Control of Inflation (Local Government) Bill
5.10 pm
Mr. Kenneth Hind: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control the annual increases in expenditure of local authorities in England and Wales.
The purpose of the Bill is to seek to restrict local government spending to the rate of inflation for the next two years and to gear the measure of inflation to the local pay and prices index. Clearly, it must be recognised by the House that there are elements in the retail prices index that will not be in the pay and prices index, and vice versa. Therefore, it would be unfair to local authorities not to base the spending on the pay and prices index.
We must consider the principle behind the community charge and the way that it is worked out. The changeover from rates, paid by roughly a third of the population, to the community charge has resulted in large increases in local government expenditure. As a consequence, large amounts of extra local government taxation has been paid by the majority of people up and down the country.
I shall use my county of Lancashire as an example because I am most familiar with it. It has been pointed out by colleagues that many local authorities like Lancashire have—as when decimal coinage was introduced—under the umbrella of the change in policy, brought in extra expenditure that they would not otherwise have done. Lancashire is typical of many authorities up and down the country——
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Labour local authorities.
Mr. Hind: Yes, Labour authorities, as my hon. Friend rightly says, are the worst offenders in this regard. Lancashire is a typical example. It has increased its expenditure by 17·5 per cent. If rates had now been in operation in Lancashire, that would have resulted in an increase of 32 per cent. for every household. Clearly, that problem must be dealt with, and the Bill will do so.
The Bill will also deal with inflation. When inflation is the major enemy of the country and needs to be controlled, local government cannot be immune from its consequences. Labour local authorities are making vast increases and, consequently, increasing pressure on inflation, which damages everyone in our community. Central Government must control expenditure in order to control inflation, and the same discipline must be placed on local government. Hon. Members have to take difficult decisions when they see that there is merit in increasing expenditure, but feel that it would have long-term economic effects on the value of the pound, confidence in the world, the stock exchange, and the overall running of the country. In those circumstances, we say that we refuse to increase expenditure, and will perhaps reconsider the position in the future.
The increases in spending in local government will, in May, probably add at least 1 per cent. to the inflation rate. That will affect the possibility of reductions in mortgage interest rates, business interest rates and the Government's economic strategy. The Bill will ensure that local authorities cannot be immune from their responsibility to the community for downward pressure on inflation.

927
Labour councils' increased expenditure is everyone else's higher mortgage repayments, and the public must realise that.
Local councils have overspent their budgets for many years. There have been continual over-spenders, and Lancashire has been typical. Many Labour councils have shown themselves totally unable to control expenditure. Therefore, a cap must be placed on them to oblige them to make more sensible use of the resources available and to control what they do.
Until I discussed the matter with people I do not think that many of them realised that county councils, of which Lancashire is typical, levy seven eighths of the charge. They also do not realise that those councillors who are increasing the charge will not come up for re-election until 1993. That means that three further community charges will be set without any accountability to the electorate. If the Bill goes through the House, the electorate will feel that their interests will be protected until they can get to the ballot box to deal with the problem.
We must also recognise that those same county councils were elected in 1989, before the community charge came into operation. They have never had to say, "This is the amount that we will charge", and describe the services that they will provide. In 1993 they will have to face, and deal with, that problem.
The public must realise that county councils finance on a four-year cycle, which the Bill will break. In the first three of its last four years in power, the Labour group on Lancashire council increased rates above the inflation level and stacked away reserves. In the fourth year, election year, the Labour councillors spent those reserves to get themselves elected. Consequently, in the year after the election, they had to recharge the reserves which were as low as £1·7 million. The result is that the community charge in Lancashire consists of £13 per head to restock the reserves, plus an extra £11 to cover the overspend of the previous year when they had not levied sufficient funds from the electorate by way of rates—that makes a total of almost £25. In effect, the public were being bribed with their own money to elect a Labour council in the fourth year of the cycle. The Bill will stop that. I have no doubt that Lancashire is typical of Labour councils throughout the country.
Such a cap will oblige councillors to budget more prudently. Over-spenders like Lancashire will have to look for more efficient ways to provide services. Hampshire county council makes a good comparison. It has 125,000 more people, the age profile of its population is older and it provides the same services—on Government measure, at better quality—with 11,000 fewer employees than are being paid for by the Lancashire electors.
P and A reports are available in Lancashire that show that residential homes are in an appalling state and that social services, such as meals on wheels, are far too expensive and provide poor service, not reaching the people who desperately need them. To date, the council has not taken the advice of its own consultants, but prefers to levy large amounts from the population of Lancashire.
The Bill will also protect people on low income, whom all hon. Members have met, and whose pleas have been ignored by Lancashire county councillors. My district council, West Lancashire, asked for the county council to reduce its expenditure, but it refused. Increases in expenditure hit the population hard. The majority, whether on pensions, benefits or salaries, receive between
928
6·5 and 9 per cent. in increases. Lancashire constituents will have to meet 17·5 per cent. increases in expenditure, which erodes their standard of living and reduces their disposable income.
Voters must be aware that many Labour councils will succumb to the temptation to help Labour win the next election by continuing to increase the community charge. That is another factor that the electorate must bear in mind. If Opposition Members divide the House on what we believe to be a sensible measure, it will be only to enable their colleagues to continue to undermine the Government.
5.20 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I do not oppose the Bill in the spirit of trying to undermine the Government. Without yah-boo, I wish to put a contrary and, I hope, courteous case. If there are to be ten-minute Bills—there are some who think they should be abolished—we should take them seriously and not just let them go through because of parliamentary convenience, lethargy or whatever. I believe that this Bill should be opposed.
During the 1987 general election, I spoke in the hon. Gentleman's town hall in Accrington in support of the Labour candidate Keva Coombes. As a Scot, I spent 10 of the 20 minutes available speaking about the poll tax. When I left the platform, I was asked rather sharply why I had spent so long on that matter. It is only when we experience the poll tax that we realise the full enormity of what is happening.
I say gently to Conservative Members that if they think that year two will be any easier than year one, they are mistaken. It will make parliamentary life a misery. If we could start all over again, for the sake of personal convenience rather than political advantage I would never want to embark on such a road again. There is a geological flaw in the system. The hon. Member for Accrington—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hyndburn—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong Member."] The hon. Gentleman is tinkering with the tax in the hope of making some improvement. There is no raft; no safety net. The hon. Member for Hyndburn——
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman has the wrong Member.
Mr. Dalyell: I am sorry. The hon. Member for Accrington—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong."] There is no safety net to rescue people. There is no safety vehicle. The poll tax is bound by geological flaws and there is no way that it can succeed.
I wish to cite just a few figures. There are now 400,000 people in the Strathclyde region alone who have either not paid or have been unable to pay in full. For most of them, it is not a political protest——
Mr. David Ashby: What is it then?
Mr. Dalyell: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that people at the lower end of the income scale have other bills to pay, such as electricity——
Mr. Ashby: What about the roof tax?
Mr. Dalyell: I am not putting my case in a yah-boo way. I am trying to explain why there are fundamental difficulties. People put poll tax at the bottom of the list,

929
debts mount up and, even more serious, actual physical illness is caused by worry. We have constituency experience of that.
When any scheme is introduced, sooner or later there must be sanctions. In Scotland, it is the sheriff officers and the warrant sales. There must be some legal sanctions. That is exceedingly unpleasant and creates resentment. It is causing constituency agony. Some 23 per cent. of people do not pay the poll tax. In Lothian region, which is smaller than Strathclyde, 70,000 people have not paid the poll tax. That did not happen under the rating system.
The hon. Gentleman's proposal is merely alleviative—it is an attempt to alleviate a difficult position. There is no way that it can be alleviated. The system is geologically flawed and fundamentally impossible because property is static and people are mobile. It is more difficult in the second year to trace people. Many thousands of people have not had a poll tax demand. The officials in my local authority are very efficient, but because of the constant changes of address the task is very difficult. Rather than trying to introduce an alleviative measure, the House of Commons should face the problem and admit that the poll tax cannot be amended. The system should be changed and we should go no further down the poll tax road.
Mr. Hind: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am the hon. Member for Lancashire, West, not for Accrington or Hyndburn. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did not speak in my constituency.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 88, Noes 143.

Division No. 188]

[5.26 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Alexander, Richard

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Allason, Rupert

Hill, James

Amos, Alan

Hind, Kenneth

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Holt, Richard

Aspinwall, Jack

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Bellingham, Henry

Irvine, Michael

Bevan, David Gilroy

Irving, Sir Charles

Body, Sir Richard

Janman, Tim

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Jessel, Toby

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Brazier, Julian

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Buck, Sir Antony

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Butler, Chris

Kilfedder, James

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Carrington, Matthew

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Conway, Derek

Latham, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Cran, James

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Dickens, Geoffrey

Miller, Sir Hal

Dunn, Bob

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Monro, Sir Hector

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Mudd, David

Fookes, Dame Janet

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Gale, Roger

Porter, David (Waveney)

Gill, Christopher

Price, Sir David

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Riddick, Graham

Gorst, John

Rost, Peter

Gow, Ian

Sayeed, Jonathan

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Shelton, Sir William

Gregory, Conal

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Speller, Tony

Hague, William

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

930

Stern, Michael

Viggers, Peter

Stokes, Sir John

Waller, Gary

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Ward, John

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Wheeler, Sir John

Thorne, Neil

Widdecombe, Ann

Thurnham, Peter

Wood, Timothy

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Tredinnick, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Trotter, Neville

Mr. Nicholas Bennett and Mr. David Ashby.

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Hood, Jimmy

Allen, Graham

Howells, Geraint

Anderson, Donald

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Armstrong, Hilary

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Ingram, Adam

Barron, Kevin

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Battle, John

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Beckett, Margaret

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Beith, A. J.

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Bell, Stuart

Kirkwood, Archy

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

Leadbitter, Ted

Blunkett, David

Leighton, Ron

Boyes, Roland

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Bradley, Keith

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Buchan, Norman

McAllion, John

Buckley, George J.

McCartney, Ian

Caborn, Richard

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Callaghan, Jim

McNamara, Kevin

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

McWilliam, John

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Madden, Max

Canavan, Dennis

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Cartwright, John

Marek, Dr John

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Clay, Bob

Martlew, Eric

Clelland, David

Maxton, John

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Meacher, Michael

Cohen, Harry

Michael, Alun

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Cousins, Jim

Morgan, Rhodri

Cox, Tom

Morley, Elliot

Crowther, Stan

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Cryer, Bob

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Cummings, John

Mullin, Chris

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Murphy, Paul

Cunningham, Dr John

Nellist, Dave

Dalyell, Tarn

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Darling, Alistair

O'Brien, William

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

O'Neill, Martin

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

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Dixon, Don

Patchett, Terry

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Pike, Peter L.

Eadie, Alexander

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Eastham, Ken

Primarolo, Dawn

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Radice, Giles

Fatchett, Derek

Redmond, Martin

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Richardson, Jo

Fisher, Mark

Robertson, George

Flannery, Martin

Rogers, Allan

Flynn, Paul

Rowlands, Ted

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Ruddock, Joan

Foster, Derek

Salmond, Alex

Foulkes, George

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Fyfe, Maria

Short, Clare

Galloway, George

Sillars, Jim

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Skinner, Dennis

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Gould, Bryan

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

Graham, Thomas

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

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Spearing, Nigel

Hardy, Peter

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Haynes, Frank

Steinberg, Gerry

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Stott, Roger

Hinchliffe, David

Straw, Jack

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Home Robertson, John

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

931

Walley, Joan

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Tellers for the Noes:

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Mr. Harry Barnes and

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Mr. Terry Lewis

Wray, Jimmy

Question accordingly negatived.

Points of Order
5.37 pm
Sir Hal Miller: On a point of order, M r. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for interrupting the proceedings, but I am raising an extremely urgent matter on which we need a statement from a responsible Minister.
I have just been informed that Mr. Peter Mitchell, among others at Walter Somers, has been arrested and was initially denied access to his solicitor, who was procured only through the good intervention of his wife. I should like a Minister to make a statement on how this has occurred, as I have evidence which has been tested by a former Attorney-General and which stands up in court. I am very happy to go to court should they be charged. As they have not been charged so far, I understand that the matter is not sub judice and therefore it is proper and meet to have a statement before the close of business today.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time. I have received no request for permission to make a statement. Of course, the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised are not directly for the Chair, but doubtless what has been said will have been heard. Certainly the Chair will take account of the hon. Gentleman's point about the application of the sub judice rule should these matters be referred to in subsequent exchanges.
Mr. Richard Caborn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you probably know, the case also affects my constituency. I understand that between Somers and Forgemasters 14 people are now being questioned, three are under arrest and six further executives at Forgemasters are at police stations giving statements. I concur with the request for an urgent statement in the House as the case is having a tremendous effect on both companies and we want to get the matter clear. The Government have a series of questions and a letter that I sent to the Prime Minister because I have had over the phone clearance on those contracts on which those people are now being questioned and which were cleared by the Department of Trade and Industry.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot usefully add to what said in reply to the earlier point of order.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have now reached a point where one British subject is languishing in a Greek prison and other respectable people are in the hands of the police or the Revenue. If the House is not about justice for individuals, it is about nothing. It is time that the Government made a proper and prepared statement about the matter. There is no justice if people can be made scapegoats for other people's inefficiencies or injustice.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlighgow): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we are to have a statement, and whoever makes it, could we have a Defence Minister present to explain the role of the secretariat of the Defence

933
Export Services Organisation in the matter? That has considerable relevance to the legal proceedings that have taken place.
Sir John Stokes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will know, the excellent long-established and highly regarded firm to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) referred is in my constituency. The moment that I heard about these difficulties, I tried to obtain information from several Government Departments. I have been given no help whatever. Surely one is entitled to receive an answer from a Minister. Ministers should not hide behind civil servants.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am surprised that the Chair has not taken some action before now. I concur with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) about this affair. I suggest that the Chair seriously considers bringing the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the Bar of the House. Let us deal with the matter.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not usual, when the Chair is faced with problems such as this in the course of the day's business, for the Leader of the House to be on hand to intervene and perhaps to avoid the Chair becoming involved in matters that cannot be dealt with easily under Standing Orders? As several Conservative Members have raised legitimate points, has there not been sufficient time to send a message to the Leader of the House that a matter of genuine concern has been raised on which he should come before the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a serious matter about which hon. Members are deeply worried. Undoubtedly what has been said in the Chamber will be communicated to the Leader of the House. I repeat that I have not yet received any request for permission to make a statement.

Finance Bill
[Relevant document: Fourth Report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of Session 1989–90 on the 1990 Budget (HC314)]
Order for Second Reading read.
5.42 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill implements the measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. As a background to today's debate, the House has the benefit of the report of the Treasury Select Committee on the Budget. The report is thoughtful and thorough. As my right hon. Friend said in his Budget speech, this year we have provided a longer and more comprehensive account in the Red Book of the operation of monetary policy. I hope that, as we intended, it has been useful to the Select Committee in its inquiry. This is not the time for me to comment on the report in detail. The Committee has made several recommendations, which we are studying carefully and to which we shall respond fully in due course. However, I shall refer to one or two points in the report.
I note with interest the Select Committee's view that reserve asset ratios are not, as is sometimes suggested, an alternative monetary instrument to interest rates. The Committee report suggests that reserve asset ratios do not serve as direct credit controls.
I also note with interest the Select Committee's anxiety about the retail prices index as a reliable, or unreliable, indicator of inflationary pressures. To some extent, the Committee's comments echo remarks and observations made by the Government on other occasions.
The Select Committee's remarks about statistics are also interesting. It is always tempting, although on the whole it is a temptation to be avoided, to blame any problem of economic management on misleading statistics. Harold Macmillan referred to the difficulty of trying to steer the economy on the basis of statistics. He compared it with looking up train times in last year's Bradshaw. More recently, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), in his highly entertaining memoirs which I read at Christmas, said of economic forecasts:
"Like long-term weather forecasts they are better than nothing … But their origin lies in the extrapolation from a partially known past, through an unknown present, to an unknowable future according to theories about the causal relationships between certain economic variables which are hotly disputed by academic economists, and may in fact change from country to country or from decade to decade."
At the time of the 1988 Budget, we believed—on the basis of provisional estimates—that domestic demand had risen by 4 per cent. in 1987. The latest estimate is that demand increased by 5½per cent. In a situation where we think that the sustainable long-term growth rate may be a little under 3 per cent. a year, this makes the crucial difference between an economy growing at close to its sustainable rate and one growing well in excess of it. That was precisely the point that the Committee made.
The state of economic statistics has been a concern of the Select Committee for some time now, and there has been some interchange between the Committee and the Treasury on this. I am glad to see that the Committee believes that that has been fruitful. As the Chancellor told

935
the Committee in his evidence on 3 April, it is both desirable and necessary to improve the general quality of economic statistics, and this is being pursued with the Central Statistical Office. We shall return to the Committee and reply fully to those points.
The debate on the Finance Bill usually becomes a debate on the tax measures and on the economy more generally. No doubt we are about to hear from the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) a long catalogue of gloomy prognostications, as we heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) the other day. The understandable anxiety about inflation, and the current account, should not be allowed to disguise the real gains and improvements that the British economy has made in the past decade.
I am not sure whether the Opposition really believe it when they claim that nothing has gone right and that there have been no improvements whatever in the past decade, but in my opinion they do no service to their party—let alone any wider interest—with that distorted view.
The Opposition seem content to point selectively to the fact, which is not disputed by the Government, that the British economy will grow more slowly than Germany or the EC average this year, without even so much as acknowledging that, on average, over the 1980s the United Kingdom growth rate has been significantly above that of Germany and the EC average. And even with the slower growth forecast for 1990, the United Kingdom will have grown faster since 1980 than Germany or France. The Opposition concentrate on one year at the expense of a decade. The fact that I mentioned is remarkable, but it is never mentioned. I wonder why.
The Opposition are also prepared to point out that our relative inflation rate this year will be considerably worse than the European Community average, without so much as mentioning that for the past 10 years our inflation rate has been broadly the same as—in fact, only 0·1 percentage point above—the European Community average since May 1979. That is a considerable improvement on the previous two years.
The Opposition are again content to point out that investment will fall this year, without acknowledging for one moment that business investment growth since 1980 has been faster here than in all the major seven countries except Japan.
Although it is much mentioned by independent commentators, the Opposition have never in my hearing mentioned the fact that United Kingdom manufacturing productivity growth was faster in the 1980s than all the other G7 countries. It will probably not be long before they mention that this year productivity will slow down as the economy slows down. Again, that is a statistic for one year which needs to be set against the progress of a decade.
Most remarkably, we never hear the Opposition mention that on a standardised basis United Kingdom unemployment is below that for the European Community as a whole. When have we ever heard from the Opposition about the remarkable transformation in profitability of British industry or about the remarkable improvement in industrial relations compared with those a decade ago? If the Opposition are as concerned about manufacturing industry as they profess to be, they should acknowledge those two factors because both are essential for the survival and growth of manufacturing industry.
These are solid achievements in the past decade. The Opposition may dispute them, but other less partisan
936
observers are prepared to be more realistic. An article in The Independent yesterday by the director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies is a case in point. In that article, Mr. Bill Robinson drew the connection between the lasting supply-side improvements and the performance of our exports. He wrote:
"UK exporters have broadly managed to hold their share of world markets with no help from the exchange rate. This is an important change, for as long as we were losing market share, we were condemned to a slower rate of growth than our competitors. It is no coincidence that in the 1980s we moved from near the bottom of the world growth league to near the top.
The structural improvements in the economy which wrought that transformation are still in place. There is no reason why the 1990s should not be another decade of steadily improving economic performance."
Mr. John Battle: The Chief Secretary may be aware that the Engineering Employers Federation published its economic trends survey only last week. It pointed out that there are fundamental structural problems facing the engineering industry because the demand for engineering products outside the United Kingdom is falling rapidly and that will mean the loss of 19,000 jobs in the coming year. It does not paint such a rosy picture as the right hon. Gentleman does. That does not suggest that the Opposition have a partisan view.
Mr. Lamont: There has been a remarkable increase in engineering output in recent years and a remarkable increase in investment in the engineering industry. It has never been disputed that there will be a slow-down, but our point is that people should not look at that slow-down in isolation. They should look not at the statistics for one year, but at the dramatic progress that has been made over a decade.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) might like to look at the annual survey of the United Kingdom economy last autumn by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which again pointed to our improved supply-side performance and compared it both with past performance and with the progress of our competitors. It compared the improvement in the balance between output growth and inflation in the 1980s with that from 1973 to 1979:
"suggesting that there have been policy induced improvements in supply performance … the deterioration in performance in the 1970s has been reversed and compared with other Member countries, there has been a relative improvement."
Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as the engineering industry is facing problems, its answer is to look abroad? It is essential that it keeps down unit labour costs. Does he agree that the unions were very unwise this year to press for a shorter working week, which increases unit labour costs and reduces competitiveness?
Mr. Lamont: I am sure that that is the last thing we can afford at the moment. My hon. Friend is right. Fortunately, exports of manufactured goods, including exports of engineering goods, have been doing extremely well.
Sir Peter Hordern: Conservative Members must concur with all that my right hon. Friend has said about the excellent record of British industry and of the economy in general over the past 10 years. Is it not the case that engineering companies are now complaining about

937
difficulties ahead? Is it not also the case that wage increases are now rising fast? Is it not important for my right hon. Friend and the Government to make it absolutely clear that the Government will not bail out companies which award large wage increases by depreciating the currency against other major currencies? It would be most helpful for my right hon. Friend to say that.
Mr. Lamont: We will make that clear. We have repeatedly made it clear that excessive wage claims will not be accommodated by a relaxation of monetary policy and that if wage negotiators on either side insist on inflationary wage settlements, the main effects will be felt in the labour market.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) referred to industry. It was interesting that yesterday the director general of the Confederation of British Industry in a speech again referred to the progress that has been made in manufacturing industry in the past decade. He referred to the period before 1979 as one of relative decline and social disintegration and then said:
"That era ended thank goodness in 1979. The new era could perhaps best be labelled 'the era of free market competition'."
That is the considered view of the director general of the CBI. He went on:
"We enter the 1990s with the supply side of the British economy in incomparably better shape than at any time in our history."
The view that there has been a fundamental transformation of our underlying competitiveness is the view taken by the director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, by the OECD in its survey of the British economy, and by the director general of the CBI. Apparently everybody is out of step except the Labour party. Who should we believe—the OECD, the CBI, the Institute of Fiscal Studies or the Labour party? Which is the dispassionate observer and which has a vested interest?
Perhaps the director general of the CBI had the Labour party in mind when he said:
"We must believe in ourselves. Too many damaging myths have gained currency—myths which if unchallenged will prejudice our ability to build on what has already been achieved."
I believe that a constructive Opposition would recognise that there have been tremendous improvements in the past decade and that that is an opportunity on which they should be seeking to build, and to suggest a way ahead and improvements rather than attempting to make us believe that there has been no progress.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I hope that the Chief Secretary will tell the House what implications he feels that the coming changes in the poll tax will have for the Budget projections. When the changes are introduced, will they be backdated for Scotland to cover the year in which the Scottish people have borne the full brunt of the poll tax unamended? Will the retrospective changes, if introduced, be funded from the Treasury or merely recycled from Scottish Office funding?
Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman gets 10 out of 10 for ingenuity, but that has nothing to do with the Finance Bill and he will not tempt me.
Our present concerns stem from the excessive growth of 1987 and 1988. That lies behind current concerns about inflation and the current account. That period was one
938
when, incidentally, the Labour party continually claimed that we were not growing fast enough, continually described the economy as being in recession and called continuously for even larger stimuli to be given to the economy.
The fact is that, precisely when the Labour party was calling for further expansion, we had a period of too rapid growth when demand for goods both from companies and from consumers outstripped even a much improved supply-side performance. This has produced an inevitable reappearance of inflationary pressure although the underlying rate is still below the best achieved by the Labour Government and the percentage rise in underlying inflation since 1986 is not out of line with the increase in the United States, Japan or Germany.
We have tightened policy considerably. A tight monetary policy—high interest rates—has been backed by a tight fiscal stance with large budget surpluses. There is clear evidence that the economy has slowed considerably. The evidence can be seen in the housing market, in retail sales and in motor car registrations. Real domestic demand is forecast to fall slightly this year following growth averaging 5 per cent. over the previous three years. Although the monthly trade figures for March were disappointing, the underlying trend suggests that exports are growing far faster than imports.
In the past six months, exports have been up by 11 per cent. compared with a year earlier, whereas imports have risen by only 1½per cent. in the same period. The CBI quarterly trends survey provides further evidence that the decline in domestic demand has been broadly offset by continued expansion in export orders. The evidence is there to suggest that firms are switching from the home market into export orders on a considerable scale.
The Budget was designed to maintain our tight policy stance. Some have complained that it was not tough enough and some have suggested that taxes should have been raised. To have had any real impact, we should have needed a substantial increase of, say, £5 billion, which in our judgment would have risked pushing the economy into an unnecessary recession and damaging our improved supply-side performance. The Government's expectation is that the current policy will prove tight enough to bring down inflation.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The Chief Secretary is fond of referring to a consensus of commentators. Does he accept that a consensus of commentators—even the same ones as he has been quoting—would not agree that the Government's policies enable them to get inflation down to their forecast level of 31 per cent. by 1992?
Mr. Lamont: I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed in the Financial Times last week that a range of outside forecasts were placed alongside Government forecasts and published in tabular form. There were about 30 in all. The difference between those outside forecasts and the Government's forecast was not all that great. Indeed, some of the outsiders were even more optimistic.
The years leading up to 1988 and 1989 saw a remarkable increase in confidence and profitability, combined with the freeing of financial markets. These factors provided both the incentive and the means for a huge boom in business investment—perhaps the biggest

939
since the war. Between 1986 and 1989, companies and public corporations increased their fixed investment by more than 40 per cent. in real terms. Over the eight years to 1989, investment has grown twice as fast as consumption. But although investment has grown rapidly, personal saving has been falling. Individuals, enjoying steadily rising real incomes, have had the confidence to borrow more and save less. As a result, private saving overall has been insufficient to match the high level of investment; indeed, the excess of private investment over private saving has been quite unprecedented in the post-war period.
The need to restore the balance between savings and investment is especially important for the current account. Just as a company which invests more than it saves via retained earnings has to borrow from elsewhere, so a nation which invests more than it saves must borrow the balance from abroad. In other words, the current account will be in deficit. The public sector has been in substantial surplus, but this has been more than offset by the private sector's borrowing from abroad to finance the investment boom. Higher interest rates are already boosting saving, but the Budget and the Finance Bill also contain further measures to bring saving and investment back into balance, which is important for the current account.
The Budget was a Budget for savers, and the Bill contains a whole range of tax incentives which will help to improve the climate for saving. Conservative Governments have always made it their business to support the saver. Anyone who put his money in a building society in 1979 will have seen the value of his savings rise by a half in real terms before tax. Savers are getting a much better return, and rightly so. Under the last Labour Government, a punitive tax system made saving a worthless activity. Inflation was high and interest rates low in comparison. The real return on savings was negative and the post-tax return was fiercely negative.
Nor was the investment income surcharge, as Labour Members often imply, confined to the so-called super-rich. When Labour left office in 1979, the surcharge was payable on savings income above £1,700 a year. Investment income surcharge was payable on sums as small as that.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Does the Chief Secretary agree that, when the Conservative party took office, inflation was running at 10·3 per cent. and that it is likely to have been running at more than 10 per cent. this April? Does not that mean that we have had 11 wasted years of Conservative Government?
Mr. Lamont: I thought that the statistics were so well known that it was hardly necessary to rehearse the average rates of inflation under this Government and under the Labour Administration respectively. Even now, at the high point of the cycle, the underlying rate of inflation is below the lowest level ever achieved by the Labour Government. But that is a slight digression from my main point about savings. Given the situation that we inherited, it is small wonder that one of our first priorities was to reduce marginal rates, and this we have done. Successive cuts in income tax and the abolition of the investment income surcharge mean that for many savers—not just higher rate taxpayers but basic rate taxpayers, too—marginal rates have been halved.
940
We have made saving worth while. One of the welcome results has been the rise in pensioners' average net incomes, which between 1979 and 1986 went up by more than 30 per cent. in real terms.
Mr. Giles Radice: If the Government's policy on saving is so good, how come the saving ratio is at an all-time low whereas when the Labour Government were in power the savings ratio was about double what it is today?
Mr. Lamont: Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear. As I tried to explain, the problem has not been hat people have not been saving in the sense of putting money aside from their earnings. The problem has been that net savings, measured after borrowing, have fallen. The trouble is that people have had confidence and have been borrowing more than ever before. That applies not just to individuals but to companies, and companies do not borrow unless they have great confidence in the future.
Our next priority has been to ensure that the choice in different savings instruments is less distorted by the tax system. For example, if one transfers money from a bank to a building society, no tax charge is incurred, whereas if one transfers it from a bank into equities one has to pay a surcharge in the form of stamp duty. In 1979, the surcharge was as high as 2 per cent. It was hardly surprising that direct share ownership was going out of fashion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) halved the rate in 1984 and again in 1986. This year we have gone one step further. Clauses 91 to 95 will finally put an end to a duty which was introduced in 1714, the year of Queen Anne's death. I regret to say that the tax was introduced by a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer, so this change represents something of a delayed U-turn, although my hon. Friends will welcome it none the less.
Abolition will coincide as far as is possible with the introduction of paperless share transactions by the stock exchange, probably at the beginning of 1992. It will ensure that the City of London enters the European single market in as competitive a position as possible. It will also ensure that share ownership continues to widen and deepen. One in four adults in Britain now owns shares; in 1979, the proportion was just one in 14. That has been a remarkable change. But the benefit of abolition will not just be confined to direct shareholders. Most of the full year cost of £800 million will go to benefit the tens of millions of people who save indirectly through the institutions—in life assurance, pensions and unit trusts.
As well as removing distortions, we have in recent years created new savings media which allow people to accumulate capital, unencumbered by demands for income and capital gains tax. Nearly 4 million people have now taken out personal pensions; 2 million employees have been given shares or options to shares through employee share schemes, again showing that the benefits are not confined to a few rich people; and 700,000 savers have taken out personal equity plans. The number is likely to grow further in the year ahead as savers take advantage of the 25 per cent. increase in the PEP limit announced in my right hon. Friend's Budget.
The success of the schemes has surpassed expectation. And the Government have decided that it is time to extend similar tax treatment to saving through banks and

941
building societies. That is how most people—34 million of them—save. That is why we are introducing tax exempt special savings accounts under clause 23.
The attraction of the tax exempt special savings account is essentially its simplicity. It is necessary only to deposit money and leave it there for the full five years of the account and the saver gets his or her return tax free. Savers can withdraw interest as it accrues, albeit on a net of tax basis, or they can leave it to roll up. In either event, they will be entitled to the tax paid at the end of the five-year period. I believe that that is a considerable break-through and much to be welcomed.
The tax exempt special savings account will suit a wide variety of savers. The pensioner with a small capital sum will be able to put up to £3,000 in his account in the first year and £1,800 in subsequent years up to a total limit of £9,000. The younger person, perhaps saving for a deposit on a flat, will be able to put an annual bonus into a TESSA or, if it is more convenient, enter a contractual arrangement saving up to £150 a month.
Of course there have been contractual savings schemes in the past, but they were largely designed to raise money for the Government. The TESSA scheme is completely different. The banks and building societies will be free to offer competitive interest rates. I have no doubt that the scheme will prove immensely popular when it begins in January 1991. As the marketing manager of one of the clearing banks said:
"This is what the banks and building societies have wanted for years. It will do a lot to encourage the small saver and we will be aiming to introduce the TESSA account as soon as possible."
Complementing those measures will be the abolition of the composite rate tax which will be the seventh major tax to be abolished by the Government. When composite rate tax was first put on the statute book in 1951, it affected fewer than 3 million building society depositors. It could be justified on the grounds that it was simple, easy to administer and that there were alternative savings media which attracted interest gross of tax.
The composite rate tax system may have had its administrative attractions for the Government, and for the Treasury in particular, but the advent of independent taxation weakened the case for it considerably. As a result, the number of non-taxpayers paying composite rate tax rose to 14 million and the Government decided that it was time to change the system. From April 1991, non-taxpayers will be able to receive their building society or bank interest free of tax. Five million married women, 4 million pensioners, 2·5 million children and 2·5 million other depositors with low incomes will benefit by an average of £1·40 a week. The relevant clauses will be introduced in Committee.
Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most admirable aspects of that abolition is the element of self-certification for tax-free status, which shows a greater—and justifiable—trust in the taxpayer than many Governments have dared to show in the past?
Mr. Lamont: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations. Obviously abolition also has administrative
942
advantages. I believe that it is better to put the compliance obligation on the taxpayer. I wholly concur with my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that of those paying CRT, although a minority will not pay tax, most depositors will pay more because they will pay at the standard rate? The Government will raise quite a substantial sum of money next year as a result of that change.
Mr. Lamont: We cannot abolish the CRT and expect people who ought to pay the basic rate of income tax not to pay it. That was the whole theory of CRT. There was a weighting between the non-taxpayer and the taxpayer. It was a subsidy to the better off and enormously unfair on the less well off. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) intervened on behalf of the better off.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: With the standard rate of taxation, personal allowances can be taken into account, which reduces the rate very much lower than the rate to which the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) referred.
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am grateful to him.
I have said that the relevant clauses on CRT will be introduced in Committee. I must state, as I have indicated to the Opposition, that that is not the only measure announced in the Budget which will be tabled in Committee. That reflects pressure on parliamentary counsel, the need to consult interested parties and, of course, the need to get complex and far-reaching measures absolutely right.
An improved environment for savers will in time also feed though to an improved environment for investors. That is the recipe for balanced growth. However, the Bill contains a number of measures designed to have a more immediate effect on businesses. For example, clause 19 will increase the small companies' tax thresholds to £200,000 and to £1 million and will reduce the tax burden for 20,000 companies. That means that no company with profits of less than £1 million will pay the full rate of corporation tax.
Since the Government took office, the lower threshold has increased by more than 60 per cent. in real terms and the higher threshold almost fivefold—and that is on top of a reduction in the small companies corporation tax rate from 42 per cent. to 25 per cent. As a result, we can now fairly claim to have one of the most favourable tax regimes for small firms anywhere in the world. Even though the economy has been slowing down, new businesses are still being created at the rate of about 1,500 a week after netting off failures. That is a dramatic change from the time when the Labour party was in office and there was a net fall in new business creation.
Small firms will also benefit particularly from the VAT changes. The VAT changes in clauses 9 and 10 will reduce burdens on business and they represent a major package of deregulation. By allowing VAT relief on all bad debts, those clauses end an anomaly whereby companies in effect pay tax on money that they did not receive. Registration for VAT will also be easier. The vast majority of firms will no longer be subjected to three complicated turnover tests.

943
Instead, there will be just one simple test based on turnover in the previous year. That should be of particular benefit to new businesses.
Employee share ownership trusts were given a statutory basis in last year's Budget with support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) has been a veteran campaigner on that issue and the hon. Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) have also strongly supported that principle. I believe that support for ESOPs is strong among Conservative and Opposition Members.
If ESOPs are to become widespread, they need further encouragement. At present, if a proprietor sells shares in his company to his work force he incurs an immediate capital gains tax charge. If, on the other hand, he sells them to a quoted company—a point that was brought to my attention last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher—in exchange for shares, he qualifies for roll-over relief. That is an enormous disincentive to creating an ESOP and clauses 25 to 32 will ensure that that position is changed. The owner who sells shares in his company to an ESOP will now qualify for roll-over relief.
The Bill also contains a small but useful measure to help training. Training and enterprise councils will give the private sector new opportunities to determine its own needs and to help meet them. The Government believe that employers are best placed to decide the training needs of their businesses and to organise appropriate training. Clause 68 will ensure that contributions by businesses to support. TECs are tax deductible. That new relief will give a further incentive to businesses to make donations to TECs.
Clause 20 will ensure that nurseries provided by employers will no longer be treated as a benefit in kind for income tax purposes, as has been the case since 1948. We have always taken the view—and previous Governments have also taken the view—that it is not for the Government to encourage or discourage women with children to work through the provision of artificial tax incentives or disincentives. We remain of the view that, in general, benefits in kind should be subject to income tax. However, it was becoming increasingly apparent that the tax treatment of workplace nurseries was difficult to collect and functioned as something of a disincentive both to people wanting to return to the labour force and to employers.
The measure has been criticised by some as not going far enough, but general child care relief would cost hundreds of millions of pounds and would run counter to the dominant thrust of tax reform in recent years—that is, to achieve a wider tax base with much lower marginal rates.
We have instead opted for a limited relief, which in my view represents a sensible balance between the needs of the tax system and widespread demands for change. The new exemption will involve only a small deadweight cost and, with its focus on the place of work, is consistent with the tax treatment of other benefits in kind such as canteens provided at the employment location.
The final business measure that I should like to mention relates to banks' sovereign debt. Tax relief is, as it should be, available to banks, as to other lenders, for bad and doubtful debts. That includes debts owed to banks by foreign Governments. Clause 66 tackles the thorny problem of the tax treatment of the writing off by some
944
banks of substantial proportions of such debt. The present law is uncertain. To allow banks to claim relief on the full amount written off in any one year could have a significant adverse impact on tax revenues. The proposed clause will allow banks to continue to offset their losses fully against tax, but the losses will have to be phased over a period of some years. The exact phasing permissible will be broadly based on the Bank of England's matrix. If a debt is sold to a third party, the tax relief will be similarly phased. If the debt is sold back to the debtor, however, relief will be immediately available.
Mr. Peter Viggers: An important point of principle is involved here. The directors of a company arid its auditors should be responsible for assessing the profits of a company, and that company should be taxed accordingly. Clause 66 will, in effect, deprive a company of sovereign debt write-offs to which it would otherwise be entitled. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a windfall profits tax and that it would be quite right for the Committee to look carefully at it?
Mr. Lamont: That issue can be debated further, but the present system is extremely uncertain. As I said, the effect of the measure is to phase relief. Relief is obtained in the end, but enormous sums of money are at stake. The measure smoothes out the sudden increases in cost to the Exchequer. In the end, no one is denied relief. To that extent, I do not entirely go along with my hon. Friend's intervention, but the issue can be returned to in Committee.
Sir William Clark: Surely, although relief will be given eventually, the cash flow of a business is affected. If the relief is confined to banks, why should it not be extended to international companies which also have overseas debts?
Mr. Lamont: We are dealing with sovereign debt. That is the key difference. The existing law provides relief for debt to the extent that the principal is estimated to be irrecoverable. It is very hard to make an estimate for sovereign debt, and it seems reasonable to prescribe the detailed method and to provide a smoother profile. The principles on which tax relief is given remain the same, but the legislation is not restricted only to banks. I do not accept that this measure will have any adverse or significant effect on the standing or position of banks.
Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that no bank will be unable to reduce its liability to sovereign debt to keep up its capital adequacy ratios simply to conform with the best position that it should have to get the maximum tax advantage?
Mr. Lamont: I cannot give that assurance. I shall look at what my hon. Friend has said. If the situation is otherwise, I shall certainly indicate it to him.
If the House will allow me, I now move from sovereign debt and the banks to the slightly more popular subject of football. Few of the measures in the Bill have met with such unqualified approval on both sides of the House as the reduction in pools betting duty, made under the condition that the pools promoters pass on the full amount to the Football Trust, to be used to implement the recommendations made by Lord Justice Taylor. A new clause will be introduced to implement that reduction, which will result in an increase of about 100 million in the

945
amount that the Football Trust will be able to make available towards improving comfort and safety at football grounds. I am sure that this measure will go a long way towards making football more attractive and restore its image and its rightful place as our national game and a safe game.
One of the results of lower tax rates and higher take home pay is that people have more disposable income to give to charity. The Government have consistently encouraged that, and since 1979 charitable giving has more than doubled in real terms. This year's Budget continues that approach. In 1987, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby introduced the payroll giving scheme. [Interruption.] More than 175,000 people are now participating, and donations are now running at more than £7 million a year. Clause 22 will encourage the further expansion of such schemes by raising the annual limit by 25 per cent., from £480 to £600. Opposition Members are obviously unimpressed by that progress but, of course, charities are much more enthusiastic than Opposition Members. I sometimes suspect that the real reason for Opposition Members' scepticism is their basic hostility to private giving rather than any doubts about the mechanics of the scheme.
For the first time, we intend also to allow relief on one-off donations. The gift aid scheme, which was announced in the Budget, will give relief on gifts of between £600—the annual upper limit for the payroll giving scheme so it dovetails well with the payroll giving scheme—and £5 million. Organisations that benefit from large one-off donations—for instance, museums launching appeals for new galleries or major works of art—will be particularly advantaged by gift aid. The Government will be bringing forward a new clause in Committee to give effect to this proposal. The combined effect of the two measures should be a further substantial increase in charitable giving. Opposition Members are sceptical, but the Charities Aid Foundation has estimated that charities might take in an extra £50 million as a result of the measures in the Bill.
There is one notable and unusual feature in this year's Finance Bill. Clause 16 leaves the main rates of income tax unchanged. It is a measure of our success in cutting taxes that this is the first Budget and Finance Bill not to cut taxes or national insurance contributions since 1981. We may not be cutting income taxes this year, but we certainly have done so over the past 10 years. If the bands and allowances that we inherited in 1979 had merely been indexed to inflation and we had maintained the same rates, a married man on average earnings would today be paying more than £1,000 per year more in income tax.
It remains the Government's intention to cut taxes further and to move towards a basic rate of income tax of 20p. Our strategy, policy and commitment are clear. I only wish that the Opposition would be as forthcoming about their intentions on taxation, which remain shrouded in mystery. I always wondered what the Leader of the Opposition meant when, after their election defeat in 1987, he said that what Labour needed was a "relatively blank sheet". That blank sheet is the Opposition's taxation policy—even if it is not quite a blank sheet, the key details are certainly missing. It has been a remarkable achievement by the right hon. and learned Member for
946
Monklands, East that he has made a brilliant success of saying nothing. He has become a leading expert on the content-free review. As Hugo Young put it, he is
"the chief exponent of minimalism."
But the electorate is entitled to more than minimalism and will demand to know the details of Labour's tax proposals—the rates and bands of the new complicated graduated system that the Opposition intend to introduce.
Opposition Members did not like it when Mr. Keating of Credit Suisse First Boston estimated that as a result of their policy many couples without children and on below average earnings would be substantially worse off. He estimated that those earning only one and a half to two and a half times average earnings could, over time, find themselves paying up to £4,000 extra in tax—[Interruption.] Opposition Members cry out at that. If those figures are not correct, let them tell us what the correct figures are. They will not say, but some of their colleagues have. Last year, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) gave us a snippet when he was reported in Tribune as saying
"It is not credible for Labour to suggest that our policies for full employment or our policies for investing in the Health Service, funded by taxation, free at the point of use, can be financed on a programme of low taxation. It can't and the electorate knows it can't."
We believe in low taxes. The Labour party believes in high taxes. Another difference is that we are prepared to say what our policy is, whereas the Opposition are not. Our policies are clear and unambiguous. The Bill consolidates the progress made in the last decade, and I commend it to the House.
6.31 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Some aspects of the Bill we undoubtedly welcome because we have pressed for such changes over successive Finance Bills. I pick out in particular the concessions on workplace nurseries and on pools duty, for which my hon. Friends and I have called for many a long year, and we are pleased to see them delivered at last.
We are happy to welcome other proposals, such as the increased differential on unleaded petrol and the assistance for small companies which, as the Chief Secretary said, we shall debate later. There are other proposals that we observe with interest and without hostility, although perhaps with a degree of scepticism from time to time. I pick out, for example, the Chancellor's new savings scheme, TESSA. We are not hostile to that in any way, but whether it will increase savings or merely divert those that are already being made remains to be seen.
It seemed to me—it was also evident from the Chief Secretary's speech—that the most striking aspect of the Budget and of the debates that followed it was not the advent of TESSA, intended apparently to be the key feature of the Budget, but the return in all her glory of TINA, who was even more evident in the Chief Secretary's speech today. Hon. Members on both sides will remember TINA, the figure who highlighted the Prime Minister's first few years in office—"There is no alternative."
No great shifts in policy are reflected in the Bill. Indeed, there is precious little in it. Nor was there much in the Chief Secretary's speech to reflect or address the huge and growing problems of the economy. One would not think, from the Bill or from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that a week ago the second worst trade figures in our history were announced. One would certainly not think

947
that that trade deficit included record imports of over £10 billion. Equally, one would not think that as we debate this measure we are awaiting what Samuel Brittan in the Financial Times last week called "black Friday"—the arrival of the next set of inflation figures next week, safely of course after the local government elections.
Mr. Hanley rose——
Mrs. Beckett: No, I will not give way.
Not only does the Bill tell us little about those problems, but Ministers tell us little about the state of the economy.
Mr. Hanley rose——
Mrs. Beckett: I told the hon. Gentleman clearly that I would not give way. I will do so later.
The Finance Bill tells us that the economy is in a mess and that the Government do not know what to do about it, except to reiterate that there is no alternative to the policies that they are following. Worst of all perhaps is not what the Bill fails to say about the problems that we are experiencing, but what it fails to say about the problems of the economy of tomorrow and of all our tomorrows. It addresses in no way the shape of the economy in 1992, let alone in 1993, 1994, 1995 or at any time in the future not bounded by the next general election.
We said when the Budget was launched that it was a Budget for the next 10 days rather than for the next 10 years. It is an increasingly moot point which of its forecasts and prescriptions will survive the next 10 weeks. When Ministers talk about the problems of the economy, as was evident from the Chief Secretary's speech, as opposed to their paeans of selective self-praise, they do so only to assert that those problems are purely temporary.
Ministers seem to have stopped—the Chief Secretary did not use the word once in his speech—using the word "miracle", or perhaps even that is temporary. Even so, the rest of the rhetoric is still there. They continue to talk about greater growth and about a new indicator for inflation. The Chief Secretary used that phrase, and I shall study it with interest to see whether it stands up any better than some of the other phrases that they have used. We have had a new description of levels of employment or unemployment. There has not been much about investment, except for misleading statistics on business investment, and nothing about research and development.
In common with most of the statistics that Ministers use about their record, they are highly questionable at best, particularly when we examine the whole period for which the Conservatives have been in office. The Chief Secretary said, unusually for a Minister, that it was right to look over their whole period in office. I shall remind the right hon. Gentleman of that when, in other debates, he quotes—as he no doubt will again as he has in the past—a set of statistics from 1981, another from 1983 and yet another from 1985, depending on the best and most selective period to choose. The Conservatives' record over their whole period in office looks nothing like as flattering as Ministers normally describe it.
Particularly worrying is the theme of the Chief Secretary's speech, which is that our problems are temporary and soon will he resolved. He was scathing about people who do not believe that there has been a
948
miracle—although he did not use that word today—and who do not believe that there has been an enormous underlying improvement in the economy.
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the observations of Mr. Martin, the adviser to the Select Committee, who referred to the optimism that the Treasury and the previous Chancellor enjoyed for so long. Perhaps at this stage I should set the record straight by telling the Chief Secretary that my hon. Friends and I were not amused or critical of the Government's proposals on charities, although no doubt we shall debate them. We were amused that the Chief Secretary had dared to mention the name of the departed figure, the man who is not to be referred to except to be blamed for all the mistakes—the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]
Although the Chief Secretary may have omitted that, he referred to the claim relating to the background to the former Chancellor's remarks. So I direct him to Mr. Martin's observations about the special circumstances that the Government enjoyed in the late 1980s which created the appearance of greater strength than was there in the economy and which fed the optimism of which the Government have for so long been guilty.
When interviewed by the Select Committee, the Chancellor said that he did not know why the CBI had suggested, for example, that any improvement in the trade deficit might be temporary and that after improving it might deteriorate again. That was not quite the picture that was painted by the Chief Secretary, and was perhaps less than honest, if one dare say so, of the Chancellor.
Mr. Ward, another adviser to the Select Committee, is one of many commentators and forecasters, most of them using the Treasury model, to point out that, sadly, the most likely scenario is that, although the squeeze on inflation that the Government are presently undertaking might succeed in bringing down the balance of trade deficit, as soon as that squeeze is lifted, it is likely to deteriorate because of our propensity to import.
Mr. Hanley: How would the Labour party turn round the trade deficit? What import controls would be introduced?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman must have been reading some of the more hysterical contributions from the Paymaster General. We have made it crystal clear over and over again until we are bored with making it clear that we do not have the slightest intention of introducing import controls and—to save the hon. Gentleman from asking—we have no intention of introducing exchange controls either.
We recognise the Chancellor's problem and that he does not want to refer to the likely improvement in the trade deficit—if it improves, which we certainly hope that it will. The last thing that the right hon. Gentleman wants is for the public—he is not worried about the Select Committee or about hon. Members of whatever party—to realise that if his inflation squeeze works at all, the improvement may be short-lived. It is within that window of opportunity that the Government are hoping to call the next general election. I repeat that it is less than honest——
Mr. Neil Hamilton rose——
Mrs. Beckett: It is less than honest for the Chancellor not to acknowledge the danger that the Treasury—and everyone else—has seen, no matter how ropey the statistics——
Mr. Quentin Davies rose——
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) was first.
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Lady is advancing a partially attractive argument because she appears to be saying that the Government are not squeezing the economy hard enough. In the absence of exchange controls or import controls, to what extent would her proposals involve either an increase in taxation or an increase in interest rates at this moment?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suffering from a pre-speech brief saying, "For heaven's sake, ask this question irrespective of whether it is relevant or follows on from what has just been said." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I do not know how the hon. Member for Tatton read into my remarks that I do not think that the Chancellor is squeezing the economy sufficiently. I shall repeat what I said in case the hon. Gentleman did not catch it the first time. I said that if the squeeze that the Chancellor is applying works—we all hope that it succeeds in reducing the trade deficit—allowing for a time lag, the minute that the squeeze is lifted, the balance of trade deficit will deteriorate again.
My point, which I am happy to repeat for the hon. Gentleman's benefit, is that that is the time scale within which the Government are hoping to hold the next election, pretending all the time that the improvement that they have created is long-lasting and that the balance of payments will not deteriorate again, although they must know perfectly well from their Treasury model that that is exactly what is predicted. As I have said, that is less than honest.
Mr. Quentin Davies rose——
Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to intervene on the same point, I am not sure that it will be worth giving way to him——
Mr. Davies rose——
Mrs. Beckett: All right, I shall give the hon. Gentleman the chance.
Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. As she now seems to have accepted that the major economic problem that we face is that of inflation, will she take this opportunity formally to repent of the consistent errors of the Labour party throughout 1987 and 1988, when Opposition Members continually told the Government that interest rates were too high and should be brought down and that the fiscal surplus was too high and should be lowered? If those policies had been pursued, they would have exacerbated inflation.
Mrs. Beckett: I shall come to the point about 1987 a little later, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will rest content until I get there. However, the Dispatch Box is not quite the place for the repentence of one's sins.
If we are to judge from what the Government say now and from what they are likely to say if and when the trade deficit improves—the point at which the Government
950
hope to have that window of opportunity—it would be wise for us to take a look at the Government's record on predictions and at how much reliance one can place on their word. I believe that it was Nye Bevan who said, "Why look into the crystal ball when you can read the book?", and I have been reading the book.
I do not want to be unfair to Conservative Members or to go back over their long period in government, so I shall go back no further than the last general election campaign. That must be fair. After all, in 1987 the Government had had two terms in office and that was the very point at which we were told that the economic miracle was in full swing and that we were ahead of West Germany and Japan. Therefore, it can only be fair to the Government to go back that far.
I shall take first the Government's statistics on inflation, which is one of the two most difficult problems that we are facing at the moment, and is what the right hon. Member for Blaby called the "judge and jury" of the Government's record. It makes interesting reading. During the election campaign and in their manifesto, the Government talked about pursuing the "conquest of inflation" and stated:
"We will not be content until we have stable prices, with inflation eradicated altogether."
No wonder the Government look miserable at the moment.
By November 1987, five months after the election, the prediction for inflation in the fourth quarter of 1988, the following year, was 4£5 per cent. By March 1988, three or four months later, that forecast had improved and the forecast for the end of 1988 was 4 per cent. By November a little more realism had crept in and inflation for that same fourth quarter of 1988 was predicted at "a little over 6 per cent."
Mr. Norman Lamont: What does the hon. Lady think about the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who, at exactly the time to which she has referred, November 1987, said:
"Now is the time for cuts in interest rates to stimulate the economy … Now is the time for a programme of well planned public investment to mobilise the unused capacity",
and called for a further stimulus and boost to the economy?
Mrs. Beckett rose——
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mrs. Beckett: I am quite content to answer and have already told the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who was in such a hurry with his quote, that I shall return to the question about what happened at that stage in 1987 and to the question about interest rates a little later. I am talking now about inflation in 1987 and about the record——
Mr. Stephen Dorell: But 1987 is relevant.
Mrs. Beckett: There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to try to conduct a dialogue from a sedentary position. If he wants to come to the Dispatch Box, let him do so, otherwise he should keep quiet. I assure the Chief Secretary that I shall refer to the point that he made. That is the assurance that I gave to the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), and the right hon. Gentleman knows that I always keep my assurances.

951
As I was saying, by November 1988 inflation was being predicted at
"a little over 6 per cent."
for the fourth quarter of that year, although in the event it was 6·5 per cent. and, instead of the predicted 4 per cent. by the end of the year, it was 6·8 per cent. The forecast for 1989 that was given in the 1988 autumn statement was that inflation would peak at some point "in the middle" of 1989 before
"falling back again to 5 per cent. by the fourth quarter."—[Official Report, 1 November 1988; Vol. 139, c. 824–5.]
That was in November 1988.
By March 1989 and the Budget, the Chancellor was saying that the outlook was for inflation to rise a little further over the next few months—not from 4 per cent. or 6 per cent., but from 7·5 per cent.—to 8 per cent. before falling back in the second half of the year to 5 per cent. in the fourth quarter and to perhaps 4·5 per cent. in the second quarter of 1990. I repeat, that was the prediction in March 1989.
I concede at once that the prediction was half right. Inflation did rise a little and then fall back a little, but what about the prediction that was made just over a year ago of 4·5 per cent. inflation in the second quarter of 1990? I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will readily recognise that the second quarter of 1990 is the quarter that we are now entering, when predictions are just a little different.
Mr. Tim Yeo: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: No, not to the hon. Gentleman. That brings me to the autumn statement of 1989——
Mr. Yeo rose——
Mrs. Beckett: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman—as he knows.
In the autumn statement of November 1989, the Chancellor—by this time, we are talking about the present Chancellor—predicted a further reduction in inflation.
The forecast last November was for 5·75 per cent. inflation by the fourth quarter of 1990. Alas, by March this year—only a month ago—the forecast had been revised again, to the following:
"A significant fall is still some months away. The position will worsen noticeably before it improves—though I now expect that it may be a little over 7 per cent. by the fourth quarter of this year compared to the 5·75 per cent. that I had previously expected"—
only the previous November—
"but I expect inflation to fall below 5 per cent. during 1991."
It is far from clear to me how any judge or jury could be expected to reach a verdict when the evidence changes with such rapidity. It is no wonder that Mr. Martin, who advises the Select Committee, stated that the Government have "nil credibility" on inflation.
Sir Peter Hordern: The hon. Lady started her speech, by saying that she would concern herself with the future—and she is now talking about forecasts. I am somewhat confused as I thought that she had ruled out any question of import controls and exchange controls. However, so far as we have been able to establish, the Labour party is in favour of lower interest rates and more public expenditure. The latest assurance from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is of a
952
guaranteed minimum wage. Will the hon. Lady tell the House by how much she expects wages and salaries to increase to keep that pledge?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing new in what my right hon. and learned Friend said—it was in the recent policy review. As I recall, the effect of that policy will be an increase in wage rates of about I per cent. The answers to the hon. Gentleman's other questions—if they were questions and not assertions—have been given repeatedly from the Labour Front Bench, and will be the subject of my later remarks.
The Government's balance of payments record is another area of considerable difficulty at present. In 1987, the deficit was £1·5 billion. We were told then that that was of no consequence because it would be covered by our earnings on invisibles. We have not heard so much about invisibles of late. In the Budget of March 1988, the then Chancellor forecast an end-of-year deficit of £4 billion. By November 1988—about five months later—the forecast was not a £4 billion deficit, but £13 billion, although falling slightly in 1989 to £11 billion.
In the March 1989 Budget—again three or four months after the autumn statement—there was no change in the prediction for 1989, although the outturn for 1988 had been £15 billion rather than the £13 billion that was initially predicted. However, by November 1989 the result for that year was not after all the £11 billion that had been predicted six months before, but £20 billion, although—of course—that figure was predicted to fall to £15 billion in 1990. That was the Budget forecast in March this year.
Although, of course, Opposition Members hope that those predictions, for once, have some accuracy, and that that deficit will fall, I am bound to observe that far from suggesting a fall from £15 billion, the annualised rate for the first quarter of 1990 suggests a further rise in our trade deficit to more than £22 billion. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee drew attention in its report to the Government's observations that they would expect to see the balance of payments gradually moving back towards balance. It said:
"This explanation and forecast is similar to that given at the time of our inquiry into the 1989 Autumn Statement." In other words, the Select Committee and the House have heard it all before.
The Government say that the present difficulties do not alter the sweeping claims that they have previously made for their economic success. I recognise that the Government now admit to making a mistake, although apparently only one little mistake, made in 1987. Here I come to the point of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and of the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). Following the stock market crash, the Government lowered interest rates. I am sure that it is pure coincidence that the one mistake to which the Government are prepared to admit is one that was generally accepted as a wise move, and one that was supported by the Labour party. I concede that we agreed with the Government at the time that it seemed wise for interest rates to be lowered temporarily because of the possibility of a slump. What we have never agreed with or accepted is the path that the Government continued to follow which led directly to the 1988 Budget and the tax cuts that were made in it. There is no doubt that if that is the only mistake that the Government have made—and I do not notice them

953
admitting to any more—it must have been a beauty as we are still feeling the effects and paying for it now. That will continue to the middle of 1990 at the best.
What is worrying is that sometimes Opposition Members have the impression that the Government really believe that that is the only mistake they have ever made. The Opposition argue that there have been others, the biggest being not the fact that the Government lowered interest rates in the autumn of 1987, but that they went on to add to demand by the huge tax cuts of 1988. They added to those tax cuts the grossly inflated rhetoric of the economic miracle—the stuff about Germany and Japan bringing up the rear. Those tax cuts were not only unjust, but a profound misjudgment of what our economy needed——
Mr. Quentin Davies rose——
Mr. Neil Hamilton rose——
Mr. Ian Taylor rose——
Mrs. Beckett: I take the point raised by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We believe that those resources should have gone into a planned programme of investment in our economy. That is the choice that the Labour party would have made. Those resources were available to the Government. Sadly, they are not available now because the Government have used that money for tax cuts that have fuelled demand and the growth of credit in the economy.
Mr. Quentin Davies rose——
Mr. Ian Taylor rose——
Mrs. Beckett: I shall not give way again to the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). I have been speaking for 25 minutes and I am barely halfway into my speech. I may not give way for some time.
Apart from the Government's constitutional dislike of admitting that they have ever made a mistake, they have another important reason for refusing to accept the part that they played in causing our problems by the tax cuts of 1988. They do not want to admit that those tax cuts fuelled the explosion of spending and the demand for credit because they want to do it again. That is how they are hoping to win the next election—by either the promise or the performance of further income tax cuts.
Mr. Ian Taylor rose——
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mrs. Beckett: I have given way on a number of occasions and I shall not do so again—if I do at all—until I have made substantially more progress.
The Government have tried to claim credit for trying to teach the British people that there is no such thing as a free lunch, but they are incredibly reluctant to apply that lesson to Government policy. The harsh reality is that we are paying now for the profligacy of 1988 with increases in mortgage rates, rents, the price of electricity, gas and water, prescription charges and bankruptcies, a collapse in the construction industry and, as sure as night follows day, inevitable increases in unemployment.
One of the shabbiest tricks that the Government have recently employed is that they have sought to pretend—as
954
they did in their evidence to the Select Committee—that somehow the economic squeeze that they are applying to squeeze out inflation does not bring with it, as they know it does, the expectation of a rise in unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) challenged the Chancellor on that point in the Select Committee, but he refused to take it up. I hope that the Government are not pretending that if unemployment rises this year—we hope that it does not—it will be purely as a consequence of wage increases. They know that that is not true. Of all the commentators and forecasters who have examined the Government model for the economy, the only one who did not say that it implied an automatic increase in unemployment because of the squeeze was the National Institute of Economic and Social Research because it predicted a further change in the manipulation of unemployment statistics. It predicted nothing different about jobs, but something different about the unemployment figures. This morning the Confederation of British Industry said that it seems likely that many thousands of jobs will be lost, especially in manufacturing, because of the economic problems that we are now experiencing. It refers especially to the high cost of finance as well as of labour.
So there is no question but that one of the consequences of the policies of the present Government is likely to be an increase in unemployment, and it is clear, too, that what is happening on the wages front—the Governor of the Bank of England made it absolutely clear in his evidence to the Select Committee when he spoke about "administered" price rises is—that wage rises are still following price rises.
The Select Committee expressed a little surprise that the diagram previously in the Red Book of unit labour costs was not in this year's, but I suspect that it is because the diagram showed that, while inflation has slowly and steadily risen in the past two or three years, wage costs have stayed remarkably stable, and that it is only when people are faced with the impact of the most recent interest rate rises, of the poll tax and of the other price increases coming through this year that wage claims have begun to rise.
Although a number of hon. Members intervened while the Chief Secretary was talking about wage costs, I do not recall hearing very much from any of them last year when a number of directors of the companies that support the Conservative party and give it a lot of money gave themselves wage increases, not of 7, 8 or 9 per cent. but of 27 per cent. or 28 per cent. That was only last year. I understand that some have already begun to award themselves increases on a similar scale this year. Yet these are the very people who benefited most from the income tax cuts in 1988; they are the very people who benefited most of all because of that considerable cut in the top rate of income tax——
Mrs. Alice Mahon: And from the poll tax.
Mrs. Beckett: And they are the very people—I take my hon. Friend's point—who benefit from the change from the rates to the poll tax.
I recognise—the Chief Secretary was at it again today when talking about marginal tax and so on—that the Government claim that none of this matters because they have been generous to workers who are low paid. This claim is particularly difficult to substantiate if one looks at the overall tax burden—not just at income tax but at the

955
real impact on people's net disposable income of income tax, national insurance contributions, value added tax and the package of measures for which the Government are responsible and because of which the average household's tax burden has increased since this Government came to power.
I want to look, particularly because of the way in which the tax-exempt special savings account is described in this Budget, at what is happening under this generous Government, where all benefit from increased prosperity and the economic miracle, to the lowest paid of all. In the Budget, the Government refer to a group that they call moderate or relatively small savers who will save up to £150 a month or about £16 a week. They obviously regard these people as not especially well-off. I draw the attention of the House to a group of people who get very little attention in this place, particularly from hon. Members on the Government Benches—those who earn very low wages, from as low as £60 a week to £170 a week.
I have been following the detailed statistics for this group since spring 1988 when not only did we have these massive cuts in taxation which particularly benefited the best off but we had a massive package of reforms in social security. The figures are an average because they include average rents, average costs of travel and things of that kind, but they are figures from parliamentary answers and they show a particularly interesting comparison in the movement of incomes over the year and the marginal rates of tax to which the Chief Secretary referred. The figures that I have recently received from the Government are particularly illuminating. They show that someone in this low-earning bracket—the Government have deliberately fostered low earnings in their time in power—can have an increase in gross pay of £10 a week and see his net disposable income rise by as little as 55p. In one particular case, someone with a two-child family earning between £90 and £100 can experience a drop in income of 11p a week. That is a marginal tax rate, to pick up the Chief Secretary's phrase, of well over 90 per cent.
If we were particularly generous and took that whole spread of earnings, from £60 to £170—presumably, to get that kind of increase, someone would have to change his job—a married man with two children of four and six could have that gross increase of £110 a week and come out with just under £16·50 extra in disposable income—£16·50 gain for a gross rise in income of £110 a week. What was that again about marginal tax rates?
A single parent with two children presents a similar picture. By going into part-time employment with earnings of £20 a week, such a person would gain £8·10 of her £20 extra, but if she went into full-time employment and earned as much as an extra £40 a week she would still get only £9·21 a week more than she would receive on benefit—an extra £1·11 in net disposable income for a £40 increase in gross pay and the burden of full-time work, with no allowance made for any contribution to child care costs——
Mr. Quentin Davies: Explanation!
Mrs. Beckett: No, I would like to go through this comparison and finish the point. I do not need any explanation, I assure the hon. Gentleman. I am very familiar with these figures. Let me give him a little more explanation.
956
Let us take a family with two children. I have asked for a comparison to be made between their income now and their income in 1987 when these packages of tax and social security reforms were introduced. The House will, I know, be pleased to learn that this year, for the first time since 1987–88, the family are better off in cash terms, although in some cases by as little as 12p a week. That is a 12p increase in net disposable income over three years under a Government who have given us an economic "miracle". Of course, they are all worse off in real terms than in 1987.
If I take now the figures for a single parent with two children aged four and six, in cash terms those earning £60, £70 or £80 a week are worse off now than they were before the package of changes in 1988. If they are worse off in cash terms, they are substantially worse off in real terms.
I know that hon. Members on the Government Benches do not like criticism of the Government's record. There is an increasing and worrying tendency to equate criticism of the Government with disloyalty to the country. The Chief Secretary was at it during Question Time the other clay. The phenomenon is seen at its most extreme in the case of the Prime Minister. It began—although it seems hardly to have been noticed and certainly not much commented on—when the Prime Minister began to talk about "my Government", a phrase that I had previously heard only on the lips of Her Majesty the Queen. Then we got on to the use of the royal "we". Then we had gates to protect the Prime Minister from the admiring populace. Now we have the change in approach to the civil service, who are told that their loyalty is not to the Crown but to the Government of the day, and the increasing identification of the interests of the country with those of the present Government, which is percolating along the Back Benches.
What we seem to have, therefore, is a Government who do not like the attitude of the civil service and who feel that they must change its code of conduct, and who do not like the attitude of Opposition Members. We had that again today from the Chief Secretary, who thinks that there is something wrong with an Opposition who dare to think that they have the right to criticise the Government. We have seen the ultimate in the wish to ensure proper agreement with the Government's policies in that, although the Government have not actually tried to change the electorate yet, they are doing their best to manipulate who will vote. I understand that there is a well-funded campaign, headed by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), to persuade those who left the country as much as 20 years ago that it is their moral duly to prevent people who have been so unpatriotic as to stay here from exercising what we had previously thought was their right to change their Government.
I find it particularly offensive in this regard that the hon. Member for Dorset, West should apparently focus his campaign in South Africa, where he is telling white South Africans to vote Conservative because Mrs. Thatcher is the best friend that they have in the world. There would be no point in his addressing any remarks to black South Africans——
Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Gedling): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A good many people wish to take part in the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. The hon. Lady's comments, while entertaining, are entirely irrelevant to the matter under discussion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman should leave it to the Chair to determine what is in order. If there were no interventions I am sure that the hon. Lady would finish her speech earlier.
Mrs. Beckett: You know me well enough, Madam Deputy Speaker, to know that I am about to relate my remarks directly to the proposals and policies of the Government. Despite the hon. Gentleman's intervention, however, I shall finish the point. The hon. Member for Dorset, West is appealing to white South Africans; it would be a waste of his time to appeal to black South Africans, who do not even have the vote in their own country, let alone in ours.
The other way in which the Government are attempting to influence the composition of an ungrateful electorate is through the poll tax. In theory it might be possible to separate registration on the electoral roll from registration for the poll tax, but this is certainly the nearest thing to reintroducing a link between the ability to pay and the right to vote that has been seen in this country for many a generation.
This brings me directly back to the Government's record on inflation. One of the many administered price rises imposed on us, as the Governor of the Bank of England said, by political decision, is the poll tax itself. I know that the Select Committee received differing evidence about whether it is the equivalent of increasing income tax by a ha'penny or by twopence, but it is clear that however it is quantified or explained it is yet another increase in the tax burden that ordinary people are trying to meet; and yet again, the only answer that they receive from the Government when they complain about that tax burden is that inflation can be dealt with only by interest rates and the price rises that they bring. I ask the Government again whether they will reconsider even now whether the use of interest rates alone is as successful as they have claimed, or whether the sheer bluntness of that instrument is not affecting its impact.
I draw to the attention of the Chief Secretary the report by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee which states:
"The time which it has taken for successive increases in interest rates to restrain demand sufficiently calls into question the effectiveness of interest rate policy on its own."
The Chief Secretary quoted the Select Committee report. I shall read his remarks in the Official Report with care, but I am not sure whether he was entirely accurate. He said that the Select Committee had said that the role of reserve asset ratios had no impact on the growth of money, but in fact that was the Select Committee quoting the Red Book. So the Chief Secretary was quoting what the Government say, not what the Select Committee said.
The report suggests—in particular, the comments of Mr. Reading suggest—that the Government should consider alternatives to the use of this single instrument. The report recently produced by the Bundesbank—[Interruption.] I shall be happy to send a copy of it to the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) so that he can read it. The report draws attention to the fact that everywhere in Europe and across the western developed world, except here and in Luxembourg, there is a use—in a variety of degrees and with various detailed arrangements—of some form of credit management, some means of influencing the extent to which banks are prepared to lend and add to the growth of credit—
Mr. Hanley: What does the report mean?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman should read the Bundesbank report and not waste the time of the House.
We have never said that the use of such instruments would be a replacement——
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley)rose——
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his own speech.
We have never claimed that the use of such instruments would be a replacement for the use of interest rates. All that we have ever observed is that their use, even temporarily, might have allowed, and even now might allow, slightly lower interest rates than are necessary when the policy pursued is one of interest rates alone. That is a matter of particular moment at a time when the danger is that interest rates may have to be raised again.
Mr. Lilley: Can the hon. Lady point to any phrase in the Bundesbank report that shows that it is possible by using minimum reserve ratios to have lower interest rates than would otherwise obtain? I am sure that she cannot, because it does not say that.
Mrs. Beckett: It does not say as much in those terms, and I cannot find the precise reference now, but the report shows that Spain and France, by manipulating their credit instruments, were able to avoid a rise in interest rates.
Mr. Norman Lamont: The hon. Lady is wrong.
Mrs. Beckett: Perhaps we can pursue this some other time; I have not marked the exact passage in the report. It is no good the Chief Secretary shaking his head. It is not five minutes since the former Chancellor and the present Chancellor told us that no one in Europe uses these methods any more. We were told that they did not exist and that, in so far as they did exist, they had been abolished. The Bundesbank report clearly says that every country—Japan, the United States and every country in Europe except ourselves and Luxembourg—uses some form of this mechanism in a variety of ways. The report says even more clearly, in a clear contradiction of the remarks of the Chief Secretary, the Chancellor and the former Chancellor, that it is not true that the use of these instruments is being abandoned. They are being refined and made more effective. Further, the report suggests that if there is to be progress towards economic and monetary union, some measure along these lines will have to be considered in every country.
Mr. Norman Lamont: On a point of accuracy, the previous Chancellor argued not that these instruments were not used but that they were not an alternative to putting up interest rates. He argued that reserve asset ratios were merely an instrument by which interest rates were manipulated. I wonder whether the hon. Lady has read the remarks made this week by the president of the Bundesbank who has called into question the use of reserve asset ratios throughout Europe and who says that all Europe should consider getting rid of them—they are becoming redundant.
Mrs. Beckett: I have not read the report of that. The report to which I am referring was published only two weeks ago, so perhaps the Bundesbank needs to sort out what advice it is giving the rest of the world—

959
[Interruption.] I am quoting from a report published by the Bundesbank in March 1990. If, in the third week of April 1990, the Bundesbank is saying something different, I shall study it with considerable interest. I remind the Chief Secretary of how he misquoted the Select Committee's report earlier, so perhaps all these reports seem to have a different flavour depending on which party uses them.
Mr. Quentin Davies rose——
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot give way; I have spoken for too long already.
I turn now to the impact of interest rates on investment decisions. I was amazed to see—I note that the Select Committee was, too—that the Governor of the Bank suggested that the level of interest rates was not particularly important as an influence on investment decisions, although there were exceptions. Unfortunately, that does not agree with reports from the engineering industry, the CBI or a variety of sources. Recent reports from Peat, Marwick, McLintock, from the senior receiver, and from Barclays bank and the Midland bank suggest that these difficulties are having a serious effect on the Government.
I note also that the Select Committee remarked on the difficulties experienced because of the poor quality of statistics available to the Government. That is rich in irony: the Government have sown the seeds and they are now reaping the whirlwind. They have cut down the signposts and now complain that they do not know where they are. Here, too, the scale of the problem is alarming. I note that in his report to the Select Committee Mr. Martin says that the errors in the Government's statistics are "beyond the pale". Sir Douglas Wass, not so long ago Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, complained that as a result of economies, industrial statistics in Britain are inferior to those of almost all our competitor countries.
But although the signposts in the form of statistics may be missing, the real economy tells us all too clearly what is happening. There have been cuts in the construction industry; a fall of 40 per cent. in starts was announced a few weeks ago. At long last British Rail has recognised that it can no longer square the circle of squeezing the consumer directly to fund investment. There has been a predicted fall in the Government's phoney measure of business investment, in which investment in casinos is seen as just as valuable as investment in manufacturing. There are problems with output and imports; a downturn in the balance of payments is predicted based on a presumed drop in those imports. Mortgage rates are at their highest ever. We have a record manufacturing deficit and trade deficit.
The Government have utterly and comprehensively lost their way. The Chief Secretary told us that no one apart from the Opposition believes that. Let me quote from the House Builder magazine, again of March 1990. The director of the House Builders Federation says that these
"are signs of a Government in terminal decline. It has lost the ability to take sensible, pragmatic decisions, it is afraid of its own shadow, but contemptuous of important groups and industries whose support it needs."
The Government seem to have made the elementary mistake of believing their own propaganda and of believing that they have performed a miracle. The Greeks call that hubris. It is certainly being followed by nemesis. The way in which the Government are approaching the
960
issue is our greatest charge against them, the Budget and the Finance Bill. Even now there is no evidence that the Government have the wisdom or the foresight to invest what is left of our oil wealth in training, industry, civil research and development, and in the engines of growth that are driving our competitors further and further ahead every month and year. These are the policies which are needed for long-term prosperity. These are the areas in which the Government are still making cuts.
In the race to 1992 our competitors are three quarters of the way round the track and we have not even left the starting block because we are still busy listening to the team captain claiming that the tactics and techniques of the other runners are wrong. We are not even in the race. We are not running in the race because we have a Government who have run out of ideas and of steam, and who are fast running out of time.
7.21 pm
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: The task of a Chief Secretary on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill is never easy. Although he may spend some time discussing the general economic position, he inevitably spends quite a lot of time discussing individual clauses in the Bill. On the other hand, the House traditionally tends to concentrate very little on the clauses and very much on the general economic position, and in particular to consider whether it has changed between the time of the Budget speech and the Second Reading of the Bill. The Budget looks sometimes better and sometimes worse than it did initially.
This year the Budget looks much the same as it did on Budget day, for the simple reason that the overall economic position has been confused and obscure. Inevitably that reflects the fact that we are suffering severely from the problem of inadequate economic statistics. In the report of the Select Committee, which I am glad to say was not only unanimous but on which there were no divisions, we stress strongly how important it is to get the statistics right.
The debate so far has dealt at length with the position in 1987 after the stock exchange crash. I do not think that there is any doubt that mistakes were made at that time. I think that that is generally recognised on these Benches and on the Opposition Benches, where even more reflationary measures were advocated. We live now with the consequences of those misleading statistics and the actions which were mistakenly taken upon them. That is now notorious.
I do not think, as the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) suggested, that it was a question of what happened on interest rates; she would assert that it was a problem of tax cuts. Even after the tax cuts at that time the Budget surplus was still 10 times bigger than any surplus achieved under a Labour Government. Therefore, I do not believe that the hon. Lady's argument was right. None the less, the fact that stimulus was imposed on the economy at that time has caused serious problems. The Select Committee, in its report, draws attention to the possibility of using the asset price index as an additional lead indicator of what is happening in the economy. If we had paid attention to that at the time, I believe it would have been helpful.
We are still suffering from the statistical problem. At the time of the Budget the public sector debt repayment

961
was anticipated to be £7 billion. We now know that the estimated outturn, after only about a month, is £8 billion. At one time a difference of £1 billion in the public sector debt repayment or borrowing requirement would have been regarded as a major change in economic policy, yet that is now the difference being thrown up by the statistics within a few weeks. That brings out strongly the problems we are suffering.
The latest balance of payment figures have been referred to. The biggest deficit ever shown has led to very little reaction in the City because I do not believe that the City thought the figures were right. Indeed, I find the figures in conflict with what we know is happening in the high street and the market. By now it ought clearly to have come through into the import figures or, on the other side of the equation, into the export figures when the exchange rate over the last year has gone down 10 per cent.
As the Select Committee says, it is essential to put more resources into getting better statistics. As the Chief Secretary courteously said, there has been a team effort between the Select Committee and the Treasury to try to bring that about. We have had the Pickford report and an action plan to improve matters. However, further action must be taken urgently. The disadvantages of not spending money on it, compared with the potential benefit, are very great.
What worries me also—this came out in the autumn statement report of the Select Committee—is that almost always we find that the turning point errors in the forecast are very much bigger than the errors when there is an upturn or a downturn. It is when the economy turns round that the errors are great. We are at the turning point because all the Chancellor's measures are deliberately designed to get the economy back on course.
Taking everything I have said into account, I fear that the economy is probably slowing down a great deal more than the statistics or the forecasts suggest. Therefore, the Chancellor was right in his Budget to do very little to change the overall balance in the economy. A further massive move, such as some commentators in the City suggested, would have caused a real danger within a few months of a massive recession which it would have taken a long time to dig ourselves out of.
One lesson from 1987 is that when a mistake is made, largely because of bad statistics, it takes years to get the position right again. My hon. Friend was right in his Budget judgment, and he was right also in seeking not to raise interest rates further.
Mr. Ian Taylor rose——
Mr. Higgins: I shall give way very briefly because I believe that Privy Councillors should not speak for more than 12 minutes.
Mr. Taylor: My right hon. Friend has made an extremely important point. Does he agree that a further tightening of fiscal policy in the Budget, as was urged by the City and by Opposition Members, would not have taken effect until the end of this year or the beginning of next year when we might already be in a severe recession?
Mr. Higgins: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. The point which emerges is that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has a more difficult task, because of all the conflicting signals, than perhaps any of his predecessors.
The other major problem is unit labour costs. The Select Committee published a chart, provided by the Treasury, which was not in the original Red Book. There are real dangers for our competitive position because of international relations. The fact that unit labour costs are expected to rise again is of grave concern against the background which I have just described. Although the position is vastly different in many respects from 1980, with public expenditure a much smaller percentage of gross national product and a public sector debt repayment of £8 billion plus compared with an £8 million deficit in 1980, none the less if the Chancellor's deflationary measures, which in my view are stronger than are generally supposed, run into inflationary wage settlements, we will be in danger of getting back to the position of 1979–80 and unemployment could rise substantially. We have made great progress in reducing unemployment in recent years, but the position is now dangerous. That is why it is so important to take into account what is happening with wage settlements. Overall, I believe what is happening is right.
I am anxious to allow time for others to speak because a large number of hon. Members are waiting to do so, but I shall say a word or two about the relationship between monetary and fiscal policies. Up to now I have not taken the view that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or his predecessor were guilty of a one-club policy. It is not the case that, up to now, only interest rates have been used. That policy has been backed up by a tight fiscal policy, and the two have been working together. However, as the Select Committee points out, we need a better measure of fiscal stance than we have had so far. There is considerable obscurity about that at present.
However, the Committee stresses strongly that there can often be a dilemma about the use of interest rates. Sometimes, one might have to move them upwards for exchange rate stability while, at the same time, one should move them in the other direction to control the domestic economy. That is currently true and has always been true. There is not always a dilemma; sometimes the interest rates should move in the same direction for both reasons.
If we join the exchange rate mechanism, as everyone expects—the Governor of the Bank of England rightly said that the only barrier to our joining was the differential inflation rate between this country and Europe—interest rates will necessarily be dedicated to the maintenance of the exchange rate within whatever range band is selected. In cases of conflict, the interest rate would not be available for managing the domestic economy. Therefore, it will increasingly be necessary to adopt a more flexible approach towards fiscal policy, as well as using interest rates.
While I do not think that the one-club gibe has been a legitimate attack on the Government until now, we shall need an interest rate putter in relation to the exchange rate. However, if we try to use that same club for driving the economy, we shall not hit the ball very far. Therefore, our approach to the problem will need such a change.
I believe that, in the immensely difficult position in which he finds himself, the judgment of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been right. We all wish that he is successful in his policies. We say in our

963
report that he has taken the view that what is being done at present is sufficient to put matters right. Further dramatic changes would not be either wise or necessary.
7.33 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), particularly when he produces one of his best reports. The reports are bound to vary considerably because of the wide range of membership of his Select Committee and other factors. However, this is undoubtedly a valuable report, which I read with great interest.
I take fully the right hon. Gentleman's point about statistics. The Government were wrong to try to save money on that crucial matter. I understand full well the comments which have been made by the Chief Secretary. Treasury Ministers always make such comments, belittling and scorning statistics, but when it comes to making decisions, it is those statistics that they use, because they have nothing else to use. They can rely only on their own guesses or the figures produced for them. In my experience, they use them to a much greater extent than they confess.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been prepared to listen. In his Budget statement he went into great detail in producing a reasoned defence of interest rates as the only practicable weapon. I welcome such dialogue, which we have not generally had throughout this Government's lifetime. It is important for the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I give him full credit for it—to engage in such dialogue so that he can learn from some of the experiences and arguments of other hon. Members. That is the proper way to deal with such matters. I am sorry that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury did not follow that way of handling such matters, but I hope that he will in future.
I do not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about interest rates being the only practicable weapon. The suspicion that we have had about the present policy rests on the fact that it was on 3 June 1988—nearly two years ago—when interest rates commenced their upward drive. The purpose of that was to slow down consumer demand. The Prime Minister became involved in this matter when she spoke on 30 June. The Leader of the Opposition asked why the right hon. Lady had to inflict the increased interest rates on British industry and British home buyers. Her answer was:
"To keep downward pressure on inflation."—[Official Report, 30 June 1988; Vol. 136, c. 520.]
We have had two years of that, but it has not been successful. Inflation has been going up and up. Therefore, this policy has had little effect on inflation and little observable effect on the demand for credit. One estimate is that £150 billion of extra credit has been created during those two years. That was a complete reversal of the Government's intentions. So far from credit being reduced and demand slowing down, they have increased.
Previous Chancellors of the Exchequer may have been deficient in many ways, but one thing they all knew was how to bring about a reduction in demand. It is a simple trick. All one has to do is to raise taxes or, in the old days, use the regulator and, as further measures, restrict credit and put up interest rates. Almost from day two, one could see the spending level decline. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not agree with that way of handling such matters. He said:
"fiscal policy is not, in my view, a flexible instrument which should be altered to meet short-term contingencies.
964
Fine-tuning fiscal policy is not only disruptive to the public sector, to business and to taxpayers, but its effects on the economy are uncertain and often destabilising."—[Official Report, 20 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 1015.]
I am sure that if he were to find himself back in time to two years ago, he might have a different view on that. There is no question but that during the past two years he has not succeeded and there are political as well as economic problems.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the tax cuts of the 1988 Budget amounted to about £4 billion. The amount of credit generated by the reduction in interest rates was £40 billion. By how much would he have recommended that the Chancellor increase taxation in 1988 in order to choke off the inflationary impetus which that gave?
Mr. Sheldon: We must not take too simplistic a view. We must take into account such matters as people's perceptions. Once they found that the brakes were being taken off, people got into a spending spin that lasted longer than it should have done. A sum of £150 billion credit is a large amount to have accumulated in those two years. Now that the two years have passed we must ask why Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer are totally unable to do what their predecessors did so effortlessly, bring about a reduction in demand and create what might be a soft or hard landing. The trouble now is that we have had no landing. Two years have gone by and we have not landed yet. They have been unable to do so because, once again, they are impaled on a dogma, which is what rules such matters. Changes in taxation under the Government are said to be a one-way movement downwards. They cannot even be used to smooth the flow of a changing economy. That is one of the important factors. That was why the Conservative party introduced the regulator. It is not necessarily fine tuning; there has been more fine tuning on interest rates than on taxation. They have tried to reduce the levels of demand without making changes in taxation.
The Government rely on interest rates, but they do not bring about changes next week or next month; they work on a long-term perception of what will happen. Taxation takes money out of the pocket and has an immediate effect. The Chancellor found that he could not use credit controls or taxation, so he was left with interest rates. Now, for the first time in recent years, he is left only with exhortation. Given the civilised behaviour of this Chancellor, it is a mild form of exhortation—somewhere between exhortation and advice. He said in his Budget statement about extended credit:
"I believe that the financial institutions would be wise to reconsider their policy, and I hope that the subject will be covered in the code of practice …"—[Official Report, 20 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 1012.]
It is all very well asking the financial institutions to be wise, but their mail shots continue to pour into our homes. Recently my bank manager even berated me for not borrowing. A good customer is one who borrows, as that is to the advantage of the bank or finance house.
Another fallacy is that interest rates reduce the demand from everybody. Many people do not have high mortgages. Indeed, many have savings and they will benefit from high interest rates. There is no reason why they should reduce their spending. The great advantage of using the tax system for smoothing the ups and the downs of economic fortunes is that that affects everyone who

965
spends. No one objects to tax changes downwards, but within that direction there should be fluctuations to take account of the position facing the Chancellor.
The problem facing the Government is that they are trying to be obedient not to the demands of the economy but to the needs of the election and the opinions of the Prime Minister. Although they may be cursing the fate that led them into this position only two years from the next election, they will have to live with that. They did not take the necessary measures two years ago when they had plenty of time to do so. Although they could have engineered a short-term recovery in time for the election if they had started from the position of 3 June 1988, when they first diagnosed trouble, they have now left it too late. They cannot rail against fate. They were left with plenty of time for the usual economic election tricks. In fact, surprisingly, fate has, in limited terms, been rather kind. Pay increases are running at about 9·5 per cent.—very high, but only at about the same level as last year. However, inflation is now approaching 10 per cent.
Some people decry the inflation figures in pay settlements. Sam Brittan's words are especially colourful—he insults what he calls idiot inflation figures. However, whether or not they include mortgage relief, the figures assess the spending of the family and they lead to pay increases. If the Government wish to reduce inflation, they need to take account of those factors over which they have some control, and that includes interest rates. Indeed, it appears that, however bad the trade or inflation figures, or however bad they might become, the game of playing with one club has just about run its course. The next step—if, unfortunately, one is needed—would be to choose between letting the pound go, doing a U-turn on taxation or introducing some form of credit controls.
Of course, there are those who think that the Chancellor has the ultimate secret weapon—entering the exchange rate mechanism. They say that if we do that interest rates will come down, the pound will be steady and that, although there will be problems in the long run, that will take Britain to the other side of the general election. Meanwhile, they think that the short-term effects will be good. There will be a shock to companies that cannot increase pay because there is no prospect of devaluation. Trade unions will learn that new rules have come into play that will limit their wage claims.
Let me consider the role of companies and workers. If anyone really believes that companies and workers will be disciplined by the ERM, they are even more out of touch than the Government. After all, we have covered the same ground before. Almost 20 years ago, there were those who said that entering the Community would provide a shock; that Britain would have to face reality. Some 10 years ago there were those who thought that monetarism and sterling M3 would provide a shock. They held to the lofty theory of rational expectation—the rational expectation that trade unions would enter negotiations saying, "Because sterling M3 is a bit too high, we will not put in much of a wage claim." What nonsense. Only the Government could believe that. The rational expectation that I and many others had was that that would prove to be nonsense. Trade union leaders and management did not believe it, and they were right.
966
I agree that we should join the ERM, although my reasons for saying that are largely political in the context of a Europe in which we cannot for ever remain a dissentient voice. When we join the ERM, there will be a honeymoon period of six or nine months, and then unless fundamentals are changed there will be a forced devaluation of the pound. In political terms, that could be difficult for the Government. They have to make a judgment on the right timing and they may have little control over that. My advice to the Chancellor, for what it is worth, it to do the proper thing: act like a Chancellor, enter the ERM, and make use of his fiscal and credit control weapons. He must remember that if he gets it wrong he will be to blame, not the Prime Minister.
I am worried about investment. With 25 per cent. capital allowances, there is no longer a great deal of incentive to invest. If a company buys a machine for £1,000, the next day it will be written down to £750. That is serious because it means that companies are having to borrow money at high interest rates, and with depreciation being wholly out of line with the worth of the machine. That could result in serious cuts. I am sure that the Confederation of British Industry is right to highlight that important factor.
The Chancellor could have done something about that. A 15 per cent. interest rate acts differently on different people. For an individual, there is a problem with the mortgage. For those with savings, it will improve income. For an expanding industrialist, it hits very hard. Not only is the level of capital allowance less than the actual depreciation, but the industrialist must also find a large sum of money in a market that is uncertain because of the uncertain future of the economy. The Chancellor could have dealt with those matters. If he was so optimistic about the future, he could have said that for this year only capital allowances would be improved. That would have had a strong effect. He could have judged the right level to encourage the sort of investment that could have been afforded. That would help industry at a time when it is under pressure.
The invisible earnings have shown us that only manufacturing industry will save the country, yet we have treated it abominably, shabbily and disgracefully. It is to manufacturing industry that we must now look, and it is time that we started looking after its interests.
7.48 pm
Mr. Neil Hamilton: I must admit that I had some difficulty in understanding the logic of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). If he agrees with the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that the rapid reduction in interest rates following black Monday in 1987 was substantially responsible for the credit boom, I do not understand why that theory does not work in reverse and that credit is discouraged when interest rates are increased sharply. The right hon. Gentlemen seems to have the odd idea that we should not have increased interest rates and that the economy could have been calmed down by some increase in taxation, when to match the volume increase in spending which has occurred in the past few years, the increase in taxation that would have been required to substitute for rises in interest rates would have been absolutely colossal and, I have no

967
doubt, quite unacceptable. I do not believe for a moment that any Labour Government faced with such a problem would ever have been able to do that.
I shall start my speech with a text, as the rest of it may sound a little like a sermon:
"Let us admit it frankly as a business people should.
We have had no end of a lesson, it will do us no end of good."
Those were lines written by Kipling on the Boer war, but I want to apply them to the experience of the Government in the past few years in what I hope to be the temporary abandonment of monetarism.
I was heartened by the speech of the hon. Member for Derby, South as it betrayed no understanding of the causes of the problems that the economy poses for us today, and certainly showed no idea of what to do about it. That bodes well for us politically at the next election, whenever it will be.
I hope that Conservative Members, at any rate, now recognise the problems that have been caused and the reasons for them. I believe them to be threefold: first, the end of overfunding; secondly, the abandonment of broad money targeting; and, thirdly, the fixation with fixed exchange rates, particularly following the Louvre agreement and the unofficial peg with the deutschmark up to early 1988.
It would be as well for us to admit that at that time my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right. She faced a Chancellor who took a different view of the role of monetary policy, and in particular the role of exchange rate targeting. There was a public row when the Prime Minister was regarded or accused, as she always is, of being intolerant, dogmatic and handbagging Cabinet Ministers round the table in the manner of "Spitting Image". But she was defeated by the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), and had to retreat, and what a disaster it was for us all.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: My hon. Friend ought to remember also that she was undefeated by the 1922 Committee, who told the Prime Minister that the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unassailable in the Tory party at the time.
Mr. Hamilton: I know nothing of the workings of the 1922 Committee, which is a mythical body which I seldom attend.
The myth of the dictatorial Prime Minister is hard to dispel. But when the Prime Minister is being accused similarly in other areas of policy, it is as well to recognise that perhaps the truth is different.
On 30 January 1985 my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby delivered the following judgment:
"I have never believed in intervention in the foreign exchange market as a way of life, still less as a substitute for firm fiscal and monetary action."
How correct he was and how that has been proved by the experience of the past two years.
Having started out very successfully in our fight against inflation by targeting broad money and having no exchange rate target, we reversed our policy and did not target broad money and had an exchange rate target. The end of overfunding meant that we could no longer be confident of meeting broad money targets by selling gilts to neutralise the effects of high bank lending, and thereby denied ourselves the opportunity to bolster our anti-inflationary policy. I remember agreeing with my hon.
968
Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) at the time, but my voice may not have been heard as he is far noisier than I am.
The second error was that we attached ourselves to a policy of stabilising exchange rates and managing the global economy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby is a man of some distinction and considerable abilities, but managing the global economy was a bit much even for him. But he enthusiastically adhered to that policy following the Plaza reports of 1985. I believe that the rot set in at that moment because our domestic monetary policy was compromised to sustain the exchange rate of the dollar. There was a significant increase in the rate of bank lending to the private sector which trebled in three years. The rate of growth of that lending doubled in the same period.
Paragraph 58 of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee referred to the massive expansion in broad money in the period since 1979. It stated:
"Broad money (as measured by M4 definition) has increased dramatically from £98 billion to £423 billion, that is by over four times. Over the same period nominal GNP has increased by 157 per cent. with real GDP rising by 25 per cent., the rest of the increase representing inflation. We take the view that the rapid monetary growth has contributed to the United Kingdom's high rate of inflation."
I believe that judgment to be correct.
The Treasury argues that broad money targeting is no longer appropriate in deregulated markets, but I do not believe that there is more than a grain of truth in that. It may well be difficult to ascribe particular numbers to the broad money measures, but it is a long step from that to say that those measures mean nothing at all. I believe that we must return to targeting broad money if we are to be more successful than we have been in the past few years. I do not believe that MO is a valuable predictor of what the economy will do. I believe it to be a coincident indicator, not a leading indicator, because it ignores inflation of asset prices and the diversion of domestic demand into imports in an overvalued exchange rate.
The principal cause of the ills with which we are so painfully having to grapple arises from the policy of concerted intervention in foreign exchange markets. In 1986 that intervention increased M3 by £181 million In the three months following the Louvre agreement on 21 February 1987 there was a massive increase in intervention and the extent to which that fed through into broad money expansion. From that increase of £181 million for the whole of 1986, the month of March 1987 produced a growth in M3 of £946 million, which increased in April to £1,750 million and in May to £2,861. Interest rates then came down—enthusiastically supported by the Labour party for which interests rates are too high in all conditions and at all times—to 9 per cent. In June 1987 bank lending was up 32 per cent. on the previous year, and in July it was up 63 per cent. on the previous year. That caused a small increase in interest rates to 10 per cent.
Following black Monday, interest rates came down to 8·5 per cent. and we all shared the misapprehension that the consequence of black Monday would be the possibility of the economy plunging into recession. We all overestimated the effect of share prices and underestimated the effect of property prices. So we all have to accept a share of the blame for that error of policy.
At that time domestic monetary policy should have been tightened severely, but because of our fixation with maintaining a pegged exchange rate, particularly against

969
the deutschmark, we reduced interest rates, when, if anything, we should have been increasing them, to the inappropriately low level of 7·5 per cent. in early 1988. That led to massive intervention which boosted broad money growth when it should have been slowed.
I believe that the present fixation with the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS will simply cause us to repeat the mistakes. I should like the Government to say that there is never a right time for us to join the ERM because I believe that it is a chimera. The more we follow these false gods, the less likely we are to keep to the true monetarist path which is so eloquently and picturesquely defended by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
Joining the ERM is no soft option. We have a choice. Either we can use interest rates to stabilise the currency, in which case the economy will go up and down, or we can stabilise the economy, in which case the currency will go up and down. There is no way of wishing away that distinction and that choice.
The level at which the argument for joining the exchange rate mechanism is advanced—certainly by the Labour party and also by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on behalf of the SLD—does not do justice to the serious fundamentals of the controversy.
There are structural differences between economies that cannot be magicked away by the philosopher's stone of the ERM. There are psychological differences between people and the way in which they respond to different economic stimuli. They mean that at whatever rate one goes into the mechanism—if the decision to do so is taken in due course—almost by definition divergences will occur swiftly.
Mr. John Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that we could expect to enjoy German interest rates and levels of inflation only if the British people had the same in-bred fear of inflation as the German people?
Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has said on many occasions, the British people are wedded to inflation. They love it when it is high. It is only the contraction that is necessary to cure it that is disliked, as Conservative Members are finding out to their cost now.
Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the 1922 Committee performed a signal and excellent service to the British nation by demonstrating, at a time when inflation was being furiously stoked up, how grateful it was to the stoker up?
Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is being mischievous. I shall not respond to that invitation to join him. His career is behind him and mine lies ahead of me.
The structural and psychological differences to which I referred would make some countries more prone to inflation than others and mean that, if we joined the ERM, ultimately there would be a confrontation between the requirements of domestic monetary policy and those of exchange rate management, which have brought us to our present state of difficulty.
To some people the ERM is a totem, a lodestone of European attachment. It is one which, I am glad to say, I
970
have never shared. Others say—and it is at least a semblance of a respectable argument—that joining the ERM would show a determination to fight inflation. However, if the fundamentals of economic policy are wrong, that position will become unsustainable in due course.
In our entusiasm for returning to fixed exchange rates, we shall repeat all the mistakes that we made throughout the 1960s and 1970s. We shall return to the days of sterling crises and all the political problems that they caused. I have recently read the account by Lord Wilson of Rievaulx of the Labour Government of 1964–70, which I recommend to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. I particularly recommend the passages that refer to the period of devaluation in 1967. On page 448 he gives us this account of his difficulties:
"As the foreign exchange markets opened for a new week, they showed themselves in a highly neurotic condition; any rumour, any press article, however well-intentioned, could cause millions of pounds to swing for or against any particular currency."
One can see the same thing happening now. An incautious word by the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Tea Room might set off a run on the pound. Any such remark in those difficult circumstances can produce tremendous political problems.
In his Lord Mayor's Banquet speech at about the same time, Lord Wilson said:
"Not the least of my difficulties was what words to use about sterling which would be true and at the same time not a signal to speculators."
What a moral hazard for the Prime Minister of Britain to be in. He did not say which of those two options he elected to take up, but Conservative Members can guess.
There may be a right time for us to join the ERM, but that time would not survive for long. A divergence would soon occur that would falsify the whole basis of the assumptions on which entry took place.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hamilton: No. I should like to give way to my hon. Friend, but I am aware that I am taking a lot of time in the debate. I do not wish to be as self indulgent as the hon. Member for Derby, South.
The exchange rate mechanism is a means of subsidising German exports and now German reunification. It is an attempt to impose on the British people a new kind of poll tax—a Pöhl tax. The British people will pay to underwrite the inflationary costs of the exchange of ostmarks for deutschmarks at a wholly unrealistic rate. We could learn from history, although we do not often do so. We can look back to the period in 1925 when we went back on to the gold standard at an inflated rate of exchange, when British prices were 10 per cent. higher than German prices. Keynes, whom I do not often quote in support of my theories, in a book called "The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill", said that Churchill was
"committing himself to force down money wages and all money values, without any idea how it was to be done. … If everyone was to accept a similar reduction at the same time, the cost of living would fall, so that the lower money wage would represent nearly the same real wage as before. But in fact there is no machinery for effecting a simultaneous reduction … Deliberately to raise the value of sterling money means, therefore, engaging in a struggle with each group in turn."

971
We should be back to exactly the same confrontations in industrial relations which prices and incomes policies and all their works brought and from which we freed ourselves in 1979.
I regret that I do not share the fashion or fad for the ERM which many other candidates for the leadership of our party espouse. I lay my stall out before my fellow Conservative Members. If, in due course, there is a contest for the leadership of our party, at least one person will follow the lines that our Prime Minister has so stalwartly followed in recent years. I very much hope that she will continue to do so.
8.7 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: It is always a delight to see the theologians of monetarism coming out to take the Government to task. But they met their Waterloo during a previous session of the Treasury Select Committee, before its earlier reports. The Committee saw fit to recount that important exchange in our report in paragraph 56. We quoted the present Chancellor of the Exchequer who said:
"You answered your own question yourself, Mr. Budgen, when you said that used to be the theory in your judgment, the Government may have followed some time ago. It certainly has not been the theory that the Government have followed during any period I have been in the Treasury."
Those were harsh words for some members of our Committee.
Mr. Budgen: They are true.
Mr. Beith: Of course, they are acknowledged to be true.
I agree with the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) that regard should always be had to important indicators, whether monetary or asset prices, and with some other points that he made. However, he is wholly wrong in supposing that the exchange rate mechanism is a system of entirely fixed exchange rates. It manifestly is not. He also suggested that it would damage our economy. On the contrary, it offers us the opportunity of lower interest rates without losing all discipline. If there is one area of agreement between us it is that there should be some measure of firm discipline on inflation. I shall return to that point in a moment.
The Finance Bill is overshadowed by two things. One is the fact that, at the same time as it is being introduced, the most important change in personal taxation that most ordinary people have experienced in their lives is taking place. It is the introduction of the poll tax. The Bill is also overshadowed by events that have taken place since the Budget.
It seems extraordinary that we should be about to embark on a long series of Committee discussions and debates on the Floor of the House on a taxation Bill which is miles removed from the main tax preoccupation of most people. It would be reasonable to make an offer to the Government. There is much discussion about last-minute changes that might be made to the poll tax this year. It would be reasonable for the Opposition to say that we should facilitate the introduction of any new clauses that would bring immediate relief from the impact of the poll tax this year. We see no reason why the Finance Bill should not be used to carry out those measures. I should prefer to see the Finance Bill used to abolish the poll tax entirely and to set in its place a far better tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I must say to those who cheer from the
972
Labour Benches that I am grateful for their support, but I hope that it will extend also to support for a better alternative—local income tax—than they have so far been able to devise.
Many people at present have in mind the need for some immediate relief this year from the enormous impact of the poll tax on those on low incomes, and the Finance Bill would be an appropriate vehicle for that. I extend to the Government the offer that we shall assist them—I have no doubt that hon. Members of other parties will do the same—if they will have the common sense to use the Finance bill to implement some relief for this current year. Who knows what it will be; even Ministers do not seem to know.
I was present when one Minister had a piece of paper stuck in front of him revealing that the announcement of the Prime Minister's parliamentary private secretary had been widely publicised and it all seemed to be news to him. It is obvious that great turmoil is going on. We can only hope, for the sake of our constituents, that some useful result comes of it in terms of help with the terrible impact of that tax on so many people.
I referred to economic developments since the Budget, the most obvious of which is the appalling trade figures which have called the Budget judgment into question. Some of us called the judgment into question at the time. The Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), did not do so. He is on record as having supported every Budget judgment of every Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer since he came to the House, and certainly since be became Chairman of the Select Committee. Suffice it to say that he has not been right on every occasion and that he has come to recognise that fact.
The trade deficit reveals that we must achieve an average of £1 billion a month as against £2·2 billion to satisfy the Chancellor's latest forecast. There was genuine hope in many quarters that the most recent set of trade figures would be a great deal better than it was. The trade figures were a real disappointment to many people and they have again called hugely into question the Chancellor's forecast. "Erratic" and other strange descriptions will not explain them away and will certainly not explain the size of the difference from expectations. Despite hopes that the trade figures were improving, the comparison of the latest three months with the previous three months suggests that, once again, the trend is adverse. Exports are up, but imports are going up more and that is the most worrying feature of the figures.
The analysis that the trade deficit was simply the result of excess demand seems flawed if demand is reducing to the extent that the Government claim. One wonders how many appalling sets of trade figures the pound can bear without the Chancellor being put under pressure to increase interest rates to protect sterling at the same time as he should reasonably be preoccupied with the problem of inflation.
It is significant that the Government no longer seem keen to draw our attention to underlying inflation. The Chief Secretary and other Ministers always used to talk about it and whenever Opposition Members referred to the retail prices index, they corrected us immediately and said that it was the underlying figure that counted. The underlying figure has gone up to a worrying 6·3 per cent., and that high level of underlying inflation is likely to get worse. It is likely to be pushed further by the wage-price spiral on which we now seem to have embarked.

973
Inflationary expectations, whether of trade unionists or of those in the markets, suggest that we may have a far higher underlying inflation rate.
All that is worsened by what the Governor of the Bank of England called administrative price increases—those price increases in basic services over which the Government have control and some of which arise from political decisions to privatise industries. However much the Government soften us up for a dreadful set of RPI figures in just over a week's time, the Government's anti-inflation strategy is in tatters. It is extraordinary that the Government now seem to be hinting that we shall have a 10 per cent. RPI by the end of next week. There seem to be briefings attributed to the Treasury to that effect. That may mean that the rate may be only 9·9 per cent. and that an attempt is being made to make it sound worse than it will be, but it will clearly be very serious.
It is not surprising that with an anti-inflation policy in such a markedly unsuccessful phase there is increasing interest in the idea that we need some other framework within which to operate. It is not surprising that interest is widening in the independence and anti-inflationary role of a central bank. I still believe that the former Chancellor's paper should be dug out of the wastepaper basket and published so that it could be the subject of genuine public debate.
The inflation dangers also cast into doubt the Government's programme for entering the exchange rate mechanism. It is now reasonable to call it a programme as Government spokesmen throw no doubt on the intention to enter the exchange rate mechanism. They say, "When we join" and they talk about what the terms are. What is to be the inflation measure by which we judge whether inflation is proximate to or approaching that of the other Community countries? The Governor suggested that the only condition that the Government had set which had not been satisfied was inflation. The Select Committee sought to establish with the Chancellor what figure he would use to determine whether our inflation was on course to enable us to join the exchange rate mechanism. The Committee asked whether he would consider the trend, the retail prices index figure or the underlying inflation figure. The Chancellor said:
"We made it perfectly clear initially that we needed to see a substantial fall in British inflation and I have refined that by explaining that we are looking for a proximate rate of inflation between ourselves and the Community overall, but I am not going to go into further details, I am afraid. I do not think it would be wise or productive to do so."
That comment suggested to me at the time that the Chancellor hoped that he would have a free choice of about three different inflation measures and that one of them would be appropriate at the time that the political decision was made to enter the exchange rate mechanism. He would not tell us whether that decision had already been made. His comments did not suggest that he now knew what was the most effective measure of inflation and would apply it in making that decision. The present pressures towards higher inflation cast doubt on the timetable that the Government may be operating for entering the exchange rate mechanism.
I believe that we should be in that mechanism as early as possible. Without it, the Chancellor is in considerable danger of being forced into a position where he knows that
974
he should have higher interest rates, if that is the weapon on which he has to rely, but is in no position to bring that about. Even those in the Conservative party who take a view different from mine on the general management of the economy believe that the Chancellor may have reached the political limit of what he can do with interest rates because of the effect they have and the way in which that effect is seen in the Government's own unpopularity. The Government's unpopularity is apt to increase the pressure on sterling and to increase the demand for further rises in the exchange rate, so the Government are caught whichever way they go.
To make matters worse, high interest rates do not hurt everybody. Some benefit from high interest rates and would have substantially more disposable income as a result. They would, no doubt, buy imported goods with the fruit of those higher interest rates. Again, there are more circular pressures on the Chancellor which mean that a total dependence on interest rates is likely to bring him to the point where he cannot increase them to the extent that he and his advisers would regard as necessary to bring about the necessary correction.
When one thinks about using interest rates as a corrective against high borrowing, it is worth bearing in mind that the value of private housing in 1988, after deducting the money borrowed to buy it, was £740 billion, which is an awful lot of asset value to use as collateral for further borrowing. A number of people are in a position to make use of that collateral for a great deal of further borrowing.
For a long period the Government have ignored the combined effect of their fiscal stance and the structural changes in the housing market, the credit institutions and the mortgage markets, and the competition between the financial institutions. That constitutes a failure to apply their various doctrines and beliefs to actual facts and changes which they knew were taking place and of which the most graphic example was the previous Chancellor's failure to see what the effect would be of postponing the changes he was making in the mortgage rate so that people had long enough to make house purchases, taking advantage of the tax relief.
That worrying set of circumstances is the background to the Bill and has called into question the Budget judgment. I believe that the Chancellor should have taken a tighter stance in the Budget. Had he done so, he would have allowed himself more room for manoeuvre. I reject the Chancellor's view that levels of personal taxation as an aspect of fiscal policy are not an appropriate means to use for the regulation of the economy. The Chancellor will not be able to continue in that view once we are in the exchange rate mechanism, as the Select Committee has pointed out. The interest rate instrument is tied up with the operation of the exchange rate mechanism, so the Chancellor will not be able to use it for regulation purposes. At times, he will have to use fiscal policy.
Why was income tax not reduced by a penny in the pound in the present Budget? It is the Government's declared intention to reduce income tax to 20p in the pound. They have not done so in this Budget because they considered that it would not be prudent. What is that but a decision about the management of the economy in present circumstances? The Government have set aside a declared policy objective to do a bit of fine-tuning by not taking any more off income tax. That option would not have been available to the Government if they had

975
achieved their objective. If the Government had achieved their chosen level of income tax in the long term, there would no longer be room for manoeuvre. But let there be no doubt that this year the Chancellor exercised his freedom to make a judgment of fiscal policy based on current circumstances. It is absurd for the Chancellor to argue that such measures are not appropriate, and in future years he will have to change his doctrine.
I wish to comment on the taxation aspects of the Bill which will not take too long, because there is much in the Bill that is not in the least controversial. At first glance, there does not seem to be much that is controversial in the Bill although, last year, we found ourselves dealing with some fairly controversial retrospective clauses in the later stages of our deliberations. Some of them were introduced during the passage of the Bill. I do not know why once again the Government are having to resort to introducing important clauses on composite rate taxation at a late stage. That suggests that they decided to make the composite rate change at the last minute. I shall not be too critical, however, because I welcome the change; indeed, I wish that it had taken place a year ago.
As it is, building societies are devising complicated but useful schemes to enable people—particularly married women—who will be non-taxpayers this year to gain the benefit of a year under the present system and have the interest paid in the first year of the new system because of the one-year delay. If that were not done, all the money would go into offshore accounts in a year in which there will be a larger number of non-taxpayers but no change in the system.
I cannot agree with the argument of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who thinks that the change is somehow unfair to people who previously had their rates of tax reduced by the contributions of people who should not have been paying tax at all.
Mr. Denzil Davies: I did not say that it was unfair; I merely pointed out that more people would pay more tax and that a minority would benefit but the majority would not.
Mr. Beith: But previously a minority were being penalised. That was unfair; it should have been changed and I am glad that it is now being changed.
I welcome the provisions on football pools duty and on tax incentives for savings—at least as far as they go. They are very much in line with the arguments that the Liberal Democrats have advanced. But I must reiterate that I find it absurd that the tax that is affecting most people does not find a place in our debate.
One of the relatively widely welcomed features of the proposals have been the child care provisions. They have been welcomed by the Labour party because they were precisely what the Labour party asked for—tax relief on workplace nurseries. Nevertheless, I think that the provisions will prove a great disappointment to many working women who do not have access to workplace nurseries but who are paying out of their taxed income for access to nurseries or child care.
How flexible does the Chief Secretary intend the Bill to be? We can discuss it in detail in Committee, but let me ask him this. If two or three employers on adjacent sites on an industrial estate combine to run a workplace nursery, will that provision be excluded or included? If two or three branches of a bank in the same town provide a workplace
976
nursery, which has to be at one of the branches, will all the employees in all three branches benefit, or only those who work on the premises at which the nursery is located? The provision seems very limited.
The Liberal Democrats believe that there should be a wider form of tax relief on child care that extends to all those who are now having to pay for the facility out of their taxed income. It will seem doubly unfair to many women that a limited number who have access to workplace nurseries should receive tax relief when nothing will be done for them. The change is desirable, as far as it goes, but it will appear particularly divisive and disappointing to the many more women who pay for child care, whose skills are particularly needed at present and who will not be helped by the Bill. Last year when we pressed the case, the Labour party disagreed with us. Labour Members argued that we were going too far and that the relief should be confined as the Government proposed. I think that the issue will continue to be discussed for some time to come.
It is disappointing that we still have no useful new environmental taxation measures in the Budget, apart from the extension of relief on lead-free petrol and some change in company car arrangements. The opportunity could yet be taken if the Secretary of State for the Environment came up with the new tax proposals. Perhaps he is too busy with the poll tax to bother about this subject. The right hon. Gentleman was supposed to have been introducing proposals and I hope that, if he does, they will include tax proposals.
There is still much concern among charities about their future zero-rating. I hope that the Government will make clear their position on that. The fact that there are measures in the Bill to help charities does not allow us to escape that problem. Charities are very concerned about what will happen from 1992, and anxious to protect their status. If their status were changed, it would severely damage a great deal of charitable work in Britain.
If hon. Members go back to their constituencies, especially before next Thursday, waving copies of the Bill and saying to their constituents, "This wonderful Government have removed stamp duty on securities", their constituents will ask them, "What have you done about the poll tax—the real tax measure that is hitting so many of us so hard?"
8.26 pm
Mr. Michael Grylls: The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who opened the debate for the Opposition and who spoke for an inordinately long time, tried to make a very gloomy assessment of the British economy, in addition to referring to particular problems that are well known to all of us. I suppose that that is her job. The important thing is the overall position of the economy, not the specific problems that have been referred to, which I shall not rehearse now. New firms and new jobs are being created, the budget is in surplus, we are paying back debts, the economy is not going into decline but is still growing, albeit more slowly than before, and business activity generally is pretty good. To me, those are not the signs of a moribund economy—they are signs of an economy that has been freed by deregulation in successive Budgets introduced by Tory Chancellors.

977
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) chided us by saying that we could not go to our constituencies in advance of polling day on Thursday and say what a wonderful Budget this year's Budget was. I cannot imagine anything worse than introducing a Budget designed to sell to people on polling day. The great thing about the Budgets of the past 10 years is that in them successive Chancellors have tried steadily to improve the lot of the economy. They have been long-term Budgets, reforming taxation and changing the basis of the British economy, and the country has benefited enormously from the changes.
The hon. Member for Derby, South referred in particular to the change in the small firms rate of corporation tax, to the 25 per cent. band and to the increase in the level for marginal relief from £150,000 to £200,000. I was glad to hear her say that she welcomed that. I also welcome it because medium-sized companies can grow only by using internally generated profits. If those are overtaxed, the companies will not grow and expand.
Tax reform is important and it should continue. Although we did not see substantial changes in income tax in this Budget, we hope that those changes will continue in future Budgets. I believe that it is generally accepted that we are still taking too much from people by way of personal taxation. Although we have reformed taxes and cut tax rates, and we should be proud of doing that and should signal to the outside world that our tax rates are among the lowest in the world, the generality of tax is still too high. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury would agree about that.
Mr. Graham Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Grylls: No. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will be brief and allow another hon. Member to speak.
Generally it is agreed that we want to return to reducing personal taxation, certainly at the lower end. Tax cuts must be a continuing part of our long-term policy and I hope that that will continue in succeeding Budgets.
I wish to refer to a particular omission from the Budget. I do not decry the positive things that have been done, some of which I have referred to while others are already well known, but I hope that the omission that I intend to highlight will be corrected in a future Budget from this Government. One of the Government's great successes has been in creating what has been accurately called the enterprise society, in which people have been encouraged by tax changes and other incentives to invest their money in small and medium-sized firms and to take a risk.
Many of these small and medium-sized firms are still hit very hard by the level of inheritance tax. It is true that there have been big changes in that tax—the top rate used to be 80 per cent., but it is now down to an effective rate of 20 per cent. once business relief is taken into account—but we should not be satisfied while inheritance tax is still applied to family businesses. That cannot be right.
I know that the Treasury asks, "What are you fussing about?" because the inheritance tax is avoidable. If one gives away the company or hands over one's share to the next generation or the managers within seven years, no inheritance tax has to be paid. However, that argument
978
misses the point. We cannot decide when we are going to die; we have very little control over that. Inheritance tax distorts business decisions. Too much business planning is spent trying to decide when shares should be handed over to the next generation, whether it be the family or managers. If someone is wise under the present tax system, he arranges that early, but the person to whom control is being handed over may not be ready to accept it. The assets may therefore be damaged. The business might be damaged by someone who is not ready to take on the reins.
I am not talking about inheritance tax on personal wealth—that is a completely different issue—but we should be seriously considering 100 per cent. relief from inheritance tax for businesses so that they can be passed on from one generation to another without being damaged or facing a big bill.
If a company has assets of £1 million—that need not be a big company these days—and pays the normal rate of inheritance tax, it would have to find £200,000 in cash to hand over to the Chancellor. The Treasury sometimes seems to believe that businesses have that kind of money in a drawer somewhere, waiting to be paid out when the proprietor retires or dies, but that is not the case. The company to which I have referred would be badly damaged and would probably have to be sold and taken over by a bigger firm. I am sure that neither the Opposition nor the Government would want that to happen.
We want businesses to grow from generation to generation. Very few businesses succeed in reaching their maximum size in one generation. That is true of business after business. We should ensure that businesses remain independent units of competition and can therefore be handed over to the next generation.
In discussions in relation to the next two Budgets, I beg my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to consider how marvelous it would be for Ministers at the end of 12 or 13 years of this Government to abolish inheritance tax for businesses because we want them to thrive and pass on to the next generation as that is the best way to ensure that they grow.
8.35 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: I am sure that the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks.
I believe that it is a good custom that we consider the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee when we debate the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. I hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will not mind my saying that it is a particularly good custom this year because of the rather dry and technical nature of this Finance Bill. Probably the only group of people to enjoy this Bill will be the accountants, who I am sure are already sharpening their pens and giving advice to their customers about the Bill. Of course I accept that there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who are longing to spend our summer nights considering the Bill's 104 clauses. However, we have done the House a service by producing our Treasury and Civil Service Committee report in time for this Second Reading debate and I will concentrate my remarks on that report.
The 1977–78 Procedure Committee which set up departmental Select Committees hoped that they would oversee the work of Government Departments and would come to be a check on the Executive. It is probably fair to

979
say that, despite all the limitations, the Treasury and Civil Service Committee is beginning to do that. I believe that we have been helped by television, too, which informs the public and helps to sharpen the questions, which places Ministers under greater pressure than previously.
The Select Committee's investigation into the economic background of this year's Budget provides a good indication of the progress that has been made. Our sittings, as usual skilfully chaired by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), revealed the significant difference of emphasis between the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on two key issues—the level of inflation and the exchange rate mechanism.
The Governor—whose evidence as the guardian of the currency we must, of course, respect—predicted that inflation would rise higher than 9 per cent., mostly because of the impact of what he called administered or politically decided prices, especially the poll tax. When we put that to the Chancellor, he refused to answer. To most of us, his silence was as revealing as if he had spoken. It is clear that the retail prices index is likely to go well over 9 per cent. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said earlier, it could reach 10 per cent. next week.
With regard to the exchange rate mechanism, the Governor of the Bank of England was brutally frank about the Government's conditions for entry which, he said, apart from the level of inflation, were "mere details". In contrast, the Chancellor played a very dead bat. Clearly he was still worried about his relationship with the Prime Minister.
I use those two examples to show that the Select Committee process of question and answer, if properly employed, as I believe it was in our hearings, can throw considerable light on the attitudes and motives of Ministers, and in that sense the Executive becomes more accountable than it otherwise would be.
Given the varied views of the members of the Committee, our reports are usually better known for their analyses than for their prescriptions. I do not believe that they are any the worse for that. Thanks partly to our advisers, our track record is rather better than that of the Treasury. In April 1988, when the then Chancellor was still boasting about an economic miracle, we were warning of the dangers of overheating. We also began to be concerned about the level of inflation and the balance of payments. It was not a matter of hindsight—we got it right at the time.
Mr. Higgins: And house prices, too.
Mr. Radice: And house prices, too, as the right hon. Member for Worthing reminds me.
It is worth seeing what we have to say in our 1990 report, which is closely based on the evidence that was presented to us. We repeat our warnings about inflation and, like the Governor of the Bank of England, we place special emphasis on the possible response of pay bargainers to the impact of the poll tax and other administered crises. We are concerned also about the effect of further currency depreciation on the Government's counter-inflationary strategy. Bearing in mind that there has already been a depreciation of 10 per cent. in the past year, which has clearly had an impact on inflation, one can see what we mean. We are also much less sanguine than the Government about prospects for a significant reduction in
980
the balance of payments. The latest trade figures show just how far we have to go even to bring the annual deficit down to £15 billion, the forecast level for this year.
For once, the Committee's most interesting observation relates not to economic analyses but to economic policy. Significantly, we note the implication of the stress that the Chancellor laid in his Budget on the medium-term nature of the Government's fiscal policy. Several hon. Members have remarked on that point. By definition, and of necessity, it means that the Chancellor's counter-inflationary strategy is a one-club policy. The consequences are serious. Most hon. Members know from their constituency experience just how damaging the one-club policy has already been. It is literally clobbering small business and investment generally. As the Committee points out, it is also taking a long time to dampen demand. I agree with the right hon. Member for Worthing who chairs our Committee that it is important to have the right statistics, but even so it is clear that it has taken an enormously long time to work.
The Committee points out also that, once in the exchange rate mechanism, the Chancellor will be forced to abandon his one-club policy. Interest rates may need to be used more to support the exchange rate than as part of a counter-inflationary strategy. That means that he will need to use fiscal policy as a short-term weapon. If that is to happen inside the exchange rate mechanism, he might as well get used to it now.
The Chancellor would do well to look across the channel to see how the French economy is now being managed. Another recently published report, the OECD report on the French economy, congratulates the French authorities on their economic management and predicts a period of non-inflationary growth. After two years of sustained growth and low inflation, the OECD report expects the French economy to out-perform other OECD countries on the inflation and growth fronts. That is quite significant, given the problems that the French economy had during the 1980s.
The secret of French success with inflation is that, in contrast to the British Government, the French authorities have been prepared to use all available instruments—monetary, fiscal and exchange rate policy, and even wages policy. As the OECD report points out, French membership of the exchange rate mechanism played a key role in bringing French inflation down to the German level. There is a lesson for us. A country with a similar economy in some ways—it is certainly a similar size—has managed substantially to reduce inflation and to make its economy far more competitive. It has done that without the benefit of North sea oil, which we have enjoyed for the past 10 years or so.
In conclusion, the message of the Select Committee's report is that, in contrast to the French economy, our economy remains dangerously out of balance with a high level of inflation and a big balance of payments deficit. What is more, the report casts doubt on whether the Government are pursuing the appropriate policy instrument to bring the economy back into balance again. Those are disturbing findings that the Government will ignore at their peril.
8.45 pm
Mr. David Howell: We are told that there is nothing to be said in 10 minutes that cannot be better said in five. Therefore, I shall attempt to adopt that principle at this late hour—a principle that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) would have been wise to adhere to after an inordinately long speech that said nothing much.
I admire the Budget strategy and the Finance Bill. It is a thoroughly workmanlike operation that meets many of our medium-term supply side needs. As the Treasury Select Committee says in yet another excellent report, it is probably broadly neutral in so far as the Budget's impact on the economy can be measured. Of course it has not really made much difference to our immediate economic worries, of which the most overwhelming by far is the level of inflation, partly as measured by the retail prices index and partly by the underlying inflation rate, which may not be so high but which all would agree is far from satisfactory.
A decade ago we used to say that inflation was the fundamental enemy. It was not only unjust but poisoned everything. Those words were true then and they are true today. I still think that hon. Members do not fully understand just what appalling poison the inflation rate and the RPI rate are injecting into the rest of the economy and creating all sorts of secondary infections throughout the system. We know that every point increase in the RPI immediately adds just under £1 billion to public expenditure, through indexing of state pensions and social security benefits. Straight away, the Budget is hit sideways by an increase in the RPI. Although my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary tried bravely to head off the proposition—he was talking about another aspect, keeping aside the proposition that the community charge has any immediate relevance to budgetary constructions—the truth as enumerated in the Select Committee report is that it has a devastatingly direct impact on the Budget and, of course, immediately adds to public expenditure. That is quite aside from the fact that we then move on from an RPI figure to pay settlements related to the RPI figure, which gives the whole matter a further spiral upwards, and quite apart also from the fact that inflation has helped to screw up the introduction of the community charge by involving the Treasury in making some absurdly hopeful estimates of inflation rates that had no chance of being met. Local authorities, which are not businesses and do not act like businesses, merely said, "We shall do what is open to us, which is to pile it on to the community charge." Inflation is our problem, as it was a decade ago, and we must get on top of it much more decisively than we are doing now. Of course we have hopes for next year and we must act more urgently.
There are two broad strategies to deal with inflation—there always have been and they remain today. One is to make operative and effective our own domestic monetary discipline in ways that ensure that, whatever happens to different levels of prices—even to the community charge—it is not validated by increases in the money in circulation. The second, in an open economy such as ours, set as we are alongside the huge continental exchange rate bloc of the exchange rate mechanism, is to have an exchange rate policy rather than not to have an exchange rate policy.
982
That is a controversial view for my hon. Friends and others who think that, if only we can get the monetary discipline at home right, the exchange rate will look after itself. I fear that in the real world, in the real currency markets, that is too simplified a view. They are right in half their proposition—that we must get our monetary discipline more effective—but they are wrong in their proposition that we can then leave the exchange rate side to look after itself. Both are necessary and interlocking elements. Without them both being pursued with more vigour. we shall not get matters right.
On the monetary discipline side, the position is not good. Whether one is a monetarist or a revised monetarist or one merely appreciates in a common sense way the importance of money in the inflationary process, it is worrying to note that the monetary aggregates are going astray. M3 rose by 2·4 per cent. in the period to March; M4 by 17·3 per cent.; and even M0, which is the Government's published target—it is the only one and is only an indicator, not a quantity of control of monetary demand or supply—is moving outside the frame.
It is worrying that we appear to lack the mechanisms and systems by which to control the monetary conditions inside the country. We shall never make a good member of any exchange rate mechanism until we get our own qualifications right as regards monetary discipline. That is why the Chancellor was right when, at the beginning of this year, he said, as he repeated in his Budget speech, that he was concerned about mechanisms of monetary control in this country and was seeking to reform them in a number of ways.
We must face the fact that our present structure does not operate on the supply of money. It operates mostly on the demand for money. Setting the short-term interest rate sets the price, and the Bank of England then says that it will supply virtually unlimited funds, one way or another, to the banks at that level. It is then left to the banks to decide what they do with all that money. The result is that if it is available and they can lend it, they lend it; and if it is lent, it is spent. That position continues even with the very high short-term interest rates that we have today. We shall not achieve effective control over monetary conditions in this country until we move more to controlling the supply of money as opposed to the demand for money.
It is in that area that we must apply our minds if we are to achieve credibility internationally that we have monetary discipline at home. We must give thickness and quality to Britain's monetary policies to ensure that our currency performs decently in international markets, thereby enabling us to command respect and make a contribution in international monetary circles.
The time has come to move towards the proposition being advanced—vigorously by the Governor and deputy Governor of the Bank of England and others—that we need a central monetary authority. The Bank of England is a politically subordinate organisation—it is effective in that role—but it must have a clear statutory obligation to achieve monetary targets and maintain control in the price and value of money. To do that, we should consider more than we have going against the monetary base of the banks, using the weapon of monetary reserve asset ratios—which on occasions the Select Committee examines and does not turn down—and developing a number of other techniques, which I do not have time tonight to enumerate, for going against the supply of money.

983
In the end, it all comes out in the interest rates. It is valid to say that everything we do is reflected in interest rates. But there is a difference between setting an interest rate and then finding that we must slip away from it, or otherwise operating through a variety of ways on the supply of money and seeing interest rates come out differently. It is the difference between letting the banks lend happily in the knowledge that they will never be caught out, and putting the banks in the position of having to start drawing in their lending in case they find that they must borrow short money at a price higher than they can lend it.
The other part of the policy is the exchange rate mechanism. I agree that it is not a quick fix. We must first get our own monetary position under much better control. If we can do that, it makes sense to move into the exchange rate mechanism, and we should declare more openly our preparedness to do that. When we do that, we may have higher interest rates in certain conditions, but with less volatility.
The interest rate has been moved by public policy decisions 84 times since May 1979. Short-term interest rates have moved that number of times in this country. We can do better. We could have a calmer pattern of interest rates if we had a context in which sterling was seen to operate and in which people could lend across the exchanges without such an exchange rate risk. People could invest in this country to take advantages of our relatively high interest rates with fewer exchange rate risks and that would create a downward and calming pressure on interest rates. It would enable us to get through the next difficult year with less strain than using a system of monetary control that is not up to the task that we face.
Those were the only remarks that I wished to make on that narrow issue. What I am endeavouring to put forward is fundamental to our success in beating inflation, which in turn is fundamental not only to the success of the Government but to the viability and prosperity of Britain in the coming five years.
8.55 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: This debate, as with previous Finance Bill debates, has in essence been about the development of the economy, certainly since the Budget, and there are no prizes for guessing the facts about that development. It has been poor since the Budget.
Inflation is rising again, the trade deficit is horrendous, unemployment is beginning to rise again or will rise soon, our interest rates are the highest in Europe, as we have been told, and they could rise further—that matter is not entirely within the control of the Chancellor—and manufacturing investment is beginning to stagnate and stop.
I should remind Conservative Members—there were echoes of this in the speech of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell)—that in 1979 they came to power to defeat inflation, to right the wrongs and curb the excesses, as the radical right say them, of the 1960s and 1970s and to stop, as the Conservatives of the time say it, the economic decline of Britain.
We see, 11 years later, that they have failed to do those things. We have heard today that inflation, measured by the RPI, may be 10 per cent. this or next month, and Government spokesmen—and the few who still have some
984
sympathy with the Government—try to console themselves by saying that the underlying rate of inflation is about 6 per cent. Even so, 6 per cent. is twice the rate of inflation in France and Germany, our major competitors on the continent.
By the time that the increases in the poll tax, the mortgage rate increases and the raised excise duty have fallen out of the RPI, perhaps the rate of 10 per cent. will come down. But by that time the underlying rate of inflation may have gone up from 6 to 8 per cent., partly as a result of wage increases and partly because of the devaluation of the pound which has taken place but which has not fully worked its way through the system.
I had always thought that there was an inner contradiction in the policies of the radical right. It believes in controlling and regulating the money supply, but it does not believe in controls or in regulations. That has been the fundamental problem. Indeed, that point was touched on by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). If one does not believe in regulating the market but believes in freeing everything, including money, how on earth can one control the money supply? Of course, one cannot do so, as has been demonstrated to a considerable extent.
In the latter part of the 1970s it was difficult to control the money supply in a country such as Britain which, because the City of London is an international trading centre, was an open financial economy even then. However, it is far more open today than it was in 1979. Yet a Government came into power who at least espoused monetary policy and called for controls on the supply of money, but who deregulated everything and did not leave themselves any instruments with which they could control the money supply.
The contrast with France and Germany is stark. Germany has a fairly flexible governmental regulatory system but a strong independent central bank. On the other hand, France has a weak central bank—that used to be the case and I believe that it is still true because we certainly do not hear much about the Banque de France—but has a strong, central and almost inflexible governmental regulatory system.
Therefore, while one country has an independent central bank and a looser system of government, the other has the opposite, but both are now maintaining a rate of inflation of between 3 and 3·5 per cent. In Britain we have neither. We do not have a governmental regulatory system and, although I am not advocating an independent central bank, we have a central bank that is somewhere between the Banque de France and the Bundesbank. We have neither one system nor the other.
As I have said, I do not believe that we should have a central bank that is totally independent because I do not believe that in a democratic society bankers should be allowed to control the supply of money. That is something for Government. With great political will and great political skill, plus the instruments at their disposal, the French have shown that that can be achieved through democratic institutions in a democratic society.
The other problem is the balance of payments. The March deficit of £2·2 billion was a shock to everybody, especially the Treasury. Last year we had a deficit of £20 billion, some of which, I concede, resulted from excess demand, and eventually some of the deficit will disappear as demand is reduced. Nobody can know for certain about such things because they are extremely difficult to forecast,

985
but I do not believe that we will get our balance of payments deficit down to much below £15 billion even with high interest rates.
In the past all kinds of excuses have been made about the balance of payments deficit. First, we were told by the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) that it did not matter and that we should forget about it. Then we were told that, although it did matter, it did not matter as long as we could finance it. Then we were told that if the figures were wrong anyway, why pay any attention to them? Now we have "erratics" and are back to diamonds and to being told about jumbo jets and Boeings. We have been over that ground before, but the deficit now is much greater than it was in 1970 when the Labour Government lost the election.
It does not give me—or, I hope, anybody else—any pleasure to say that I am fearful that we shall not be able to reduce the deficit to below £15 billion because there may very well be a structural problem, which could have arisen in two ways. First, large sections of our manufacturing industry have been wiped out. That means that we are not substituting for imports because we cannot produce the goods that would provide that substitute. I am talking about a vast range of consumer goods—the kind of goods that most people want to buy and are determined to buy despite the high rates of interest.
Secondly, although I concede that to some extent there has been a change in some industries in the past 10 years, even in those parts of British industry which are now more productive, most of the plant and machinery that is used and most of the investment goods have come from abroad. That is a continual process. It is not a case of buying something once and for all because, in today's world, plant and machinery must change, change, change and we must keep up with the changes.
All hon. Members have toured factories in their constituencies. We have all seen foreign machinery, plant and equipment. The replacement parts and even the servicing of that equipment come from abroad and have to be paid for ultimately in our balance of payments.
Therefore, I cannot see how we can reduce our balance of payments to much below £15 billion without stringent measures.
The other night I Watched "Newsnight" in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) participated, along with that highly respected—I say that with the greatest of respect—financial columnist, Mr. Samuel Brittan. On that occasion my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East was not up to his usual standard. Perhaps he was speaking with tongue in cheek, but he suggested that one advantage of having an economic monetary union was that one could wipe out the balance of payments deficit. We know that there can be an act of union and no balance of payments deficit, but that does not solve the problem. All that will do is turn Britain into the South Dakota or the Oklahoma of the united states of Europe. The problem is still there as a drain on our resources and infrastructure. The balance of payments is one of the best indicators of an economy's health. We fall down badly on that, as the Government fall down badly on inflation.
986
The Government can be accused of many things, such as the neglect of public services and the introduction of the awful, ridiculous poll tax, but in the end it is the economic mess that they have created during the past 10 years that we must consider. It will have to be cleared up by the next Government, at great cost and with great problems for the British public.
9 pm
Mr. James Paice: I have listened with interest to the whole debate. I support strongly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said, especially when he supported the Chancellor for not heeding the siren voices that called for substantial increases in taxation, and his comments about Government statistics. As we visit businesses in our constituencies and talk to bankers—as we all do—it must be abundantly clear to us all that the Government's actions on interest rates are already having a strong effect. We can see the effects on the retail sector in the difficulty faced by shops in our constituencies. Sales are down; many have had to shed staff and many are closing. The Chancellor's medicine is clearly working. It is a matter of regret to us all that it is taking longer than we hoped, but that could be construed as a measure of how strong the economy was in the first place.
Until recently, I had lingering yearnings for credit controls, but, such thoughts were dashed and destroyed, not by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, or even his predecessor my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), but by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who on 24 October 1989 was espousing the cause of voluntary restraint by the banks. When he was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) about the foreign banks—which since the abolition of exchange controls have developed a major stake in this country—he said:
"I do not think that foreign banks would take an irresponsible view if approached by the Government"—[Official Report, 24 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 694.]
That is naive. Foreign banks would be more likely to heed the advice of their own Governments and shareholders than that of the Government of the country in which they operate. They operate solely for commercial benefit.
Credit controls by voluntary restraint and moral persuasion were first introduced in the early 1950s. For the following two decades, the severity of the "voluntary" persuasion was increased, until finally in 1971 it was abandoned for positive constraints on the banks. I do not believe that they have any part to play in controlling credit today, to say nothing of the fact that they would not tackle the problem of housing credit, which is the root cause of many of the difficulties.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will examine what has happened in the past week with credit cards. Credit card borrowing accounts for a minuscule amount of total credit, but I object—I know that others do, too—to paying charges that are used to keep interest rates down for those who use the card to borrow. The fact that people who regularly pay off their credit card accounts every month are subsidising other people's interest is especially distasteful. I do not know whether it is something in which we should intervene as a Government, but it gives me cause for regret.

987
Much has been said this evening about the exchange rate mechanism. I lend my voice entirely to those who are trying to persuade my right hon. Friend the Chancellor not to adhere too strongly to the Madrid requirements but to seek entry sooner rather than later. I say that not because I believe that it is some wonderful palliative or panacea; it is clearly not the sole answer to our difficulties, and anyone who believed that it was would be foolish. My right hon. Friend said in his Budget statement that it would provide a new framework for interest rate decisions, but that even then no one should suppose that it would bring a dispensation from the need for a strong domestic monetary policy, and that is absolutely right. But belonging to the exchange rate mechanism would provide the stability in the currency markets for which industry yearns, and it would be an extra weapon—an extra club in the bag—for the Chancellor in his constant battle to control inflation.
Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who believe that there is some national pride at stake and that we should not on that account join the rest of Europe in the exchange rate mechanism are, I believe, mistaken: for a long time we have been influenced to a very large extent by what happens in other capitals and by other Governments' activities.
In thinking about the Bill I have also considered what is not in it and what could be in it if there were another Government. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has already mentioned the minimum wage promised by Opposition Members at a cost of 500,000 jobs. What is not in the Bill is anything that could be construed as assisting inflation or accepting inflation as inevitable, but it is clear from an examination of the policy of Opposition Members that they accept a degree of inflation as an inevitable part of progress.
Perhaps most significant of all, the Bill does not introduce any extra income tax on investment income, such as a surcharge on income over £3,000 from some form of savings. Three thousand pounds is the sort of income that would come in from a relatively small amount of savings, perhaps a half-share of an inherited property—the sort of savings and income that many families would expect to have, particularly pensioners. It is not a Budget which reintroduces the gift tax or destroys the opportunity for many people to rent a home by removing the business expansion scheme exceptions from private landlords.
From listening to debates here on the economy I find that many Opposition Members have still not grasped the fundamental fact that the tax rate reductions that we have followed for the past 11 years have increased the Government's revenue and therefore the Government's ability to spend on important services. If people really care about public expenditure on those vital services, what is crucial is not the individual rates of tax but the total sum of money raised from that tax policy; and it has been clear to us all who have followed the path of the past 11 years that the reductions in the tax rates have served to increase the overall take to the Government and therefore the amount of money available. The alternative would be to borrow or to cut expenditure, the path followed by Labour Governments in the past and one that would be followed in the future.
Hon. Members have mentioned the changes in charity taxation. They are widely welcomed on both sides of the House and are not in dispute. I know that it is outside his direct remit, but I suggest to my right hon. Friend the
988
Chief Secretary that the changes would be considerably enhanced if he could persuade my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to bring forward a Bill for charity law reform to make sure that charities are in a strong position to use to the very best the enhanced resources that they will receive from this Bill. Concern has been expressed in the press only in the past few days about one large charity—
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Paice: I will not; other hon. Members want to speak.
I believe that the Government would be wise to introduce charity reform as soon as possible.
TESSA has been widely welcomed on both sides of the House. Its strength is that it is a simple scheme that will be readily understood by ordinary people. The personal equity plan scheme has worked very well, but it has been too complicated, I fear, for many people. I should have liked a more front-end loaded savings scheme that would have enabled the saver to see his benefits more clearly. TESSA, which is fundamentally simple, will go a long way towards remedying our savings difficulties, and that in turn will, I hope, lead to a shift in the underlying levels of interest that it will be necessary to charge in the long-term future.
The abolition of composite rate tax must be right. As a parent I have found it difficult to examine possible investment schemes for my children's meagre savings, since so many of them carry composite rates of tax. Although the abolition will not take place until next year, it will be a great improvement.
The Bill is largely neutral, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has clearly shown that in a broadly neutral Budget it is possible to deal with unfairnesses and difficulties and to hand out a range of remedies to those who would otherwise suffer. This is a good Bill, welcomed in many sectors, and the House should welcome it, too.
9.17 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I tried to intervene when the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) was speaking about charities because I, like other Labour Members, was disgusted to hear Oxfam singled out for political treatment. I think that the line goes back to No. 10. I should have liked to have told the hon. Gentleman that the Adam Smith Institute is also a charity. It is highly political, and it certainly never supports Opposition policies.
The Bill fails to address the real problems facing our nation. Our economic predicament is grim, but listening to speeches by Conservative Members one would think that we were in the middle of an economic miracle.
I want to concentrate on the fact that the Bill singularly fails to do anything for manufacturing industry. Manufacturing industry faces grave difficulties, yet Government policies, such as high interest rates, have brought investment almost to a halt and that has further damaged our manufacturing base.
The other day I talked to a director of a good textile firm in Halifax. Textiles have been in retreat, badly damaged by Government policies of the past 10 years. He told me that he had planning permission for an extension

989
to a factory, he had full order books, yet he could not make the required investment because of the expense of borrowing money.
The Government have severely neglected manufacturing industry. The latest figures show that manufacturing output has ground to a halt. The forecasts in the Budget assume zero growth, and that is bad enough for manufacturing. But recently we had a debate on the multi-fibre arrangement, in which a junior Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry spoke. He hinted that we did not need a multi-fibre arrangement and that it would save no jobs. Hon. Members who heard that must have been depressed about the future for textiles. Those representing constituencies where thousands are employed in the textile industry were very worried. The Silberston report thought that 30,000 jobs would go; the TUC gave a more realistic assessment of about 100,000 jobs. If that happens, an important industry may be wiped out.
The Government have a dismal record on the support of manufacturing industry. The growth rate in manufacturing output in the United Kingdom between 1979 and 1989 was 12·2 per cent. That places us seventeenth of the 20 OECD countries. It would be difficult to find a Government policy which did not damage industry and workers. High inflation, high mortgages and the poll tax mean that low-paid workers have no choice but to ask for pay rises. For the Government to pretend that that in itself will lead to higher inflation is a cheek.
I have already said that high interest rates are damaging manufacturing. Nothing in the Bill will help industry. Families have not benefited, nor have low-paid workers. If Government Back Benchers were honest, they would have tried to do something for families. We have heard praise for tax relief on workplace nurseries, but we heard nothing about the freeze on child benefit which has damaged families.
The so-called reform of the social security system has led to great hardship. Every day we find out about some new hardship. Only the other day I discovered that women who were in receipt of family credit are now much worse off.
Women who work only during school hours and who, for obvious reasons, have the school holidays off cannot claim family credit. They are excluded because they are not working for 52 weeks a year. That is unfair. We are told that the adjudicator will have to decide on those cases. In whatever the Government have done, they have damaged the low-paid and people on low incomes.
A few months ago, a regulation was pushed through the House which will mean that textile workers and other workers who are laid off regularly will not be entitled to full unemployment benefit. The Government have inflicted low pay upon us. The Budget and the Bill will do nothing about it. We have heard from various hon. Members tonight about low pay. Conservative Members have talked about workers claiming exorbitant pay increases. Let me tell them about low pay. In my constituency C and M Packing pays its workers only £10 per day. That is the kind of economy that the Government say we need.
The one provision in the Bill which I welcome is the tax relief on workplace nurseries. Tax should never have been imposed on the nurseries. It was a scandal to pretend that workplace nurseries were a benefit which should be taxed,
990
along with company cars. When we look at what the Government have done, we see how little it is and that the Government are not concerned.
This week in the House of Commons Magazine the Secretary of State for Employment talked about the demographic time bomb and the fact that 95 per cent. of workers in the future will be women. He praised the Government for taking off that unfair taxation in the Budget. Child care in this country is an absolute disgrace, and the Government do nothing about it. Workplace nurseries represent only 3 per cent. of child care in this country. If the Government were serious about trying to get women back to work, they would be talking about a comprehensive child care policy giving local government the money needed to fund nurseries and local authority community nurseries, doing something about low pay and making sure that women could get back to work.
One of the most comprehensive surveys conducted on workplace nurseries—a Government survey conducted by the Department of Employment—showed that less than 0·2 per cent., or 198 women, out of 1 million women surveyed had children in employment-provided creches. That shows the Government's lack of commitment towards getting women back into the workplace. Government Ministers will have to do something more than stand at the Dispatch Box and pretend. If the women of this country are to get back into the work force, they need to do something about who looks after their children, and that is a Government problem.
9.25 pm
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I am sure that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) will find it difficult to believe that those of us caricatured as hard-faced monetarists are so mostly because we are concerned, like her, about the weakest sections of the community who are hit hardest by inflation.
I had not expected to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in this debate. I have heard most of the speeches and came into the Chamber expecting not so much to contribute as to benefit from hearing the speeches. Having heard the various speeches, particularly that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), I reflected that he, most of all, represented respectable opinion. In all his speeches he goes on about the way in which we all want to defeat inflation, and says it is extraordinary that inflation continues. He speaks of various monetarist statistics as though he, and he alone, had the privilege of seeing them and almost says that ordinary commentators in this country had no means of noticing, for instance, that house prices were going up by 20 per cent. in one year or 30 per cent, in another. It seemed to suggest that all those signs of the stoking up of inflation can only now, retrospectively, be seen with the benefit of hindsight. In fact, all those figures were there for all to see at the time. The conclusion that we all reach is that, initially, inflation is much welcomed in this country.
Every time interest rates are unwisely brought down, it is put forward by the Government of the day as an indication of their wisdom, good management or personal generosity. The time must come—I do not know when—when this country will finally decide that it is serious about wanting to get on top of inflation. At that stage, it

991
will surely say that the track record of Governments is so bad that the control of the money supply must, sadly, be delegated to another independent organisation.
Like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I am highly sceptical of the proposals put forward with such magnificent effrontery by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). I recollect that on an earlier occasion he said that the relationship between the Treasury and the Bank of England was one of the Treasury deciding the policy and the Bank of England carrying it out. If a Labour Chancellor had said that, the pound would have dropped, all respectable opinion would have taken to the correspondence columns of The Times and there would have been a near constitutional disaster. However, at the time it was regarded as an engaging expression of my right hon. Friend's vigour and supremacy.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was properly sceptical of the proposals to make the Bank of England more independent. She suspected that it was part of a wider scheme to bring Britain within the exchange rate mechanism and closer to a European central bank. As she rightly says, we believe in a supreme Parliament with an entirely independent central bank.
I see your eagle eye upon me, Mr. Speaker, so I will conclude. We have an independent judiciary, which is not supported by any special Bill of Rights. It is supported by convention. That is recognised by all parts of what I might pompously describe as educated opinion. In the same way, if we find, as we shall, that entering the ER M does not bring a painless attack upon inflation, and if we find that it has gone exactly the same way as prices and incomes policies, the control of interest rates through reserve assets, credit controls, or all those other myths of a painless way to control inflation, we shall have to give to the Bank of England greater independence within our constitution because we shall have plainly proved that, sadly, over all the years since the war democratic politicians have demonstrated that they and the British people, if in doubt, like inflation.
9.32 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: Perhaps inevitably, much of today's debate has focused on the general condition of our national economy rather than on many of the detailed items of the Finance Bill. That is as it should be because the Bill will ultimately be judged by what it does or does not do to bring relief, improvement or assistance to our ailing economy. It roundly fails that test.
I wish to remind the House about some of the overall economic indicators. Had my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) been lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that they, too, would have wanted to draw attention to those indicators.
Many hon. Members have referred to the balance of payments deficit. The March figure is the second worst ever. The figure for the first quarter of this year of £5·6 billion is the highest ever first quarter figure in our history. Hon. Members have drawn attention to the rate of inflation, which now stands at 8·1 per cent. and is set to rise dramatically in a week and a half.
It is worth reminding ourselves that when the Government took office they inherited an inflation rate just above the European average. It is now double the
992
European average. Right hon. and hon. Members have drawn attention to the record on output. The latest figures show that manufacturing output is lower now than it was in January 1989. They have also drawn attention to the investment figures. In the last quarter of 1989 investment in manufacturing was 5 per cent. down on the previous quarter, so we have stagnant output, falling investment, a record balance of payments deficit and rising inflation.
It is scarcely surprising that the Chief Secretary concentrated on what had happened in the past rather than on what is happening now to the British economy. However, he made one slip. He tried to convince us—as he has tried to do in the past and we have tried to put him right—that the present Conservative Government believe in low taxes. He may have forgotten what the Government themselves have said in the Red Book which was published at the same time as the Budget. Table 2·5 of the Red Book shows clearly that the overall taxation burden in the economy in 1978–79 was 34 per cent. of GDP. In 1989–90—the financial year just gone—after 10 years of Conservative stewardship of the economy, the overall taxation burden was 36¾ per cent. of GDP. What is worse, in the current financial year, 1990–91, the overall taxation burden goes up by a full percentage point from 36¾ per cent. of GDP to 37¾ per cent. The bulk of that increase is largely due to the unfair and undemocratic imposition of the poll tax on the people of Britain.
The Government are not the party of economic success, nor are they the party of low taxation. What about the Government's chosen policy to bring an errant economy to heel—high interest rates? We have the highest interest rates among the major economies and the highest mortgage rate ever in our history. Those interest rates are supposed to be bearing down on the demand side of the economy, but the figures to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred show that they are not working.
Since the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer began to tighten monetary policy to bear down on the demand side, a further £150 billion worth of credit has been pumped into the domestic economy. We have had 21 months of pain, increasing repossessions, household budgets in savage difficulty and mortgage payments increasing by £200 a month or more. And all for what? For £150 billion of extra credit going into the domestic economy.
Interest rates not only have an impact—however loose and ineffective that impact may be—on the demand side of the economy; they also harm the supply side of the economy. We need look no further than the account given by Midland bank on 24 April this year when its chairman warned that high interest rates were hitting businesses as well as individuals and leading to the worsening of the bank's bad debt situation. That warning was echoed again two days later by the deputy chairman of Barclays bank.
The evidence is clear that the operation of high interest rates is hitting business even more harshly than it is hitting the mortgage payers who are paying so much more each month for the homes in which they live.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: No. I am afraid that time is extremely limited.
Against that background, the Finance Bill fails completely to measure up to the task that the economy

993
demands. Some items in the Bill are sensible and we welcome them. We have pressed some of them on the Government for some time. Last year we pressed for assistance for friendly societies. The Bill contains a little assistance for them. Last year the Government said that there was no way in which fiscal measures should be used. Now they are using them. We asked for changes in the provisions on Third world debt. The Bill introduces some changes that will help to stop the gravy train for banks to some extent, but those measures will do nothing specific to assist the ailing economies of the Third world.
Last year we asked for the abolition of the tax on workplace nurseries. We have argued that case throughout the past four years. It was dismissed out of hand last year by the Chief Secretary. Now he asks us to accept a Finance Bill that includes it. We welcome that. We are glad that the Government have changed heart on some matters.
We wish to scrutinise other items more closely, such as the changes in oil taxation. We shall want to be convinced that the relief on abandonment costs is balanced by the cap on petroleum tax payments. We are not sure that it is.
We shall examine the treatment of unit trusts, which seems to leave investment trust companies out in the cold. We shall scrutinise the precise operation of relief against VAT for bad debts. We shall examine the closing of loopholes for dual resident companies, a long overdue measure. We shall want to know that those loopholes have been fully closed.
We shall examine the abolition of the business expansion scheme locality rule which makes yet more attractive the private rented property sector of BES, which is already gobbling up 80 per cent. or more of BES relief.
Most important of all is not what the Finance Bill does but what it fails to do. It contains no green agenda for environmental use of the taxation system. Before the Budget we urged the Government to consider some sensible measures such as reducing VAT for energy-efficient appliances, insulation material, recycled material and catalytic converters and increasing VAT on chlorofluorocarbons and other polluting substances. We urged them to use the allowance system against corporations in an environmentally friendly way, to grade the vehicle excise duty scale of payments to encourage people to have smaller cars, and to reduce car tax where catalytic converters are fitted. None of those ideas has been taken up by the Government.
The Government have included no green agenda in the Bill. Nor is there any real help for investment in the manufacturing sector of our economy. There is no help on first-year capital allowances. There is no switch of the emphasis of the business expansion scheme from rented property to manufacturing.
The Bill contains only relatively minor measures on training. The negligible estimated cost of training and enterprise council provision in the Bill reveals that the Government do not intend very much training to take place as a result of the change that the Bill brings about.
The Bill contains no relief for ordinary people facing financial problems with their mortgages, electricity payments, water rates, transport fares, rents or the poll tax. Indeed, the Government have given clear signals that high interest rates are likely to be with us for a long time until there is an unseemly dash to the ballot box with
994
electoral bribes to the people. By that time the British people will have rumbled the Government for what such bribes undoubtedly will be.
Above all, there is no statement in the Bill or in any of the speeches about it that gives us any hope that the Government are more serious than they have been recently about British membership of the exchange rate mechanism. The evidence of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service is extremely instructive here. When the Select Committee asked the Governor of the Bank of England whether all the conditions, other than the condition on inflation, out of the Madrid conditions had been met, the Governor said clearly, "Yes." When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked the same question, he said, "No." We are entitled to ask the Financial Secretary tonight which of them was giving the Government's position. Have the conditions other than the inflation condition been met or not? On the exchange rate mechanism, as on so much else of Government policy, there is doubt and confusion leading ultimately to disaster.
The Bill is a tinkering Bill which merely scratches the surface of the major problems facing the British economy. It fails miserably to measure up to the task. When the Chancellor commented on the appalling trade figures last week, he made much of what he called "erratic" items in the accounts. The Financial Times on Saturday had the right riposte to the Chancellor and the Government. It said:
"Erratic imports are being blamed for the Government's latest trade disaster. Other factors leading to the economic mess, presumably, include erratic inflation, erratic bank lending and erratic productivity growth. But I guess that the Government will never blame erratic policies."
The truth is that we have a Government with erratic policies who have failed the British economy and the British people. The sooner they go, the better.
9.46 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): Before I begin properly, I will answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). Yes, we are on course to join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. We welcome Italy's recent moves to abolish exchange controls, but there remain conditions to be met—notably the reduction of inflation in this country. We wait to hear whether the Opposition are still committed to, as they said, "major changes" in the working of the European monetary system before they would be able to join.
This has been an important debate with a number of excellent contributions. I especially regret missing the contributions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and of my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) and for Cambridge, South-East (Mr. Paice). I shall read their contributions closely after the debate. If I am unable to reply to them or to a number of other hon. Members now, I hope that I shall be forgiven due to the brevity of time available. I will provide written replies on any outstanding points.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) made an especially important contribution. He will appreciate that I cannot pre-empt the reply that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make to the excellent report of the Treasury and Civil

995
Service Select Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing placed particular emphasis on getting the statistics right. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is fully seized of the importance of that and is vigorously pursuing measures about which he has given the Select Committee an idea and on which he will report to it further. We certainly do not intend to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar, and it is fair to say that the problems with statistics are not the result of reductions in expenditure, but a consequence of deregulation and more rapid change in the economy with which the statistical process has not kept up.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that we should return to fiscal fine tuning to control demand and that interest rates were unsuitable for that task. We should be virtually alone among the major countries of the world if we accepted that advice. Most other countries rely on interest rates and on small and regular adjustments, and are successful in so doing. They include socialist countries as well as Conservative countries. Moreover, I do not recall exclusive or major reliance on fiscal policy being as easy or successful as the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
My hon. Friends the Members for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) and for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) expressed concern about our measures on sovereign debt. They were particularly concerned that the new tax treatment might interact adversely with prudential provisioning for bad debt. I can reassure them on that. One effect of our measures will be to separate the tax treatment from the prudential aspect of provisioning, which will remain the responsibility of directors, taking into account the advice that they receive from the Bank of England. The measure will bring certainty both to the Exchequer and to the bank and will phase future increases in relief over a period. It will also increase the relative attraction of selling back debt to debtor nations—a measure that I know is welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) was in vintage form. I heard it suggested that he was being rather brave, at a time when the possibility of promotions is in the air. I thought that his speech was a naked bid for promotion—if only to shut him up. I am certainly not brave enough to comment on all the thorny issues that he raised.
My hon. Friends the Members for Tatton and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) joined together in affirming that the British are wedded to inflation, but I believe that they are wrong. It may have been so in the past, but since the experience in the foothills of hyper-inflation in the late 1970s, things have changed. That experience registered a shock on the British psyche similar to the shock which made the German people permanently hostile to inflation. Our shock may have been smaller, but it is fresher in our minds. I believe that there is now a much larger constituency in this country for anti-inflationary policy. I do not expect people to express pleasure while undergoing the painful measures that are essential to get inflation down, but I am certain that they will never vote in a party which is manifestly soft on inflation and whose policies are wholly lacking in credibility.
That brings me directly to the speech made by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). I am grateful to her for her welcome for a number of the measures included
996
in the Bill. Those apart, however, she did not mention a single item in the Bill, nor did she use the occasion—as one might have expected from the spokesman of a party which hoped to be taken seriously as an alternative party of Government—to spell out Labour's alternative tax proposals. There was not a word about them. Sometimes Treasury Ministers are criticised for going into pre-Budget purdah. The present Opposition are the first Opposition to go into a post-Budget purdah, which is in fact a pre-election purdah. Labour Members intend to remain mum on the subject for as long as they can, but we shall not permit them to do so.
The hon. Member for Derby, South refused to answer the question posed by a number of my hon. Friends: what would the Labour party do to get inflation down? We know what Labour would do to get inflation up. It would cut interest rates prematurely, increase public spending, squander the surplus and return to deficit financing. The hon. Lady admitted that Labour had endorsed the mistake that we have acknowledged that we made in reducing interest rates in October 1987, following the worldwide stock market collapse. What she did not admit was that the Labour party demanded that we do more—lots more—and continued demanding it for some months afterwards. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said:
"Now is the time for cuts in interest rates to stimulate the economy … Now is the time for a programme of well planned public investment to mobilise the unused capacity … There is no economic constraint on such action"—
only the restraint of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman called "self-imposed dogma."
The Labour party is in a difficult position. If Labour Members admit that our problems resulted from cutting interest rates too much and holding them down for too long, they would have to acknowledge that a period of high interest rates is a necessary and practical way of getting inflation down. Instead, Labour tried to blame everything on the 1988 Budget—the first Budget with a £14 billion surplus that I have ever heard described as inflationary. At that time, no other Government in the western world were running a surplus of that magnitude. The income tax cuts that we made then were more than offset by rises in tax revenues elsewhere, so that Budget was more than fully balanced. There were only £4 billion of reductions in income tax then. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton explained, there was something like a £50 billion increase in borrowing over the ensuing year. It is hard to believe that any increase in taxation could have been adequate or appropriate to offset that rise in borrowing. Clearly, one should treat such matters at source—and that means dealing with interest rates.
The hon. Member for Derby, South thought that there might be some salvation for her position in a rather obscure Teutonic document from the Bundesbank. She said that if we adopted minimum reserve ratios we would be able to reduce our interest rates but still control the volume of credit. Nowhere in that document is it suggested that minimum reserve ratios enable the Bundesbank to restrict the volume of credit while keeping interest rates below the market clearing level. Minimum reserve ratios are simply a device to help to ensure that the interest rates set by the Bundesbank are transmitted throughout the banking system.
That point is made crystal clear in a research paper, also published by the Bundesbank, which states:

997
"the Bundesbank can work only indirectly towards ensuring that the … money stock develops along the envisaged lines, by the appropriate fixing of interest rates".
Central bank interest rates are only transmitted through the banking system in Germany or in the United Kingdom if the banks rely on the central bank for their extra cash. The central bank therefore fixes an interest rate at which it will lend to the commercial banking system. It must ensure that the commercial banking system is borrowing from it.
In Germany that shortage is ensured by the minimum reserve ratio. The Germans must use the M RR because for constitutional reasons they are not allowed to intervene in the money market in the way that we are by selling Treasury bills. In this country we are free to sell Treasury bills and maintain a shortage on that basis.
Mr. Allen rose——
Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Member for Derby, South seriously believes that she has found a solution to the problems of reducing interest rates while controlling credit, she is deluding herself.
This year's Budget is important because it is the latest in a series of reforming Budgets in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his two predecessors have cut tax rates and abolished seven major taxes. In this Budget alone we have abolished two major taxes—we have abolished the composite rate tax on savings held by those with low incomes, and we have also abolished stamp duty. We have yet to hear whether the Opposition would reinstate stamp duty or whether they intend to follow our lead and acknowledge that it is right to abolish it. Even though the time left to me is limited, I will allow the Opposition to make their position clear on that. They have still not made up their minds.
We have reformed the tax structure in our series of reforming Budgets. We have reformed the structure of corporation tax, of national insurance contributions and of income tax at all levels. We have also reformed the taxation of husbands and wives and in this Budget we have reformed the taxation of savers. This Finance Bill contains a variety of measures which have been welcomed by savers in particular and also by women, small businesses, charities and football. I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided:Ayes 335, Noes 205.

Division No. 189]

[10 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Aitken, Jonathan

Batiste, Spencer

Alexander, Richard

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Allason, Rupert

Bendall, Vivian

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Amess, David

Benyon, W.

Amos, Alan

Bevan, David Gilroy

Arbuthnot, James

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Body, Sir Richard

Ashby, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Aspinwall, Jack

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Atkins, Robert

Boswell, Tim

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Bottomley, Peter

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Baldry, Tony

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

998

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Bowis, John

Grist, Ian

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Ground, Patrick

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Grylls, Michael

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hague, William

Brazier, Julian

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Bright, Graham

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

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

Hampson, Dr Keith

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hanley, Jeremy

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hannam, John

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

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

Buck, Sir Antony

Harg reaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Budgen, Nicholas

Harris, David

Burns, Simon

Haselhurst, Alan

Burt, Alistair

Hawkins, Christopher

Butler, Chris

Hayes, Jerry

Butterfill, John

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hayward, Robert

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Carrington, Matthew

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Carttiss, Michael

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Cash, William

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Chapman, Sydney

Hill, James

Chope, Christopher

Hind, Kenneth

Churchill, Mr

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

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

Hordern, Sir Peter

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

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

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Colvin, Michael

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Conway, Derek

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Couchman, James

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Cran, James

Hunter, Andrew

Critchley, Julian

Irvine, Michael

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Irving, Sir Charles

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

Jack, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jackson, Robert

Day, Stephen

Janman, Tim

Devlin, Tim

Jessel, Toby

Dickens, Geoffrey

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dorrell, Stephen

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Dover, Den

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dunn, Bob

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Durant, Tony

Key, Robert

Dykes, Hugh

Kilfedder, James

Eggar, Tim

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Emery, Sir Peter

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Evennett, David

Knapman, Roger

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Fallon, Michael

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Knowles, Michael

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Knox, David

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fookes, Dame Janet

Lang, Ian

Forman, Nigel

Latham, Michael

Forth, Eric

Lawrence, Ivan

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Fox, Sir Marcus

Lee, John (Pendle)

Freeman, Roger

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

French, Douglas

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fry, Peter

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Gale, Roger

Lilley, Peter

Gardiner, George

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Gill, Christopher

Lord, Michael

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Goodhart, Sir Philip

McCrindle, Robert

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Gorst, John

Maclean, David

Gow, Ian

McLoughlin, Patrick

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gregory, Conal

Madel, David

999

Major, Rt Hon John

Shelton, Sir William

Malins, Humfrey

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Mans, Keith

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Maples, John

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Marland, Paul

Shersby, Michael

Marlow, Tony

Sims, Roger

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Speed, Keith

Mates, Michael

Speller, Tony

Maude, Hon Francis

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Mawhinney, Or Brian

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Squire, Robin

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Stanbrook, Ivor

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Miller, Sir Hal

Steen, Anthony

Mills, Iain

Stern, Michael

Miscampbell, Norman

Stevens, Lewis

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Mitchell, Sir David

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Moate, Roger

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Monro, Sir Hector

Stokes, Sir John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Moore, Rt Hon John

Sumberg, David

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Summerson, Hugo

Morrison, Sir Charles

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Moss, Malcolm

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mudd, David

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Neale, Gerrard

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Needham, Richard

Temple-Morris, Peter

Nelson, Anthony

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Neubert, Michael

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Nicholls, Patrick

Thorne, Neil

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Thornton, Malcolm

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Thurnham, Peter

Norris, Steve

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Page, Richard

Tracey, Richard

Paice, James

Tredinnick, David

Patnick, Irvine

Trotter, Neville

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Patten, Rt Hon John

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Viggers, Peter

Pawsey, James

Walden, George

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Waller, Gary

Price, Sir David

Ward, John

Raffan, Keith

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Warren, Kenneth

Rathbone, Tim

Watts, John

Redwood, John

Wells, Bowen

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Wheeler, Sir John

Rhodes James, Robert

Whitney, Ray

Riddick, Graham

Widdecombe, Ann

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wiggin, Jerry

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Wilkinson, John

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Wilshire, David

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Roe, Mrs Marion

Winterton, Nicholas

Rost, Peter

Wolfson, Mark

Rowe, Andrew

Wood, Timothy

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Ryder, Richard

Yeo, Tim

Sackville, Hon Tom

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Younger, Rt Hon George

Sayeed, Jonathan

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Tellers for the Ayes:

Shaw, David (Dover)

Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. David Lightbown.

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Armstrong, Hilary

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Allen, Graham

Ashton, Joe

Anderson, Donald

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

1000

Battle, John

Hinchliffe, David

Beckett, Margaret

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Beggs, Roy

Home Robertson, John

Beith, A. J.

Hood, Jimmy

Bell, Stuart

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

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

Howells, Geraint

Bermingham, Gerald

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Bidwell, Sydney

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Blunkett, David

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Boateng, Paul

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Boyes, Roland

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Bradley, Keith

Ingram, Adam

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Janner, Greville

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Buchan, Norman

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Buckley, George J.

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Caborn, Richard

Kirkwood, Archy

Callaghan, Jim

Leadbitter, Ted

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Leighton, Ron

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Canavan, Dennis

Lewis, Terry

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Litherland, Robert

Cartwright, John

Livingstone, Ken

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Clay, Bob

McAllion, John

Clelland, David

McAvoy, Thomas

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

McCartney, Ian

Cohen, Harry

Macdonald, Calum A.

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

McFall, John

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Corbyn, Jeremy

McKelvey, William

Cousins, Jim

McLeish, Henry

Cox, Tom

Maclennan, Robert

Crowther, Stan

McNamara, Kevin

Cryer, Bob

McWilliam, John

Cummings, John

Madden, Max

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Marion, Mrs Alice

Cunningham, Dr John

Marek, Dr John

Dalyell, Tarn

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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)

Maxton, John

Dixon, Don

Meacher, Michael

Dobson, Frank

Meale, Alan

Doran, Frank

Michael, Alun

Duffy, A. E. P.

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Eadie, Alexander

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Eastham, Ken

Morgan, Rhodri

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Morley, Elliot

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Fatchett, Derek

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Faulds, Andrew

Mowlam, Marjorie

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Mullin, Chris

Fisher, Mark

Murphy, Paul

Flannery, Martin

Nellist, Dave

Flynn, Paul

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

O'Brien, William

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

O'Neill, Martin

Foster, Derek

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Foulkes, George

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Fraser, John

Patchett, Terry

Fyfe, Maria

Pendry, Tom

Galloway, George

Pike, Peter L.

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

George, Bruce

Prescott, John

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Primarolo, Dawn

Gordon, Mildred

Quin, Ms Joyce

Gould, Bryan

Radice, Giles

Graham, Thomas

Redmond, Martin

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Reid, Dr John

Grocott, Bruce

Richardson, Jo

Hardy, Peter

Robertson, George

Harman, Ms Harriet

Robinson, Geoffrey

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Rogers, Allan

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Rooker, Jeff

1001

Rowlands, Ted

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

Ruddock, Joan

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Salmond, Alex

Turner, Dennis

Sedgemore, Brian

Vaz, Keith

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Walley, Joan

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Short, Clare

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Sillars, Jim

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Skinner, Dennis

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

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

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

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

Winnick, David

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Worthington, Tony

Snape, Peter

Wray, Jimmy

Soley, Clive

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Spearing, Nigel

Steinberg, Gerry

Tellers for the Noes:

Stott, Roger

Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.

Straw, Jack

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.

FINANCE BILL (Committal)
Ordered,
That Clauses 3, 9, 10, 18 to 20, 23, 25 and 68 be committed to a Committee of the whole House;
That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee;
That, when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.—[Mr. Durant.]
Committee tomorrow.

Points of Order
10.14 pm
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today we raised points of order about the problem of what is now being called the "supergun of Iraq". People at Walter Somers are now being questioned and are being held in custody by the police on evidence that has been laid against them by Customs and Excise. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you have had a request for permission to make a statement on this grave matter. Surely it must be a matter for the House that people who have asked the Department of Trade and Industry for clearance, which has been granted, should now be parted from their families. That seems desperately unfair.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that this matter was raised earlier in the evening. It is not a matter of order in the Chamber, but I am sure that what has been said has been heard by the Patronage Secretary, who will take account of it.
Mr. Richard Caborn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am not certain that I can help.
Mr. Caborn: As you probably know, Mr. Speaker, this matter is of great concern to many of my constituents because one of the factories in question is Sheffield Forgemasters, which is in my constituency. In the light of the Government's refusal to make a statement this evening, I would like your guidance—probably overnight
1002
—Mr. Speaker, as to what the position will be tomorrow at the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Member who are not in the Chamber to listen to the points of order kindly come into the Chamber or leave quietly?
Mr. Caborn: I would like your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the position of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry tomorrow in the light of the charges that may have been laid. Would it be proper for that Select Committee to consider the evidence that has been lodged with it, which proves the innocence of Sheffield Forgemasters and clearly shows that the Department of Trade and Industry gave permission for the company to sign the contract?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain that I should be hearing matters that are to be raised in a Select Committee.
Mr. Caborn: I am asking for your consideration overnight, Mr. Speaker, of whether evidence that will be heard tomorrow that shows the innocence of those people will fall foul of the sub judice rule.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot dictate to a Select Committee what it discusses, as Select Committees regulate their own business. It is not my responsibility.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I also represent a west midlands constituency. I hope that you will appreciate my concern and that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). There is much concern in the region about this matter. I have tried persistently to find out through parliamentary questions the exact dates when the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir. H. Miller) made inquiries of the Department regarding the order for Iraq. Had those questions been answered—either by written answer or by a statement by the Secretary of State—perhaps the people who have been interviewed today by the police and the Customs and Excise officials would not have been investigated.
Is there any way in which you, Mr. Speaker, could use your power and influence to ensure that tomorrow the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry comes to the House to answer those questions? When did the hon. Member for Bromsgrove contact his Department? The hon. Member for Bromsgrove said in the House that he made inquiries on behalf of the Walter Somers company. Why have we not had the information?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know about matters of that kind. It is not a matter of order for me in the Chamber, but it will undoubtedly have been heard by the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, cannot dictate to the House, but the Government Chief Whip does us the courtesy of being here. However, could it be expressed that there is a wide feeling that not only Trade and Industry Ministers should be present, but that a Defence Minister should come to the House when people are facing charges? We know that the Defence Export Services Secretariat knew at an early stage about the order. People are now being charged for that which was in the domain of the Government and, in particular, in the

1003
domain of the DESS inside the Ministry of Defence. It is high time that. Defence Ministers, asked direct questions as they were two Wednesdays ago as to when they first knew, came out with the truth, because people are being charged.
Mr. Speaker: That is as it may be. I am sure that it will have been taken into account by the Patronage Secretary, who has listened throughout to these points of order.

Housing (Stoke-on-Trent)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
10.20 pm
Ms. Joan Walley: It is precisely because of my experience at constituency surgeries over the past few months that I have been prompted to seek the Adjournment of the House to debate what is a most important issue in my constituency. Anyone who had seen the huge number of homeless people who have come to my surgeries, who have families and who have nowhere to live, would be left with no alternative but to bring the matter urgently to the attention of the House. I know that the Minister who will reply to the debate has in recent weeks had the opportunity to visit Stoke-on-Trent, North and I know that he has seen at first hand some of our many problems. I hope that we will have a constructive response from him which will enable the city council of Stoke-on-Trent and the borough council of Newcastle to go a considerable way in dealing with the huge problem of homelessness. Roughly one third of Stoke-on-Trent comes under Newcastle borough council and the remaining two thirds under Stoke-on-Trent city council.
Of all the problems of the area, housing is one of the major ones. I stress that both councils are Labour-controlled and will remain so. Both are equally committed to deal with the acute and growing housing crisis which is easily the worst since the second world war. Both councils are doing the very best job that they can under the impossible constraints imposed by central Government. Neither council is able to invest either in new house building or in the improvement of existing housing on the scale which is now both necessary and urgent.
I stress that it is the scale of the problem that is so important. New and improved homes are urgently needed. Both councils are working in close partnership with the Government on specific schemes, and we welcome them. We have seen some progress. But it is important to state that, although there have been some improvements, far more are needed. My surgeries have shown me that homelessness is now a serious problem that we must tackle. I hope that I can persuade the Government that more resources are needed and that, if they cannot be provided this financial year, it is essential that the Government plan to make them available in the next allocation of housing money to the two councils concerned.
North Staffordshire is no different from most other parts of the country in this respect. Last year Channel 4, in consultation with Shelter, produced an important documentary about homelessness. I felt that it should have had the status of the documentary "Cathy Come Home". Wanting to dispel the false assumption that only London has a problem of homelessness, the makers of the programme selected North Staffordshire as an average area not normally associated with rising homelessness. The documentary confirmed beyond all doubt that, after 10 years of Tory policies, it is not just in London that people are made homeless and are without homes; homelessness is an everyday reality for thousands of people throughout the country. Families as well as single people are without a place to live. The situation is intolerable. I want the

1005
Minister to answer for the misery that his Government's policies are causing to my constituents and others in the west midlands and the north-west.
In the west midlands in 1989 as many as 14,250 households were homeless and came under the responsibility of the local authorities, under the provisions of the Housing Act 1985. Similarly, in the north-west in 1989 as many as 21,210 households were homeless and local authorities had to accept responsibility for them.
Returning to a constituency level, and taking Newcastle first, how does the Minister account for there being as many as 59 families with children in lodgings, 24 eligible transfer applicants and 17 approved cases, all awaiting rehousing in two or three-bedroomed houses—not in the whole area of Newcastle but just in the Kidsgrove area of the borough, including Talke, Talke pits and Whitehill? How does he account for there being only five houses available for re-letting in that area during the past three months; and how does he account for the waiting time for eligible applicants being more than one year?
It is difficult to imagine what it must be like for applicants who have to come to my surgeries time and again and who are told by the council that despite its best efforts there are no houses available for letting in the near future. It is difficult to imagine the fear that their children will be grown up before they have had any chance of providing a secure home for them. It is difficult to imagine what it must be like for families feeling guilty about the extra pressure that they are placing on ageing relatives when they have to share their accommodation and use only the downstairs living room because the remainder of the house is already overcrowded with the rest of the family living there. Surely it is wrong that these people have no home of their own in the area to which they belong and in which they have strong community links, and where they want to stay, with decent accommodation.
Just in case the Minister had thought of intervening to say that this is purely a matter for the local council to sort out, I should like to remind him of some figures. Newcastle council spent more on housing in 1988–89 than on anything else, yet its housing service has been increasingly restrained by Government legislation and reductions in finance. After the past 10 years in which the council's borrowing allocation for housing work has been reduced, its ability to improve its properties or to build new ones has become progressively limited. By 1989–90 the council's basic allocation as a percentage of its actual bid was 14·5 per cent., and the Housing Act is set further to restrict the council's ability to satisfy the area's many housing needs.
This year, the council's bid for a housing allocation was for £8·863 million—a figure based not on some wild dream but on the justifiable housing needs of the borough and on what the council knew it could realistically spend. In return the council received approval to spend a mere £2·8 million, which is not enough, given the scale of the homelessness problem.
I know that when the Minister visited the area he had every opportunity to reassure himself that the allocation from the Government was being properly and efficiently spent. I wonder why the Government are so blinkered and determined. Why do they insist that market forces alone can deal with housing policy? Why do they prevent councils from building much-needed family houses?
1006
I am worried about the new provision that allows purpose-built accommodation for elderly and disabled people to be sold off. In the long term that is making matters worse. It is ludicrous that councils have not been allowed to spend all the money from council house sales on building new homes for people on the waiting list.
In Kidsgrove we have an area known as Birchenwood, which is reclaimed land; we are pleased to have had Government support, in conjuction with the local council, for reclaiming that land. Of the 37 acres of derelict land that have been reclaimed and are now ready for development, 12 were originally earmarked for council housing, but they have already been sold to the private sector.
Twenty-five acres remain. Outline planning permission has already been given for housing. I would like to hear from the Minister a commitment that he would consider both public and partnership housing bids on that site for a housing allocation for the future. It is nonsense to expect people who are on the housing waiting list and who are homeless to be able to afford houses which cost £60,000 to £80,000 new. It is also regrettable that the Housing Corporation, which could help with housing on that site, has had its money reduced so drastically. I want the Minister to take that into account when considering the bids for Newcastle for next year.
The Housing Minister has visited Kidsgrove and is familiar with the area. I should like him to acknowledge that there are special problems on Galleys Bank estate caused by British Coal's failure to tell people that houses built for miners who moved into the north Staffordshire coalfield were defective under the housing defects legislation. Will he accept that, unless the Government step in, the local council does not have the cash to make good all the houses belonging to the so-called eligible and non-eligible owners? Does he accept that that in itself would go a considerable way towards easing the specific problems of the homeless in that area? If he can give an extra £637,000 and then an additional £690,000 to the neighbouring Conservative-controlled Staffordshire Moorlands council to assist owners of designated buildings there, surely he can treat Newcastle in the same way.
In Stoke-on-Trent, where traditionally the council has provided a large number of houses and there is a great need for repairs to older stock, homelessness is also increasing, as the documentary on Channel 4 showed. The crisis of homeless families is deepening. The council rents out 28,000 houses. Approximately 7,000 have been sold. The main concern is that the council has not been able to replace the houses that have been lost.
During the Minister's visit to Stoke-on-Trent he could see that the council has proved over and over again that it will co-operate with central Government and that it is prepared to have partnership schemes where there would be a considerable improvement in conditions. Certainly the Minister was able to take advantage of the opportunity to see the good progress being made in Tunstall and Chell Heath, which I welcome, and which has been the result of extra money.
None the less, Government economic policy, leading to mortgage repossessions, and the refusal to allow councils to build affordable houses, are having their effect on a once-stable community. The housing chair in Stoke-on-Trent, Councillor Jean Edwards, told me that for the first time ever people are queueing to get into the family

1007
homeless unit. The only lettings that the council can make are to homeless families. Couples and single people do not stand a chance of being housed, Homelessness is a major problem in Stoke-on-Trent. The local councils are doing the best they can. They know best what needs to be done. The fact remains that, in 1989–90, £36 million was needed to deal with the housing problem but only £9 million was agreed by Government.
In the week of the local government elections voters all over the country will be voting for Labour-controlled councils which have pledged to deal with the shortage of affordable accommodation for rent and for sale. When even the Tory-controlled Association of District Councils pleads for more cash to invest in housing we know that the Government are in deep trouble. The Government have created a crisis. I welcome the opportunity of the Adjournment debate to hear from the Minister precisely what his proposals are to tackle the growing problem of homelessness; and especially how he proposes to assist councils which have to deal with homeless families in Stoke-on-Trent, North.
This is a week, too, when North Staffordshire district health authority and other organisations are meeting for the first time to discuss the report on the health profile of Stoke-on-Trent commissioned by the city. The report confirms that health throughout the city is considerably worse than the national position. The city has a death rate 25 to 30 per cent. above the comparable national rate. Within the city there is not a single ward that does not suffer excess mortality.
I commend the report to the Minister. Bearing in mind the relationship between good health and good housing, and the effect on ill health of high deprivation and housing conditions, I gladly present him with a copy of the report, if he has not already seen it. I ask him to bear it in mind when considering the housing allocations for my constituency. We owe it to those who are homeless to give them the basic right to a home of their own. I hope that the Minister will take account of the report on the health profile of Stoke-on-Trent.
10.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I am sorry that the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) has been so negative. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that housing conditions in Stoke-on-Trent are immeasurably better now than they have ever been; and there have been dramatic improvements during the past 10 or 11 years. That is not to say that there is not room for further improvement and I shall draw attention to some of the enterprises and joint ventures that are taking place in the partnership schemes.
It is a pity when people come to the House and adopt a thoroughly negative approach. That was not the spirit in which I visited Stoke-on-Trent exactly five weeks ago today. I enjoyed the visit. It was constructive, and I looked closely at the problems drawn to my attention. I know that as a result of that visit Stoke-on-Trent city council is going to send forward a more detailed submission. Stoke's bid for resources has to be considered alongside other bids, but Stoke has not done badly out of the housing investment programme. In fact, it has done rather well.
This year, in 1990–91, the housing investment programme allocation in Stoke-on-Trent is £16·605
1008
million. That compares with £5·798 million last year. It has gone up by almost three times. For the hon. Lady to suggest that the Government are mean in their allocations to Stoke-on-Trent is unfair and is not borne out by the facts.
Ms. Walley: I should like to correct the Minister and point out that I welcome the partnership schemes that have got under way. If he reads my text when it appears in Hansard tomorrow, I do not think that he will find anything to contradict the fact that I welcome the partnership schemes that are taking place between the two councils involved and the Government. For the Minister to suggest otherwise is unfair.
This year there is an improvement in the housing allocation to Stoke-on-Trent, but the point that I made was that during the past 10 years we have had a progressive reduction of money available which has led to an accumulation of problems that we now need to tackle on an urgent basis because of the homelessness problem in the city and in the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme.
Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for confirmation of her support for the partnership schemes. The Government are determined that they will play a full part in supporting the continuing improvement of housing in both the public and private sector in Stoke.
The mechanism by which local authorities formulate their housing strategy is, as the hon. Lady knows, the housing investment programme review. They publish their detailed proposals, including their bids for resources, and my Department responds, following discussions with the councils, with general and specific allocations of resources for the financial year in question. It is too early to start talking in detail about allocations for next year, but councils are already thinking ahead and preparing their thoughts on allocations and bids for next year. I am sure that Stoke is far up in the field in doing so.
Stoke has one of the largest increases in resources of any local authority in the west midlands. That surely demonstrates the Government's commitment to supporting the drive to improve housing conditions in Stoke arid will enable the city to continue with the programme for substantial improvements generally to their own housing stock and to older privately owned housing, as well as to designated defective housing, to which I shall return.
Over and above the yearly allocations of housing investment programme resources, we have made very substantial resources available to improve run-down council estates by means of the Department of the Environment's estate action programme. That is an additional source of funds for the local authority. In close co-operation with my Department, the council is invited to work up detailed proposals to improve its run-down estates. Wide-ranging objectives are set, including improvements to the fabric of the houses or flats, environmental improvements, local estate-based management and employment initiatives.
When I visited Stoke I saw the Chell Heath estate action scheme and I was very impressed with the progress that has been made. It is a major success story, where a partnership between the city council and the priority estates project has benefited from £6 million additional investment from the Department of the Environment for improvement work. A further £1·2 million has been set aside for this year's programme. That is an improvement

1009
programme on an existing estate, and we might well ask rhetorically how it was ever allowed to get into such a state. Now those major improvements are being made. If resources are put into improving the housing stock, often that has to be at the expense of building new houses. I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees that it is important that the existing housing stock should be improved so that it provides the best quality housing conditions.
An especially encouraging feature of the Chell Heath project is that the council is firmly committed to the establishment of an estate management board, whereby tenants will have a major say in decisions on the way the estate is managed. Since the declaration of Chell Heath as a priority estates project, the benefits are already becoming clear with falling void rates, better control of repairs and a decrease in the number of abandoned properties.
Stoke has a comparatively high proportion of older housing in private ownership, much of which, although in need of improvement, remains substantially sound and where the occupants, both owners and tenants, wish to preserve their local communities. The provisions of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in respect of an area renewal approach and the new standard that will determine whether a dwelling is fit for occupation will be significant for Stoke-on-Trent.
A new system for renovation grants will be introduced on 1 July. It will provide financial help to those who can least afford to pay for essential works to their properties. For those who qualify, the grants will apply whether they are an owner-occupier, a landlord, a long-lease holder or a tenant. The underlying principle of the new system is to focus assistance on bringing properties up to a new standard of fitness. That will be of great value in tackling the remaining problems, especially of the older private housing in Stoke and similar areas. I shall explain in a moment how it is also of value to the occupants of defective precast reinforced concrete houses.
An important element of the new system is to enable local authorities to declare renewal areas, which will form an integral part of many authorities' strategic plans. Declaration of an area will not only provide a way of concentrating public resources to maximum effect, but will stimulate private investment by giving residents and others such as developers, housing associations and financial institutions confidence in the future of the area.
My Department has recently invited Stoke-on-Trent council to bid for a share of the substantial additional resources that have been set aside for that purpose, and no doubt the authority will be considering how it can best take advantage of the new measures to improve conditions in all its private housing estates, both old and not-so-old, traditional and non-traditional construction.
The first pilot scheme in the country leading up to the legislation was set up two years ago in the city in the Tunstall area. I had the opportunity to see the progress being made there during my visit in March. It has proved a very successful scheme and has led to partnerships with local businesses, financial institutions, housing associations, the neighbourhood revitalisation service, community architects, residents and others to tackle the problems of the area. The Government have put additional support into the Tunstall scheme totalling £250,000 in 1988–89, £800,000 in 1989–90 and £1·6 million in the current year.
1010
The hon. Lady will know that the Government look to the housing associations for the provision of new subsidised housing for rent. We have substantially increased the amount of resources available nationally to the Housing Corporation for that purpose, and over the last three financial years a total of £15·6 million has been allocated by the corporation to housing associations for new housing for rent in Stoke. A further £3·5 million has been allocated for housing for sale. For 1990–91, the proposed programme for housing association funding for new housing for rent and sale is £6·8 million and £850,000 respectively, and I expect the level of investment to be maintained in future years. That is a further demonstration of the Government's commitment to fund new housing association developments in Stoke, and I know that is welcomed by the council.
Ms. Walley: In view of advice that I received this afternoon from officers of Newcastle council, can the Minister let me know, now or in due course, what opportunities there might be for housing associations to build family housing in the Kidsgrove area of Newcastle and whether any of the new money to which he has just referred can be used for that purpose?
Mr. Chope: I shall certainly write to the hon. Lady about that. As she will have gathered, my response is based on housing in Stoke-on-Trent, which is the subject of tonight's debate. I know that some parts of her constituency come under a Newcastle local authority, but I hope that the House will forgive me for concentrating particularly on the city of Stoke-on-Trent.
Turning to the problem of defective precast reinforced concrete houses which I saw on my recent visit to Stoke, as the hon. Lady knows, the properties were originally built by British Coal for its employees. I was encouraged to hear from the city council that it is involving residents, owner-occupiers and tenants in working up proposals to improve conditions. The hon. Member and the leader of the city council left me in no doubt about their concern for the future of the particular estate we visited at Weston Coyney, where there are both Cornish and Wates type houses.
I support the council in its declared intention to adopt a much more pro-active role in future. It has already served more than 200 statutory repair notices and more than 20 houses have had work carried out by default. In addition, the council has tried to ensure that houses are kept in a reasonable condition; that vacant properties are made secure; that the estate is visited regularly by council officials; and that privately owned common areas and gardens are cleared of rubbish regularly. The council has also intervened in disputes with landlords and is working to foster a community spirit where it has been instrumental in establishing and helping to run residents' and tenants' associations. My discussions during that visit showed that a variety of solutions appropriate to the estate were being considered. They fall into a number of categories, and the leader of the city council said that he would write to me with more details of the city council's proposals.
At the end of my visit to Stoke I had constructive discussions with the hon. Lady and with the leader of the council. As a result, there is a feeling of confidence that the Government are committed to improving housing conditions in Stoke in addition to the magnificent record of improvement over the past 10 years or so. However, it

1011
remains for the city council to decide its own priorities on housing. That is what local democracy and accountability are all about, and no doubt there are arguments in Stoke as to what those priorities should be.
During my visit some concern was expressed about the number of houses that had been demolished by the city council, as that obviously reduces the housing stock. Some but not all those houses were obviously unfit. More recently, the council has adopted a different approach and has decided to refurbish more houses rather than demolish
1012
them. It is always easy to be wise after the event, but if there had not been so much demolition earlier on there would be more houses for people in Stoke-on-Trent. Those were policy decisions taken by the city council and the city council has to remain accountable to the local people for those decisions.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is considering any research in developing a diagnostic test for bovine spongiform encephalopathy in live cattle.

  Mr. Maclean
  On the advice of the Tyrrell committee, MAFF funds studies at the central veterinary laboratories, Weybridge, on the clinical features in cases of BSE with particular emphasis on methods of early diagnosis. Further studies at this laboratory and at the neuropath-ogenesis unit in Edinburgh on the genetics, molecular biology and chemical pathology of BSE are also funded by MAFF because of their potential for development of diagnostic tests.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate by number the method of disposal of bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected cattle slaughtered during the current year.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information for 1990 is not yet available.

  The information for 1989 is as follows:

  Method of disposal

  Number

  Incineration

  5,346

  Burial

  2,342

  Retained for research

  10

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the date of birth of the youngest confirmed cases of BSE to date.

  Mr. Maclean
  The youngest confirmed case of BSE was 22 months old and was born on 18 November 1987.

  Horse Slaughter
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will list the location of those abattoirs used for the slaughter of equines which are export-approved, and their owners or operators; and when such export approval was given.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are five abattoirs licensed for the slaughter of equines which are export-approved. I shall write separately to the hon. Member.

  Drift-net Fishing
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the extent of the bycatch of non-target fish in drift-nets on United Kingdom boats.

  Mr. Maclean
  Precise information on the level of non-target fish bycatches in our drift-net fisheries is not 466
  readily available. However, through the appropriate choice of mesh size and net placement our fishermen are known to ensure selective fishing achieving a relatively clean catch of the target species.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if there are any plans to establish an observer programme to investigate the incidental capture of non-target species, particularly birds and marine mammals in United Kingdom drift-nets.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have no plans for a scheme that would involve observers being placed on fishing boats. The drift-net fisheries around the UK are relatively small scale and in the main targeted on herring and salmon. The accidental catch of birds or marine mammals is not judged to be a frequent or significant occurrence. There is no evidence that these fisheries are threatening the survival of any species.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the location of the work of the Intervention Board.

  Mr. Gummer
  Ministers have approved in principle the Intervention Board's proposal that a third of the agency's functions, consisting of its external trade work and administrative support, should be relocated in Newcastle, in order to relieve its staff shortages in Reading. About 350 posts will be transferred. In deciding upon Newcastle, where the agency already has facilities, Ministers and the agency were satisfied that there are good recruitment and career prospects, and that satisfactory office accommodation, housing, communications and other facilities are available. Subject to the necessary resources being available, the transfer of work will begin as soon as accommodation can be obtained and be made ready and essential data links installed. After a suitable period at this new site, the agency's experience there will be reviewed and a further report made to Ministers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Service
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of the prison service remand sector he expects to be in the hands of the private sector by 1992;

  (2) how many remand prison establishments he anticipates being privatised by 1992.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are not yet in a position to make a further announcement of decisions concerning private sector involvement in the remand system, but hope to be able to do so soon.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the percentage of black prison officers currently serving in British prisons.

  Mr. Mellor
  Of the 32 per cent. of prison officer grades who responded to the voluntary survey of ethnic origin, 0·43 per cent. identified themselves as black. A primary objective of the current recruitment campaign for prison officers is to increase the number of new entrants from the ethnic minorities: the initial results are encouraging.
  467
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the average number of prisoners held in United Kingdom prisons during the years(i) 1974, (i) 1979, (iii) 1984 and (iv) 1989 and (b) the average number of full-time prison staff employed during this period.

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

  Average population for prison service establishments in England and Wales and average number of staff1 in prison service employment in selected years.

  Number of persons

  1974

  1979

  1984

  1989

  Average population

  36,867

  42,220

  243349

  248610

  Average number of staff3

  19,225

  22,414

  26,739

  31,863

  1 Comprising outstation and headquarters staff.

  2 Including police cells.

  3 Including part-time staff each of whom is counted as a half: disaggregation would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of prisoners(a) serving sentences in United Kingdom prisons during the last five years for which figures are available and (b) held on remand pending trial or pending sentence.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information for England and Wales was published in tables 3 and 4 of Home Office statistical bulletin "The Prison Population in 1989" (issue 12/90), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average number of monthly overtime hours worked by prison staff during the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  "Fresh start" ended overtime working for prison officers; in 1986–87, the last full year they worked overtime, the average number of monthly overtime hours worked was 69. Figures are not held centrally for previous years. There are no central records of overtime for prison staff in other grades.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his programme to(a) refurbish existing prisons and (b) build new prisons.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) on 30 April 1990 at column 395.

  Immigration
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom in 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The provisional figure for the number of persons accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom in 1989 is 48,600. More details are published in table 3 of Home Office statistical bulletin issue 8/90 "Control of Immigration: Statistics—Fourth Quarter and Year 1989", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the time taken to process renewal applications for television licences and to cash cheques; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not maintain separate records of representations about the time taken to process renewal applications or to cash cheques, and the information requested could not be provided without disproportionate cost. We believe the number of any such representations to be small.

  There were some delays in processing new and renewal applications for the concessionary television licence by the National Television Licence Records Office following the change in the regulations in 1988. In some cases cheques became time expired before eligibility could be established and the licence issued. Now that the backlog has largely been cleared and new internal procedures introduced, it is far less likely that such problems will recur.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Attorney-General what performance indicators are used by the Crown prosecution service; and if he will make a statement about the performance of the Crown prosecution service to date.

  The Attorney-General
  The 31 areas of the Crown prosecution service have compiled performance statistics on a monthly basis since October 1986. Separate records are maintained for magistrates court and Crown court cases. The records include the number of defendants in respect of whom cases have been:

  (a) received by the CPS;

  (b) finalised;

  (c) dropped or rejected;

  (d) discharged at committal or sent to Crown Court; and

  (e) dismissed or convicted.

  In addition, information is produced on the number of cases in which defendants have been bound over without trial, the number of adjournments and the extent to which CPS resources have been committed.

  From this information the following performance ratios, which enable CPS managers to monitor the quality of the service's performance both nationally and locally, are produced:
  Magistrates' Court—
  (a) Average processing delay—defendant cases on hand at the end of a period divided by defendant cases finalised in the period. (From this figure the time it would take to deal with the cases currently on hand can be calculated).
  (b) Acceptance rate—the proportion of defendant cases received from the police for prosecution that are accepted at initial review.
  (c) Prosecution rate—the proportion of all cases finalised that have been prosecuted in the courts.
  (d) Conviction rate—the proportion of all defendant cases proceeding to prosecution that result in a conviction. (A conviction is a guilty plea to one or more charges where no trial is held or a conviction after trial on one or more contested charges).
  (e) Dismissal rate—the proportion of all contested defendant cases that are dismissed.
  (f) Judgment quality—the proportion of all contested defendant cases proceeding that arc dismissed on an application that there is "no case to answer".

  469
  (g) Adverse cost rate—the proportion of cases prosecuted where costs are awarded against the CPS.
  (h) Efficiency rates—

  (i) acceptance review—the number of cases reviewed per half-day lawyer session;

  (ii) court and court-related work—the number of cases accepted at initial review finalised per half-day lawyer session.

  (i)Unit costs—

  (i) acceptance review—resource cost (staff and other costs) per case reviewed;

  (ii) court and court-related work—resource costs (staff and other costs) per defendant case finalised after acceptance at initial review.

  Crown Court—

  (a) Average processing delay—defendant cases on hand at the end of a period divided by defendant cases finalised during the period.

  (b) Conviction rate—the proportion of trials resulting in a conviction. (A conviction is a guilty plea to one or more counts where no contested trial is held or conviction after trial on one or more contested counts.).

  (c) Acquittal rate—the proportion of contested trials resulting in an acquittal.

  (d) Judgment quality—the proportion of contested trials resulting in a judge directed/ordered acquittal.

  (e) Adverse cost rate—the proportion of defendant cases finalised (including cases committed by the Magistrates for sentence or appeal) that result in the award of costs against the CPS.

  (f) Efficiency—the number of cases finalised per CPS staff half-day session.

  (g) Unit costs—the resource cost (staff and other costs) per case finalised.

  Note: The figures produced for the ratios at (f) and (g) above make some allowance for cases transferred between Areas.

  The Crown prosecution service has been a success and has demonstrated that it has been a success. The creation of the service has brought the desired degree of independence of the prosecutor from the investigator, consistency of prosecution policy and decision-making and accountability.

  Racial Harassment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will state(a) the proportion of alleged crimes referred to the Crown prosecution service involving racial harassment in each year since its creation,(b) how many were proceeded with and (c) how many resulted in convictions.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service does not maintain statistics regarding cases involving racial harassment and accordingly the information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Attorney-General how much information is passed to victims of racial harassment by the Crown prosecution service in cases where it does not decide to proceed.

  The Attorney-General
  Home Office circular 20/1988 stressed the importance of sympathetic treatment of victims and keeping them informed of the progress and outcome of investigations. This guidance is applicable to all categories of crime including those involving racial harassment. It has recently been reinforced by the promulgation of a victim's charter.

  Under the working arrangements between the police service and the Crown prosecution service, it is the police who are the point of contact with the victims. The Crown prosecution service supports the principles of the victim's charter and recognises the importance to the victim of
  470
  understanding what reasons have operated where a case is discontinued or a plea of guilty to a lesser offence than that charged is accepted. It is the policy of the Crown prosecution service that its staff should, so far as practicable, consult the police on taking such decisions. This should ensure proper understanding themselves and that they are in a position to explain the outcome of proceedings to the victims.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Crawfordsburn Hospital
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of the carpeting, furnishing and general refurbishment of the former Crawfordsburn hospital when it was being used as a temporary office for the North Down and Ards unit of management of the Eastern health and social services board.

  Mr. Needham
  A total of £18,650.

  Prison Costs
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the principal factors which account for the annual average cost per inmate in Northern Ireland prisons being the highest in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cope
  The custody of large numbers of paramilitary-type prisoners requires additional measures of security and control.

  DHSS Staff (Annual Reporting)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the revised annual reporting system for Department of Health and Social Services staff in Northern Ireland came into operation; since when the system for such staff has been monitored; and on what dates any changes were made in the monitoring system.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 27 April 1990]: The new staff reporting and appraisal system was introduced to the Northern Ireland civil service in stages from 1 April 1987, and for Department of Health and Social Services staff from June 1988. The system has been monitored from the outset.

  The Department of Finance and Personnel is reviewing the system.

  Mr. Martin Galvin
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will raise at the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference the decision of the Government of the Republic of Ireland to award Irish citizenship to Mr. Martin Galvin, fund raiser for Noraid, and the consequent raising of the ban on his admission under EEC rules.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: I understand that Mr. Galvin was registered as a citizen of the Republic of Ireland in 1986 in accordance with that country's law. This fact was one factor, among others, in the reconsideration of the previous (1984) decision to exclude him from the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act

  471
  1981. Should circumstances change, it remains open to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to reimpose a ban as necessary. We have no plans to raise the matter in the intergovernmental conference.

EMPLOYMENT

  Pesticides
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research has been carried out to establish the incidence of health complaints among farm workers working with pesticides; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive publishes annual reports which detail incidents investigated by HSE inspectors which involve misuse of pesticides and allegations of ill-health arising from them. These reports are held in the House of Commons Library.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the employment service's scrutiny into the reasons for drop-outs in employment training will be published.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have received the report of the efficiency scrutiny of take-up of Department of Employment group programmes, which addresses among other things the reasons for drop-out from employment training. I am currently considering my response to the report.

  Environmental Protection Training
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment has been made of environmental protection training needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Department of Employment Training Agency is currently funding a study to examine the labour market and skills implications of increased environmental awareness. The study will focus on air and water pollution and solid waste management. A report will be available in the summer.

  Training Agency Staff
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details for each of the Training Agency area offices of the percentage of staff who are registered disabled.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available for Training Agency area offices. The percentage of staff in each of the 10 Training Agency regions who were registered disabled at 31 January 1990 is as follows:

  Percentage

  London

  2·0

  South East

  3·2

  South West

  2·0

  Wales

  2·3

  West Midlands

  3·1

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2·6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2·2

  North West

  3·2

  472

  Percentage

  Northern

  3·4

  Scotland

  2·5

  Unemployed Claimants
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether, when an unemployed claimant who is a quarterly attender has his benefit suspended for not actively seeking work, he automatically loses his quarterly attender status.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. The employment service's chief executive, Mr. Mike Fogden, will be replying in writing to the hon. Lady.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which 10 skill centres are to be sold to Astra Training Services Ltd.; and what price has been agreed.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 13 February 1990 at column 141 that terms of sale had been agreed with Astra Training Services Ltd. for the businesses at 46 skill centres, plus the skill centre training agency's head office, mobile training service, sales teams and colleges, and that the sale of these training businesses would involve a payment of some £11 million from the Government to Astra.

  The 10 skill centre sites referred to in my earlier reply on 27 March 1990 at column 158 are sites where a training business purchaser is to be granted a lease. At seven of the 10 sites a lease is to be granted to Astra; these sites—are Cardiff, Deptford, Leeds, Leicester, Slough, Swindon and Wakefield. At the remaining three sites-East Lancashire, Ipswich and St. Helens—a lease is to be granted to the consortium headed by Mr. Christopher Lakin.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, South of 23 April,Official Report, column 99, at what stage of negotiations following the receipt of bids for skill centres it was decided that £11 million should be given to Astra Training Services; and what steps were taken to ascertain whether other bidders would revise their positions in the light of the sum being offered.

  Mr. Eggar
  The payment of £11 million from the Government to Astra Training Services Ltd. represented Astra's assessment of the costs of turning around a business which is currently unprofitable and creating training businesses with good prospects of viability. Deloittes, in conjunction with my Department's other advisers, evaluated all the offers and made recommendations to my Department. The Government decided that the Astra offer, including the £11 million payment, met the Government's six objectives for the sale (a copy of which was placed in the Vote Office on 13 February 1990) more fully than competing offers.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the three civil servants concerned have assumed full-time duties with Astra Training Services Ltd.; and what are the redundancy terms which apply to them.
  473
  Mr. Eggar
  The three civil servants concerned in the management buy-out of the skills training agency assume full-time duties with Astra Training Services Ltd. on 1 May 1990. Redundancy terms were not appropriate as they transferred their employment under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

  Action for Jobs
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the main headings of expenditure on action for jobs in addition to expenditure on television advertising and printed material in 1987–88.

  Mr. Eggar
  The main headings of expenditure on action for jobs in 1987–88, in addition to television advertising and printed material, were press, radio and outdoor advertising, regional campaigns, exhibition material and research.

  Mines Safety
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many exemptions from any provisions relating to mines safety have been granted to British Coal by the mines inspectorate in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The total number of exemptions and consents granted by the Health and Safety Executive mines inspectorate from 1987–88 are as follows:

  Number

  1987–88

  2,024

  1988–89

  1,911

  11989–90

  990

  1 Provisional.

  It is not possible to give separate figures for exemptions and consents nor information prior to 1987–88 without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Training
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total sum to be expended by his Department on the finance of training in the current year; and by what percentage this has changed in real terms over the past five years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 April 1990, c. 817]: I regret that the figures for expenditure given in the table accompanying my original reply were incorrect, being shown in millions, instead of billions. The correct figures are set out in the table:

  Year

  £

  Percentage

  1985–86

  1,648,500,000

  1986–87

  1,830,700,000

  +11·1

  1987–88

  1,945,400,000

  +6·3

  1988–89

  2,328,800,000

  +19·7

  1989–90

  2,840,400,000

  +22·0

  1990–91

  2,693,00,000

  −5·2

  The percentage changes remain unaltered.

ENERGY

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy which agencies have been chosen to carry out the electricity privatisation advertising campaign.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Department and the regional electricity companies are currently in the process of selecting an advertising agency to carry out a campaign to inform the public of the flotation of the distribution companies. An announcement of the successful candidate will be made in due course.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his current estimate of the cost of the electricity privatisation advertising campaign.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is too early to make a reliable estimate of the cost of the advertising campaigns to inform the public of the flotations of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales. The full costs of the privatisation, including advertising costs, will be made available to Parliament in the normal way.

  Reactor Fuel
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is offering to store spent research reactor Fuel for overseas customers.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government are aware of the difficulties currently faced by many operators of research reactors around the world in managing their spent fuel. These reactors are used for a variety of technical and medical research.

  The Government will not allow spent fuel from overseas customers to be disposed of in the United Kingdom. However, they are content for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKA EA) to reprocess such fuel, provided that any reprocessing contract includes options for the return of waste. It would be the Government's intention that such options would be exercised and wastes returned. If, for whatever reason, the fuel were not reprocessed, it would have to be removed from the United Kingdom within a strictly defined time limit. Reprocessing and storage must be in accordance with the requirements of the relevant regulatory authorities.

THE ARTS

  Acceptance in Lieu
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will list the objects and property accepted in satisfaction of inheritance tax and capital transfer tax during the financial year ended 31 March; if he will specify(a) the amount of tax satisfied in each case,(b) whether any offers of objects carried conditions as to destination,(c) the dates in each case of the recommendations received by him from the Museums and Galleries Commission for the acceptance of objects, (d) the total for the financial year of the tax thus satisfied and (e) the means by which that total has been covered in the public accounts; and whether a press notice will be issued by the Office of Arts and Libraries comprising the information given in his reply.
  475
  Mr. Luce
  [ holding answer 30 April 1990]: The information that the hon. Member requests is as follows:

  Item

  Tax satisfied £

  Date MGC recommendations received

  1Collection of Coins

  418,429·20

  6 January 1989

  1Painting by Rubens

  169,852·48

  26 January 1988

  1Portrait of Sir Alexander Carew

  103,976·42

  8 April 1989

  1'"Quai a Pontoise" by Pissarro

  73,040·00

  20 June 1989

  Islamic tiles

  42,000·00

  8 August 1989

  "Farm Cart with Horse in Harness" by Constable

  50,025·00

  25 April 1989

  1Collection of modern paintings

  82,742·00

  6 October 1989

  Harpsichord

  25,276·95

  16 October 1989

  1Woodcut by Munch

  57,539·00

  25 May 1989

  1Painting by Beechey

  151,489·00

  23 November 1989

  "Richmond pres Londres" by Corot

  361,500·00

  19 January 1990

  1Painting by Van der Heyden

  2,800,000·00

  15 January 1990

  1Painting by de Heere

  527,898·00

  3 October 1989

  1Two portraits by Gainsborough, one by Rubens and a landscape by Seghers

  6,650,000·00

  15 January 1990

  Those offers marked 1 carried conditions as to their destinations.

  The total tax satisfied in the financial year 1989–90 was £11,513,768·05. A total of £1 million was charged to the vote for royal palaces, royal parks, historic buildings, ancient monuments and the national heritage (class X, vote 4) and £10,513,768·05 was charged to the vote for arts and the heritage (class XIII, vote 2).

  Press notices have already been issued announcing the acceptance of all these items.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give the target reductions for energy consumption in the building occupied by the offices for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Luce
  [ holding answer 30 April 1990]: The Office of Arts and Libraries' aim is to reduce energy consumption by 15 per cent. over the next five years.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by the offices for which he is responsible, for the latest year available.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: The latest breakdown of energy costs of the Office of Arts and Libraries' accommodation is for 1989–90, and as follows:

  £

  Electricity

  5,877·30

  Gas

  871·59

  Liquid fuel

  777·90

  Details of energy consumption are not available.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. Nelson Mandela
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to meet Mr. Nelson Mandela to discuss reform in South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs hopes to meet Mr. Mandela shortly to discuss how the process of peaceful change in South Africa can best be taken forward.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to discuss arrangements for 1992 with other EEC Foreign Ministries.

  Mr. Maude
  Her Majesty's embassies in EC member states regularly and frequently discuss single market issues with their host Foreign Ministries. The Foreign Affairs Council next meets on 7–8 May, and the International Market Council on 14–15 May. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I regularly discuss the single market in bilateral meetings with other EC Foreign Ministers.

  South Africa
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 4 April.

  Lithuania
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's policy on the future status of Lithuania.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The people of Lithuania have made clear their wish to determine their own future. We are urging, and will continue to urge, the Soviet authorities and Lithuanians to begin purposeful negotiations aimed at a settlement acceptable to both sides which will satisfy the aspirations of the Lithuanian people.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with other EEC member states concerning action to be taken in support of self-determination for Lithuania.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended a meeting of Foreign Ministers of the EC member states in
  477
  Dublin on 21 April. They issued a joint statement which was conveyed to the Soviet Government and to the Ukranians, and was published. The text is as follows:
  The Community and its member states express their serious concern at the economic measures recently introduced by Moscow in relation to Lithuania. They believe that measures of a coercive nature can make no contribution to the search for a solution through dialogue. They underline the obligation to exercise maximum restraint and to avoid actions that can only lead to a further deterioration of the situation. They are firmly of the view that an outcome acceptable to all must be sought and that this is possible only by means of discussion. They call on all concerned not to carry through measures which are in consistent with this objective. In view of their serious concern at these developments, the Community and its member states intend to keep the situation and its policy implications under continuous review. A Working Group meeting for this purpose will be held in the near future.

  The Secretary of State and his colleagues reviewed the situation during the informal EC summit on 28 April.

  Biological Weapons
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise at the next United Nations Security Council the possible breach of the arms embargo to South Africa in the light of the alleged export of listed biological weapons, including Ebola, Marburg and Rift Valley Fever by the United States of America to South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. We are not aware of any such allegations.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average time taken by the district valuers of the Board of Inland Revenue to agree asset valuation for business expansion scheme purposes, following the receipt of a full valuation report from the company concerned.

  Mr. Ryder
  District valuers are normally expected to report agreed values within 13 weeks of receiving instructions from the inspector of taxes, unless there are particular difficulties.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the reasons for the delay of the district valuation inspector of the small business in agreeing the valuation and definition of the case of the Swan Valley Railway (Holdings) plc for business expansion scheme purposes following agreement from Her Majesty's inspector of taxes (Kidderminster) in January 1989 that all assets except bridges would be regarded as plant and machinery.

  Mr. Ryder
  I assume that my hon. Friend intends to refer to the Severn Valley Railway (Holdings) plc. The valuation of this case is taking longer than usual because the nature of the property makes the process particularly complex.

  Tax Reliefs
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the information he has on tax and mortgage reliefs which operate in each European country to the benefit of house buyers.

  Mr. Lilley
  The available information is as follows. All amounts have been converted to sterling using the latest available purchasing power parities.

  Austria
  Costs of acquiring a residence, including interest: on mortgages, is deductible up to AS 40,000 (£1,466) per year. This is increased by AS 40,000 for a married taxpayer who is the sole earner in a household and by AS 5,000 (£183) for each dependent child.

  Belgium
  Mortgage interest is deductible up to the amount of imputed taxable income from owner-occupation. There is an additional deduction for mortgage interest in respect of newly built properties.

  Denmark
  Mortgage interest is partly deductible from earned income. By 1992 interest will be deductible only to the extent of imputed taxable income from owner-occupation.

  Finland
  Mortgage interest is deductible up to a limit of Mk 25,000 (£2,352).

  France
  A tax credit is given, for the first five years of a mortgage, equal to 25 per cent. of annual interest up to a limit of F 15,000 (£1,217), increased by F2,000 (£162) for each dependent child. In respect of new dwellings bought or constructed the limits are increased to F30,000 (£2,433) for a married couple and by F2,000 (£162) for the first dependent child, F2,500 (£203) for the second dependent child and F3,000 (£243) for the third and each subsequent dependent child.

  Germany
  A taxpayer who buys or builds a home may deduct from annual taxable income over a period of eight years 5 per cent. of the purchase price or construction cost, up to a maximum of DM 15,000 (£3,722) per year. There is a further deduction of DM600 (£149) per year for each child living in the household.

  Ireland
  Relief is given up to a limit of 80 per cent. of the lesser of the amount of interest actually paid and 1£2,000 (£1,639), increased to 1£4,000 (£3,278) for a married couple.

  Italy
  There is a tax deduction of 22 per cent. of interest expenses of house-buyers. This is reduced to 10 per cent. on that part of such expenses which exceeds the difference between aggregate net income and the upper limit of the first income tax bracket. The first income tax bracket is 10 per cent. on net income up to L6,000,000 (£2,504).

  Luxembourg
  Mortgage interest is deductible up to LF30,000 (£488) annually, increased by LF30,000 for a spouse and LF30,000 for each dependent child.

  Netherlands
  Mortgage interest is deductible in full.

  Norway
  Mortgage interest is deductible in full.

  Portugal
  Mortgage interest is deductible provided that the total deduction claimed for such interest, life insurance and education costs for dependent children does not exceed Esc. 105,000 (£692) for single taxpayers and Esc. 210,000 (£1,384) for married taxpayers.

  Spain
  Mortgage interest is deductible from the imputed income from owner-occupied property.

  Sweden
  Mortgate interest is deductible in full for local income tax and for the basic national income tax (maximum rate 17 per cent.) but not always in full for the supplementary national income tax (maximum rate 25 per cent.).

  Switzerland
  Mortgage interest is deductible in full for federal tax.

  Fuel (VAT)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts have been collected to date in respect of value added tax arising from commercial consumption of gas, coal, and electricity, respectively; and what estimate he has made of the likely future annual equivalent income from each source.

  Mr. Ryder
  Value added tax has not yet been imposed. The standard rating of non-domestic fuel and energy supplies from I July of this year is expected to yield £170 million in a full year mainly from the public sector. Most businesses will be able to deduct the VAT on fuel supplied to them as input tax. Separate estimates are not available for gas, coal or electricity.

  Association for the Monetary Union of Europe
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Association for the Monetary Union of Europe receives any European Economic Community funding for its work; and whether conferences organised by this body are in any way supported by British funding.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Association for the Monetary Union of Europe does not figure on the Commission's register of organisations receiving Community funding in 1989; and Her Majesty's Government do not support it in any way.

  Chessington Computer Centre
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have for the future of the Chessington computer centre.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in consultation with the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, has decided that the Chessington computer centre will become a "next steps" agency. The centre provides a wide range of payroll, financial accounting and personnel record services to central Government and non-departmental public bodies. Executive agency status will allow the centre to develop its business on sound commercial lines, and help the centre to deliver its services more efficiently and effectively.

  Dr. Gerald Bull
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions Customs and Excise has had with the Belgian police about the activities of the late Dr. Bull.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: In the light of the criminal charges laid against an individual on Wednesday 25 April and in the light of the continuing investigations by Customs and Excise, it would be inappropriate to give any further information on these matters.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Iraq (Arms Component Exports)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what was the Government's shareholding via British Steel in Sheffield Forgemasters when the order for the Iraqi gun was first placed with Forgemasters;
  480
  (2) on what date his Department first became aware that the Iraqi export order was for military equipment;

  (3) whether any inquiries were made to the Export Credits Guarantee Department in respect of the Iraqi gun export order.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what shareholdings nationalised industries have held in the companies presently under investigation by the Customs and Excise Department for exporting pipework and ancillary equipment to Iraq with potential military uses; and if he will set out(a) when such shareholdings were taken up and (b) when they were divested, in each case.

  Mr. Ridley
  In the light of the criminal charges laid against an individual on Wednesday 25 April and in the light of the continuing investigations by Customs and Excise, it would be inappropriate to give any further information on these matters.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the dates when the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) contacted his Department regarding export orders for Iraq; what was the subject of the hon. Member's representation on behalf of Walter Somers; and if he will also state the response of his Department.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: In the light of the criminal charges laid against an individual on Wednesday 25 April and in the light of the continuing investigations by Customs and Excise, it would be inappropriate to give any further information on these matters.

  Eastern Europe
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the implications for free trade and enterprise between states in western and eastern Europe that will result from the recent agreement at the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government are very pleased that the 35 participating states at the recent Bonn CSCE intersessional conference on economic co-operation in Europe were able to reach consensus on an ambitious concluding document. In this document, all the participating states made commitments to expand economic co-operation and to enhance the growth of their economies.

  The document also contains important commitments by the countries of central and eastern Europe to fully embrace domestic and international policies to promote the creation of free and competitive market economies where prices are based on supply and demand and where the performance of their economies relies primarily on the freedom of individual enterprise. These mark a further and significant step forward in the economic reform process which should lead to the creation of conditions likely to foster increased economic and industrial co-operation between the east and the west.

  The Government are also pleased that the active participation in the conference of representatives of the business community produced many helpful comments and suggestions to encourage greater economic and

  481
  industrial co-operation. My Department is holding a meeting on 11 May for United Kingdom business participants in the conference and for others who were unable to attend. Among other things we hope to see an exchange of views on the ways in which my Department may be able to help British business take forward any contracts or opportunities identified at the conference, including the use of the various bilateral and multilateral assistance schemes for the countries of central and eastern Europe.

  Environmental Protection
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to encourage a joint review with industry of the environmental protection training needs of the work force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  There are no immediate plans for such a review. However, environmental education and training are among the wide range of matters being considered in the context of the forthcoming White Paper on the environment.

  Yorkshire and Humberside Partnership
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list the members and their organisations who belong to the Yorkshire and Humberside partnership scheme;

  (2) what has been achieved to date by the Yorkshire and Humberside partnership scheme.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The organisations represented are: CBI Yorkshire and Humberside, the Association of Yorkshire and Humberside Chambers of Commerce, TUC Yorkshire and Humberside, the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association, and the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Association. It is up to these organisations to decide which individual should represent them on any particular occasion. I would refer the hon. Member to the organisations involved for information on the achievements of the partnership.

  Export Restrictions
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria are used to determine what constitutes a weapon, in respect of weapons export restrictions.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 23 April 1990]: The definition of a weapon for this purpose is that contained in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989 as amended.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what criteria the export of pipes and tubes were covered by the export control orders in 1988.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Export of Goods (Control) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 2070) listed goods subject to control in 1988.

DEFENCE

  Radar Transmitter, Pembrokeshire
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors dictated the location of the proposed over-the-horizon radar transmitter on the site of the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The principal factors dictating the location of the proposed over-the-horizon radar transmitter were the need for it to be situated on broadly the same latitude as the receiver but separated by a substantial distance; and the need to ensure that, together with the safety exclusion zone that surrounds it, it could be comfortably accommodated within the boundary of an existing MOD site without affecting other activities at that site. After a survey of 166 possible sites throughout the United Kingdom, St. David's airfield was selected as the only suitable location for the transmitter, in conjunction with the only suitable location for the receiver at Blakehill radio station, Wiltshire.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who will supply the transmission equipment for the proposed over-the-horizon radar transmitter on the site of the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The equipment for the trial of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom will be supplied by the United States Government.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there will be any radioactive emissions from the proposed over-the-horizon radar transmitter on the site of the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has concerning the interference to the operation of the United States Air Force base at Robins air base, Georgia, by the installation of an early-warning radar station in the vicinity; and what steps he will take to ensure that his proposed installation of an over-the-horizon radar transmitter on the site of the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire will not similarly affect the operation of RAF Brawdy and the United States naval facility at Brawdy.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The operation of the United States Air Force base at Robins air base, Georgia, is a matter for the United States Government. I understand, however, that the function and characteristics of radars situated in the vicinity of Robins air base are completely different from those of the planned over-the-horizon radar transmitter to be sited at St. David's airfield. The Ministry of Defence is satisfied that the installation of this radar will have no adverse effect on operations at RAF Brawdy.

  Challenger 2 Tank
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) of 5 April, Official Report, column 838, when he expects to announce the results of his assessment of the milestone 2 report received from Vickers Defence Systems on the Challenger 2 tank.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements exist to permit relatives of(a) Regular Army personnel and (b) Territorial Army personnel serving in the Falkland Islands on tours of (i) six months or less and (ii) more than six months to be flown on military flights when spare seats are available; and what charge is made.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Spouses and dependants of Regular Army personnel serving married accompanied tours of 12 months' duration in the Falkland Islands are entitled to fly on indulgence terms to the United Kingdom and return, where seats are available on RAF flights.

  In addition, spouses and dependants of Falkland islanders serving elsewhere are similarly entitled. The cost of an indulgence passage is £68 adult return, children under 12 travel at half fare, infants under two travel free.

  In the unlikely event of a Territorial Army soldier serving a temporary engagement in a 12-month accompanied tour in the Falkland Islands, his family would be entitled to the same indulgence concessions as a Regular Army counterpart.

PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the introduction of the community charge in England.

  The Prime Minister
  The vast majority of charging authorities in England have now sent out their bills net of both community charge benefit and transitional relief. I congratulate local authority chief finance officers on the work that they have done in meeting their billing deadlines. I deplore the decisions of those local authorities that have set excessive charges.

  German Unification
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has recently held discussions with Chancellor Kohl and other NATO state leaders concerning the subject of membership of NATO for a unified German state.

  The Prime Minister
  When I met Chancellor Kohl on 30 March, we agreed it was very important that a united Germany should be a b of NATO. This matter will be further discussed at NATO meetings this summer.

  Turkey (Visit)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what topics were discussed during her visit to Turkey on 25 April by her or her officials with Turkish Government Ministers or their officials.

  The Prime Minister
  I had wide-ranging discussions with President Ozal and Prime Minister Akbulut. The topics covered included east-west issues, the middle east, Cyprus, human rights and bilateral matters.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will provide the final figures for 1989–90 and the estimates for 1990–91 for the total cost to public funds of all her offices, duties, accommodation and expenses.
  484
  The Prime Minister
  The final figure for the cost of all my offices in 1989–90 is not yet available. The estimated total cost for 1989–90 is £7,291,493. The estimated total cost for 1990–91 is £7,442,3641

  Note
  1Salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs, and the grant in aid to the Chequers Trust are included. My salary as a Cabinet Minister is also included. My pay and allowances as a Member of this House are excluded.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will provide the final figures for 1989–90 and the estimate for 1990–91 for(a) the cost of maintaining and running 10 Downing street and additional costs at Chequers, (b) the grant in aid to the Chequers Trust and (c) the costs on a consistent basis and expressed at constant 1984–85 prices.

  The Prime Minister
  Final figures for 1989–90 are not available. The latest estimates of the figures requested are:

  (a) Costs of maintaining and running 10 Downing street and additional costs at Chequers123

  £

  1989–90

  7,256,373

  1990–915

  7,407,244

  (b) Grant in aid to the Chequers Trust

  £

  1989–90

  238,000

  1990–91

  238,000

  (c) Costs at (a) and (b) in 1984–85 price terms 4

  £

  1989–90 (a)

  5,541,552

  (b)

  181,756

  1990–915 (a)

  5,311,497

  (b)

  170,662

  1 The figures include costs at both 10 Downing street and Chequers; the information is not available by location.

  2Salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs, the costs of office services and the grant in aid to the Chequers Trust are included. The Prime Minister's salary is excluded.

  3 These totals are calculated on a consistent basis with the total for 1986–87 in sub-paragraph (a) of the reply to the hon. Member on 23 October 1987 at column 846. If office services costs are excluded (to produce a figure consistent with those at sub-paragraph (c) of that reply) the estimated totals are:

  £

  £

  1989–90

  6,752,798

  5,156,9826

  1990–91

  6,810,675

  4,883,7176

  4 Constant costs have been calculated using the Treasury's GDP deflator for 1988–89 rebased to 1984–85.

  5 Estimate.

  6 At 1984–85 prices.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how much was(a) spent on official hospitality in No. 10 Downing street during 1989–90 and (b) met by her office.

  The Prime Minister
  Final figures for 1989–90 are not yet available. The latest estimate of expenditure by my office on official hospitality at 10 Downing street and Chequers is £27,344.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of her recent trip to Bermuda to meet President Bush; how many staff accompanied her; what were their functions; and who was the flight carrier.
  485
  The Prime Minister
  The figures for the total cost of my meeting with President Bush in Bermuda are not yet available. I was accompanied by two officials and 17 support staff (mostly security and communications personnel). The flight was by an RAF VC10.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how many journalists accompanied her on her recent trip to Bermuda using official transport; and what was the charge per capita.

  The Prime Minister
  Twenty journalists travelled with me. Information on the charge per capita is not yet available.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total figure for travel costs for her and her staff in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  The Prime Minister
  The total cost of my travel and that of my staff in 1988–89 was £925,150. Final figures for 1989–90 are not yet available. The estimated cost is £896,103.

  Staff
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the staff complement of No. 10 Downing street in 1989–90; and how many staff were registered disabled.

  The Prime Minister
  The total staff complement of 10 Downing street in 1989–90 was 68. None was registered disabled.

  Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 May.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 May.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 May.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 May.

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

  European Council Meeting, Dublin
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Newham, South on 24 April,Official Report, column 132, she will seek the consent of the President of the European Council to place any papers relating to or for discussion at the 28 April meeting of Heads of State and Government in the Library.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: The Commission papers on German unification and on Community relations with central and eastern European countries, which were considered by the special Dublin meeting of Heads of State and Government, have been placed in the Library, together with the Presidency's conclusions.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Asthma
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what encouragement and support is being offered by the Government to research being undertaken in the United Kingdom into the causes, effects and treatment of asthma.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Medical Research Council, the Government's main agency for the promotion of medical and related biological research in this country, is always willing to consider soundly based proposals for research funding in competition with other applications. In 1988–89, the last financial year for which figures are available, the council spent £756,000 on research projects which are in whole or in part relevant to asthma. In addition to this, university departments and medical schools, with support from University Funding Council block grants and health authorities, may be undertaking relevant research but information on this is not collected centrally.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list for each of the city technology colleges(a) the amount of private capital promised and (b) the amount of private capital so far received.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information that the hon. Member requests is listed in the table:

  CTC

  Amount of private sponsorship promised

  Amount of private sponsorship received

  £ million

  £ million

  Kingshurst

  1·982

  1·450

  Nottingham

  1·882

  1·104

  Teesside

  1·485

  1·450

  Tyneside

  1·600

  0·238

  Bradford

  2·675

  1·526

  Dartford

  1·300

  0·104

  Harris (Croydon)

  1·500

  0·300

  Britschool

  4·-100

  0·594

  Bacons

  2·500

  0·000

  Haberdashers' Askes'

  14·100

  0·000

  Derby

  1·150

  0· 234

  Telford

  2·000

  0·000

  Corby

  1·600

  0·000

  1 Includes estimated value of site.

  School Trips (Charges)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the first year's experience of the new arrangements regarding charges for school visits or expeditions.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has commissioned a sample survey to take place during the current term, which will look at the pattern of relevant school activities since April 1989 and investigate the reasons for any changes. The results of this survey and other monitoring will be available later this year.

  University Science Departments
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to meet vice-chancellors to discuss the future of science departments in smaller universities.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. This is a matter for individual universities and the Universities Funding Council.

  Schools (Local Management)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from Lancashire on local management of schools and its application in the county.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received no further representations from Lancashire LEA since the authority's scheme for local management of schools came into force on 1 April 1990.

  Schools (Building and Repairs)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from local education authorities for additional resources to deal with new school building and repair to existing schools.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of letters and other requests from local education authorities for additional resources to the annual capital guidelines he announced on 20 December 1989.

  Education Standards
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he intends to review the progress of the Education Reform Act in improving the standards of education delivered.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The objective of the Education Reform Act, particularly chapter 1, is to raise standards in schools so that pupils are better fitted to meet the demands of adult life and work. Her Majesty's inspectorate and local education authority inspectors and advisers have already begun to monitor the quality of teaching and learning within the new statutory framework. In due course, as the national curriculum assessment arrangements become established, it will also be possible to monitor trends in the results achieved by pupils at each stage.

  Education Spending
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding expenditure on education in Avon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received in the last month or so a small number of representations about expenditure on education in Avon.

TRANSPORT

  "Financial Times" Conference
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representation his Department had at the Financial Times conference on industry and the environment held in London on 23 and 24 April.

  Mr. Atkins
  None.

  Horne Report
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's intention in respect of the Horne report recommendations.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government intend to bring forward a Bill at a suitable opportunity to implement those recommendations of the Horne report which require primary legislation, as outlined in the consultation document issued by the Department of Transport in May 1989.

  Merchant Navy Training
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in furthering training for the Merchant Navy under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act; to what extent financial assistance has been made available for such training; and to what extent available finance has not been taken up.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Since the launch in November 1988, 773 new recruits have joined the Government assistance for training scheme. Up to £2·5 million was made available during the first year and £3·5 million has been earmarked for the scheme in a full year. The actual spend during the first year was £900,000 and the spend last year was £1·6 million. Expenditure levels are expected to rise as more trainees come into the scheme.

  Industrial Development Grants
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report the grants made by his Department under section 13 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 showing the value of the grant as a percentage of the whole project cost.

  Mr. Atkins
  [ holding answer 30 April 1990]: Section 13 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 enables Ministers to make grants towards improvements to "basic services" in assisted areas which will facilitate developments that will create new jobs for local people.

  In my Department, this is mainly used to make grants towards the cost of access and distributor roads for new industrial estates, but other developments may also be considered for grant assistance. Grant is usually paid at a rate of 30 per cent. of eligible expenditure. If a project is partly funded by a grant from the European regional development fund, Industrial Development Act grant is payable only on the balance of the cost.
  489
  The following table names the schemes which were formally approved for grant in 1989, gives the total cost of the road works, the amount of IDA grant awarded and the grant as a percentage of the total cost.

  Project name

  Total cost

  Grant offer

  Grant/ total cost

  £000

  £000

  Per cent.

  Northern Region

  Hownsgill Industrial Estate

  234

  35

  115

  Lambton Street Industrial Estate Access Road

  260

  35

  114

  Shidon Access Road, All Saints Industrial Estate

  31

  5

  115

  Tower Road, Glover Industrial Estate, Washington (2 applications)

  224

  67

  30

  Heighington Lane Improvement

  1,160

  157

  114

  Heighington Lane Estate Road (2 applications)

  937

  126

  113

  Seaham Grange Spur Road

  102

  14

  114

  South Church Enterprise Park (phase 3)

  122

  17

  114

  Cul de sac off Walton Road, Pattinson Industrial Estate

  58

  17

  30

  North West Region

  Chester Business Park

  830

  250

  30

  Chester West Employment Park

  266

  40

  115

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  Warren Road Link, Sawcliffe Industrial Park

  359

  108

  30

  Road No. 2, Sawcliffe Industrial Park

  55

  17

  30

  Rook Lane/Dudley Hill Access Road, Bradford

  93

  28

  30

  Spring Ram Roundabout, Gelderd Road, Birstall

  602

  172

  29

  Norquest Industrial Park, Birstall

  410

  94

  23

  Development at Gelderd Road, Birstall

  485

  94

  19

  North East Sector Industrial Access Road, Scunthorpe

  974

  287

  29

  Aldwarke Lane Improvements, Rotherham

  5,915

  1,764

  30

  West Midlands Region

  Block 6, Townsend Drive, Attleborough Industrial Estate

  94

  28

  30

  Westward Heath Business Park Phase 3

  833

  116

  114

  Brockyard Road Improvement (Phases 2 and 3), Walsall

  502

  66

  113

  Woodend Lane, Fradley near Lichfield

  103

  19

  18

  Morgans Access Phase 2, Ashmore Lake Industrial Estate

  30

  9

  30

  Extension to Liberty Way, Nuneaton

  137

  41

  30

  East Midlands Region

  Hinckley Fields Industrial Estate Phase 1

  911

  111

  112

  South West Region

  Tolvaddon Industrial Estate

  358

  54

  115

  1 Indicates partly funded by ERDF grant.

  All figures rounded to the nearest whole number.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what adjustments to the arrangements for statutory sick pay he is considering following the determination of the discrimination case in the West German labour court.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  None. I assume that the hon. Member's question refers to a recent finding relating to part-time workers under German sick pay schemes. Part-time workers in the United Kingdom qualify for statutory sick pay under the same rules as full-time workers.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of his Department's local offices in the midlands region spent less than their full social fund allocation for grants in the financial year 1989–90

  Mr. Scott
  Details of annual social fund budget allocations and expenditure for grants in respect of each social security region and local office are placed in the Library.

  Community Charge Rebate
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much it would cost to assess wives separately from husbands for the purpose of community charge rebate;

  (2) how much it would cost to provide separate assessment for the community charge rebate for those wives with one or more children under the age of five.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of changing the deemed interest rate on savings to 12 per cent. for the purposes of calculating community charge rebate.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The cost of changing the tariff income from £1 per week for every £250 of savings over £3,000 to £1 per week for every £433·33 of savings over £3,000 would be £50 million for community charge benefit in 1990–91.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much extra money would be raised if the upper earnings limit on employees' national insurance contributions were to be abolished.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on 18 April at column 894.

  Leaflets
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the new leaflet for 16 and 17-year-olds, announced in November, will be available.
  491
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A new leaflet for 16 and 17-year-olds (leaflet IS26) has been launched today.

  The new leaflet will give up-to-date and clear information on the benefit provisions for this age group. It will be issued to all DSS local offices, unemployment benefit offices, jobcentres and careers offices. In addition, the leaflet will be sent to various other groups involved with young people, for example voluntary bodies, the probation service and secondary schools.

  In developing the leaflet we have consulted a number of outside organisations including NACAB, Barnardo's, National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations, National Children's Home, the Scottish Council for the Single Homeless and the Children's Society. I am grateful for the help and advice that these bodies have provided. I am confident that this new leaflet will give 16 and 17-year-olds the information they need in deciding whether they should claim income support.

  I have placed a copy of the leaflet in the Library.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the increase in the number of persons living in families with incomes below supplementary benefit level, on supplementary benefit and up to 110 per cent., 120 per cent. and 140 per cent. of supplementary benefit level between 1979 and 1985 can be attributed to real increases in the level of supplementary benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 15 February 1990]: The available estimates are as follows:

  Persons in families:

  Percentage of 1979–1985 increase attributable to increases in the rate of Supplementary benefit scale rates:

  on Supplementary Benefit (SB)

  30

  on SB or with incomes below:

  100 per cent, of SB level:

  50

  110 per cent, of SB level:

  45

  120 percent, of SB level:

  50

  140 percent, of SB level:

  60

  It is not possible to identify to any reliable degree the extent to which any group of non-recipients flowed on to supplementary benefit as a result of the real increases in the scale rates. Reliable estimates cannot therefore be provided to show the corresponding percentages for the number below each threshold unless combined with all those in receipt of supplementary benefit. Nevertheless, for each of these categories of non-recipients increases in scale rates appear to more than fully account for the whole of the increase in numbers between 1979 and 1985.

WALES

  Peat
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ban all use of peat by his Department; whether he will formulate a national peatlands conservation policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roberts
  Peat is used to only a very limited extent by the Department. Alternatives will continue to be 492
  considered whenever appropriate but there are no plans at present to introduce a total ban. On the wider issue, I have nothing to add to the answer given by the hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside on 27 April 1990.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to the level of community charge set by each Welsh county and district council in 1990–91; what is the standard spending assessment; and which political party holds the most seats on each authority.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 3 April, which indicated the community charges set by Welsh local authorities and the standard spending assessments attributed to them. The detailed political composition of Welsh councils is given on page 704 of the "Municipal Yearbook 1990".

  Second Homes
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to the policy of each Welsh district council with regard to the level of multiplier for the standard community charge in respect of second homes.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is not yet available. I intend shortly to collect information about the use made by charging authorities of their discretion to specify property classes and maximum multipliers for the standard charge. This will include information about second homes.

  Local Authority Debt
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount of debt incurred by each Welsh county and district council for the lastest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on total debt incurred by each local authority in any one particular financial year is not held centrally. Information on outstanding loan debt at 31 March of each year is, however, available and figures relating to 31 March 1989 are set out in the table:

  Total outstanding loan debt at 31 March 1989

  £000

  £

  Alyn and Deeside

  35,871

  Colwyn

  24,197

  Delyn

  28,977

  Glyndwr

  17,992

  Rhuddlan

  17,891

  Wrexham Maelor

  65,882

  Carmarthen

  48,337

  Ceredigion

  34,267

  Dinefwr

  22,083

  Llanelli

  37,174

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  45,981

  South Pembroke

  34,248

  Blaenau Gwent

  119,438

  Islwyn

  71,771

  Monmouth

  45,504

  Newport

  155,377

  Torfaen

  84,973

  493

  £

  Aberconwy

  20,033

  Arfon

  33.794

  Dwyfor

  14,108

  Meirionnydd

  17,615

  Ynys Mon

  52,687

  Cynon Valley

  54,472

  Merthyr Tydfil

  61,333

  Ogwr

  104,728

  Rhondda

  122,480

  Rhymney Valley

  88,356

  Taff Ely

  70,250

  Brecknock

  27,929

  Montgomeryshire

  22,495

  Radnorshire

  12,892

  Cardiff

  214,807

  Vale of Glamorgan

  57,669

  Lliw Valley

  46,994

  Neath

  42,151

  Port Talbot

  33,515

  Swansea

  171,543

  Total Districts

  2,159,814

  Clwyd

  106,125

  Dyfed

  82,098

  Gwent

  106,015

  Gwynedd

  54,383

  Mid Glamorgan

  21,820

  Powys

  43,571

  South Glamorgan

  96,180

  West Glamorgan

  113,906

  Dyfed Powys Joint Police Authority

  4,041

  North Wales Joint Police Authority

  1,720

  South Wales Joint Police Authority

  6,060

  Total Counties

  635,919

  Total Wales

  2,795,733

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the main achievements of his Department since June 1987.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Unemployment in Wales has fallen for 46 consecutive months (to March 1990), currently standing at 83,900 (6·4 per cent.), compared to 152,700 (12·3 per cent.) in May 1987—a drop of 68,800 (5·9 percentage points). The current rate of 6·4 per cent. is lower than the EC average and many of the UK's main European competitors. It is also the lowest rate since May 1980. The current total of 83,900 is the lowest since July 1980. At December 1989, the civilian work force in employment in Wales stood at 1,215,000, the highest ever.

  Over 50,622 people have started training on employment training since the programme was launched in September 1988. A total of 53,972 young people have entered YTS since May 1987. We continue to provide a YTS place for every young person who seeks one.

  The White Paper, "Training for Employment", published in December 1988 set out a framework for modernising and developing our training system. To assist me in meeting this challenge I set up the training, enterprise and education advisory group. One of its main tasks has been to advise on the establishment of training and enterprise councils in Wales. TECs are an exciting development which offer the prospect of a move to a locally planned and delivered training strategy. We now
  494
  have a complete network of TECs in development covering the whole of Wales and I expect these to be operational by the end of the year.

  Development funding has been awarded to compacts in south Glamorgan, mid and west Glamorgan and Clwyd.

  Since 1 June 1987, a total of 295 inward investment projects have been secured for Wales promising some 25,000 new jobs and involving a capital investment of some £1·75 billion. Among the largest projects are those announced by Ford, Bosch, TSB and National Provident Institution. As part of the inward investment effort, I and the Minister of State have between us undertaken 11 visits overseas.

  Since my appointment in June 1987, nearly 3,500 offers of grant assistance have been made to businesses in Wales. Payments of nearly £97 million have been made with related additional/safeguarded employment of over 20,000. It is expected that over 72,000 jobs will actually be created or safeguarded by projects which have been grant-aided under regional incentive schemes.

  In recent weeks a co-operation agreement has been signed with Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany's most dynamic region. This will enable a great deal of activity to take place in the fields of company collaboration, inward investment and joint research which will bring considerable benefit to Wales in the years to come.

  Since I became Secretary of State, the Welsh Office has greatly increased its emphasis on helping business in Wales to export. This initiative has been highlighted by three successful export missions led by myself and by the Minister of State to the Soviet Union (1988), Spain and Portugal (1989) and Saudi Arabia (1990). The last of these alone netted orders worth £7·5 million for the Welsh companies participating.

  At £150 million the Welsh Development Agency's budget for 1990–91 is the highest ever in both cash and real terms and is over 50 per cent. above the 1987 level.

  Nearly £99 million at today's prices has been committed to the land reclamation programme in Wales over the past three years. The programme is one of the largest and most sustained in Europe and will see the eradication of almost all visually intrusive dereliction in Wales by the mid-1990s.

  Expenditure on the Welsh Development Agency's property development activities has also more than doubled since 1987 to £72 million in 1990–91. Over 1 million sq ft of new factory floor space has been provided in each of the last three years capable of accommodating up to 9,000 jobs. Factory lettings have also been at record levels with over 2 million sq ft let each year. Over the same period the private sector has also provided 715,000 sq ft of development on agency sites.

  Welsh businesses have responded extremely well to Enterprise Wales, since its launch in January 1988. The consultancy grants available under the initiative have proved particularly popular with nearly 1,800 projects commissioned so far.

  In addition, a number of other initiatives have been taken to strengthen Welsh industry. These include the craft initiative and the "Wales Land of Quality" emblem to promote a coherent image of Wales and its products at home and abroad. To date more than 100 companies have adopted the emblem.

  Since Cardiff Bay development corporation was established in 1987 to regenerate the former commercial centre of the city the Government have made available, or

  495
  have announced, over £150 million of grant in aid to enable the corporation to achieve its task. To date the corporation has acquired over 500 acres of land; completed detailed area planning briefs for key locations; commissioned detailed design of the barrage across the harbour mouth; made available a prestigious 120 acre site for business, industrial and leisure-related development and undertaken a large number of environmental, infrastructure and community schemes.

  In June 1988 I launched a massive three-year programme of action designed to improve economic, environmental and social conditions in the south Wales valleys. Expenditure in key activities involving the promotion of investment, the creation of jobs and environmental improvement in the valleys is expected to total some £500 million over the first three years of the programme. This is expected to stimulate private sector investment of up to £1 billion. I can confirm that unemployment in the valleys fell by some 10,600 between June 1988 and March 1990, at a faster rate than in Wales or the United Kingdom as a whole. In June 1989 I announced the extension of the valleys programme for a further two years until the end of 1992–93.

  As work progresses in completing the £550 million project to dual the A55 from Bangor to Chester, major opportunities for growth and development are emerging. I highlighted this in the document "A55—The Road of Opportunity", published in December 1989, which set out the framework for a whole range of policies and proposals that will further benefit north Wales. The Government will continue to encourage a positive response from the public and private sectors to ensure that the development opportunities are taken to enhance economic, social and cultural life in north Wales.

  Since 1987–88 there have been 34 approvals totalling £14·123 million of urban development grant throughout Wales. This represents some £66·309 million of private investment and is expected to create a total of 2,300 permanent and 1,180 temporary jobs. In addition, around 448 residential units will be provided.

  Since April 1989 there have been 14 urban investment grant approvals totalling £7·631 million of grant. This represents some £24·065 million of private investment and is expected to create 935 new permanent jobs together with 455 temporary construction jobs. Some 200 residential units will also be provided.

  The £29·187 million allocated under the urban programme for the current financial year represents a 26 per cent. increase over that allocated in 1987–88 (£23·1 million) and 19 per cent. above the £24·5 million allocated in 1988–89.

  A £33 million European regional development fund (ERDF) programme for mid-Glamorgan has been successfully completed and another worth £108 million for Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys is well under way. Two further integrated development operation programmes (ERDF and European social fund) for Clwyd and industrial south Wales worth £23 million and £59 million respectively have recently been approved by the Commission and are now being implemented.

  Recently, 11 areas in south Wales were accepted by the European Commission as eligible for the RECHAR initiative, which is to provide £225 million across the Community over four years to aid areas with recent large numbers of job losses in coal mining. The list of eligible
  496
  areas, which was announced on 19 April, includes the majority of the Welsh candidate areas the Department initially proposed.

  Grants totalling some £1·4 million have been awarded to firms in Wales for the marketing and processing of agricultural produce under European Community regulations 355/77.

  On 1 January 1988 the designated Cambrian mountains environmentally sensitive area (ESA) was extended by some 80,000 hectares and some 39,700 hectares of the Lleyn peninsula was designated as an ESA. The scheme aims to promote the co-existence of conservation and efficient farming in areas of national environmental significance perceived to be at risk from increasingly intensive methods of production.

  The reform of the sheepmeat regime agreed at the July 1989 Agricultural Council represented a good deal for Welsh sheep producers. The new regime provides them with a clear basis for the future and improves their competitive position with their continental counterparts and prospects for exporting.

  In 1989 we took full advantage of devaluation of the green pound and paid the suckler cow premium at the highest permissible rate, including the maximum top-up from national funds. As a result, the rate was increased from £33·40 to £47·43 per cow (42 per cent.). This was worth £7·7 million to producers in Wales in the 1989–90 scheme year.

  Over 50,300 home improvement grant schemes for private sector dwellings have been completed since June 1987 with a value of £160 million. In the same period £246 million has been spent on the renovation of local authority housing stock.

  Since June 1987 more than 7,800 dwellings in Wales have been improved under enveloping schemes at a cost in excess of £62 million.

  Since the valleys action programme was launched in June 1988 targets for the number of homes in enveloping and block schemes have been exceeded—2,656 in 1988–89 against a target of 2,000 and 2,749 in 1989–90 against a target of 2,500.

  The new renovation grant regime arrangements which I have introduced will ensure that assistance goes to those in greatest need. To get the new system off to a good start I have already announced that £75 million has been allocated and that additional resources will be made available to district councils in Wales should that be necessary.

  I have now incorporated our very successful priority estates programme in our new housing options Wales (HOW) programme which was announced in January. It is a package of measures designed to support improvements in local authority housing management, to focus upon service improvement and customer care, and to provide new opportunities for tenants' groups. It includes a new small grants scheme to fund people and projects developing better service delivery; a training and information service, and, prospectively, the reestablishment, with a new remit and better support, of the housing management advisory panel for Wales.

  At the end of last year I launched, through the Development Board for Rural Wales, an experimental flexi-ownership scheme, which enables the board's tenants to buy their homes at a weekly outlay broadly the same as their existing rent. On 11 April the first two families in Wales bought their homes under this scheme.
  497
  Tenants' choice is now in force in Wales, providing an important new right for council tenants. Housing for Wales will work to ensure that those who wish to exercise this right have every opportunity to do so.

  The National Health Service in Wales is treating more patients than ever before. The successful introduction of general management into the National Health Service in Wales has now been completed and effective mechanisms for manpower resource planning, education, training and management have been established.

  In 1988 a corporate management programme for the National Health Service in Wales was produced and published and the Welsh health planning forum was set up. The forum has produced a "Statement of Strategic Intent and Direction for the National Health Service in Wales".

  Two treatment centres have been established to shorten hospital waiting times; one at Bridgend for hernias and varicose veins, and one near Cardiff for hip and knee replacements.

  The new Prince Philip hospital, Llanelli, has been completed along with major development schemes at the Llandough, Morriston, and Royal Gwent hospitals, at a capital cost of £55 million (cash prices).

  Improvements in regional services have included a new bone marrow tissue typing laboratory in Cardiff; a new paediatric cardiac unit at the University Hospital of Wales (to be completed this year); two new subsidiary renal units at Cardiff and Merthyr Tydfil; and the provision of computerised tomography scanners in various locations throughout Wales.

  Substantial progress has been made under the all-Wales strategy for the development of services for people with a mental handicap, supported by significant increases in funding.

  In June 1989 the mental illness strategy was launched to promote a more responsive, locally and community-based service for treating and supporting mental illness sufferers.

  Significant progress has also been made under the initiative on the care of the elderly in Wales in stimulating service providers to review their methods. Approval has been given for the funding of 60 demonstration projects, a number of which involve partnership between the statutory and voluntary sectors.

  Current expenditure on education, excluding school meals and milk, was 13·6 per cent. more in real terms in 1987–88 than in 1979–80. In the same period pupil numbers fell by 14·6 per cent. and the pupil: teacher ratio improved by 5·7 per cent.

  Expenditure per pupil thus rose overall from £910 to £1,216·34 per cent. Local authority capital expenditure on education has increased in real terms by 18·9 per cent. This is a significant increase at a time when pupil numbers have been falling and thus the basic need for new schools has been at a very low level.

  I have strengthened financial support for the Welsh language. Direct Government financial support has increased by 75 per cent. since 1987 to £5·9 million. In 1988 I established the Welsh Language Board to find practical solutions to the everyday problems facing Welsh speakers.

  The Welsh language now has, for the first time, a firm statutory place in the school curriculum for pupils from five to 16 in Wales within the national curriculum. I believe that the decision to include Welsh as part of the national curriculum will have a significant impact on the language for many years to come.
  498
  The national curriculum is being introduced progressively into the schools of Wales. Mathematics, science and English have already begun. Welsh and technology will be introduced from September 1990; other subjects in 1991 and 1992.

  I have undertaken that the national curriculum should be responsive to the distinctive history and culture of Wales. All national curriculum documentation is being provided in Welsh and English. Separate orders will be made to ensure that children in Wales study Welsh as well as British history.

  I have developed an initiative to introduce the teaching of the Japanese language into secondary schools in Wales.

  I have had meetings with local education authorities in the valleys programme area to discuss ways of improving links between schools and industry, to ensure that pupils learn about the wide range of employment opportunities available to them.

  Schemes for the local management of schools have been formally approved for each of the LEAs in Wales.

  The number of students on courses of higher education in the Welsh public sector institutions has risen by 5 per cent. from 14,700 in 1987 to 15,500 today. During the same period the number of students on courses of initial teacher training in Wales rose by 20 per cent. from 2,621 in 1987 to 3,140 today.

  I have initiated measures to simplify and improve the planning system and to speed up its operation. while ensuring that it continues to protect and enhance the environment. These have brought about reductions in the time taken for handling inspectors' appeals of nine weeks (inquiries) and five weeks (written representations).

  Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments has increased revenue by 41 per cent. and attendance by 8·5 per cent. at ancient monuments in my care during the three-year period ending March 1990.

  "Roads in Wales 1989—Progress and Plans for the 1990s", which I published in April, demonstrates that a high level of investment is continuing in roads in Wales. Thirteen trunk road schemes have been completed since June 1987, totalling over 28 miles. Work is in progress on a further 11 schemes comprising about 25 miles. Work has started on four new schemes under transport grant arrangements; three new schemes, all in west Glamorgan, were accepted for start in 1989–90 and the Newbridge/ Maesycymmer improvement in Gwent has been approved for start in 1990–91.

  Agricultural Diversification
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to revise the planning powers of the national park authorities in Wales to help farmers to diversify; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment and I are reviewing planning policy guidance note No. 7, which describes the contribution that the planning system can make to the rural environment by providing a mechanism for balancing the requirements of development—including fostering the diversification of the rural economy—and the continuing need to protect the countryside in the national parks and elsewhere.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the fact that empty properties lent to charities for short periods without charge result in the owner of the property being assessed for the full uniform business rate for the financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I have received no such representations.

  The owners of unoccupied property are, unless the property is exempt, required to pay rates at 50 per cent. of the liability that would apply if the property were occupied. If a property subject to empty property rates is temporarily occupied for fewer than six weeks, and then again becomes unoccupied, the owners' liability at the concessionary empty property rate continues to apply.

  Pembroke Dock
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the financial assistance provided to Pembroke dock by the Welsh Office since 1979.

  Mr. Roberts
  [holding answer 24 April 1990]:The total financial assistance provided by the Welsh Office and non-departmental public bodies funded by the Department is £19,325,203 made up as follows:

  £

  Welsh Office:

  Urban Development Grant

  725,000

  Urban Programme

  254,594

  Coast Protection Act Grants

  35,155

  Industrial Development Act:

  (i) provision of sewage

  7,529

  (ii) roadworks

  41,546

  Regional Selective Assistance—offers accepted

  396,000

  Regional Development Grant (II)—offers made

  4,135,000

  Regional Enterprise Grants:

  Investment Grants—offers made

  66,000

  Innovation Grants—offers made

  15,000

  Payments made to South Pembrokeshire District

  Council for lost rate revenue foregone in the Pembroke Dock sites of the Milford Haven Enterprise Zone

  1,737,490

  European Regional Development Fund

  3,025,080

  Funding for Projects of Regional or National Importance

  2,450,000

  Sports Council for Wales

  50,065

  Housing Corporation/Housing for Wales/Tai Cymru

  1,857,744

  Wales Tourist Board

  25,000

  Welsh Development Agency:

  Land Reclamation Schemes—Public Sector

  1,336,000

  Land Reclamation Schemes—Private Sector

  721,000

  Environmental Improvement

  30,000

  Urban Renewal

  40,000

  Rural Conversion Grant

  46

  Factory construction

  1,953,000

  Investments

  378,000

  Total

  19,325,203

ENVIRONMENT

  Short Outfalls
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 3 April,Official Report, column 565, if he will list the 344 short outfalls
  500
  which discharge to coastal or estuarial waters, together with the local authority environmental health department responsible for each.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Detailed information on the 344 outfalls referred to in my answer of 3 April to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell),Official Report, column 565, is not held centrally.

  EC Environment Ministers
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what matters were discussed at the meeting of European Community Environment Ministers at Ashford castle on 20 to 21 April.

  Mr. Trippier
  I represented the United Kingdom at this informal conference.

  Ministers discussed the implications for the environment of the completion of the internal market and related issues. These included the implications of economic growth, the avoidance of trade barriers, the integration of environmental considerations into other areas of Community policy, and the scope for using economic and fiscal measures as instruments of environmental policy.

  Community relations with eastern European countries and with EFTA were also discussed. Ministers considered information from the European Commission about the state of the environment in eastern and central Europe, and identified a number of areas for discussion at a meeting with their counterparts from those countries to be held in Dublin on 16 June.

  Industrial Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will be represented at the conference on industrial waste water treatment, to be held in London on 7 to 8 June.

  Mr. Trippier
  Yes.

  Hazardous Substances
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the European Commission proposal for a Council directive amending directive 76/464/EFC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (COM[909], final) issued on 8 February.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government's response was set out in an explanatory memorandum which was placed in the Vote Office on 19 March.

  Local Government Legislation
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further plans he has to introduce local government legislation in this Session; what that legislation will cover; how much of it will be retrospective in effect; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment of 30 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field),Official Report, Vol. 170, column 346.

  UN Youth Forum on the Environment
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what involvement his Department will have in the special youth forum on the environment at the United Nations in New York on 11 May.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department of the Environment is not involved in the special youth forum. However, this is a United Nations environment programme event and therefore my Department fully supports it.

  Environment Conference, York
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he, or any Ministers or officials of his Department, attended the conference on the state of the environment in Yorkshire and Humberside held at York university on 2 April.

  Mr. Trippier
  The conference was in fact held on 20 April. The Department was not represented. However, my officials are being kept informed of developments by the conference organisers.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the practice of local authorities charging a double standard community charge for owners of second homes; and whether he will consider extending transitional relief to these charge payers who would have been eligible had they been paying a personal community charge.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Charging authorities are required to set a multiplier for the standard charge of either 0, 0·5, 1, 1·5 or 2 times the personal community charge for the area. We have prescribed nine classes of property where no standard charge is payable and two classes of property where the multiplier may not exceed one times the personal charge. In addition local authorities have wide discretion to specify further classes of property in respect of which a different multiplier from the one generally applied may be set. Many authorities have made good use of this discretion. I am concerned, however, that other authorities have not and, if necessary, we will consider further central prescription for 1991–92. I do not think it necessary to extend transitional relief to standard charge properties. However, individuals who are subject to the standard charge may be eligible to receive transitional relief on their personal community charge by virtue of their sole or main residence.

  Atmospheric Conditions (Monitoring)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for each region's estimated methane emissions in 1988 by emission source consistent with the United Kingdom figures given in table 2·12 of the latest "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics."

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give figures for nitrogen dioxide concentrations recorded at each of Warren Spring laboratory's 11 sites in the latest available year;
  502
  (2) if he will give the number of occasions hourly average tropospheric ozone concentrations in excess of 6Oppb were recorded by each of his Department's 19 sites in the latest available year;

  (3) if he will give figures on the acidity of rain recorded at each of his Department's 32 sites for the latest available year.

  Mr. Trippier
  United Kingdom monitoring network data for 1989 are given in tables A (NO2), B (ozone) and C (acidity of rain). Of the NO2sites, all except Cromwell road and Stevenage are in the EC NO2directive monitoring network set up to meet the requirements of EC directive 85/203/EEC.

  WSL also operates three rural NO2monitoring sites.

  Results for a full year are not yet available. Measurements made so far indicate concentrations are of the order of 10 to 15 parts per billion by volume (ppb) annual average and 30 to 50 ppb 98th percentile of hourly averages.

  The locations of the sites are described in the digest of environmental protection statistics, No. 12, 1989 and in the second report of the United Kingdom review group on acid rain, 1987, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Table A—NO2:

  Site

  Annual average

  98th percentile

  (ppb)

  (ppb)

  Central London

  37

  81

  West London

  42

  112

  Glasgow

  26

  61

  Manchester

  25

  61

  Walsall

  29

  58

  Billingham

  21

  57

  Cromwell Road

  43

  100

  Stevenage

  24

  55

  Table B—ozone:

  Site

  Exceedances of 60 ppb hourly means

  Stevenage

  85

  Central London

  74

  Sibton

  212

  Aston Hill

  143

  Lullington Heath

  401

  Strath Vaich

  28

  High Muffles

  184

  Lough Navar

  74

  Yarder Wood

  360

  Ladybower

  173

  Harwell

  170

  Bottesford

  82

  Bush

  63

  Eskdalemuir

  99

  Great Dun Fell

  204

  Glazebury

  129

  Table C—acidity of rain—acidity of deposited rain adjusted for rainfall amount

  Site

  Precipitation weighted mean acidity (microgramme equivalents per litre)

  Achanarras

  25

  Strath Vaigh Dam

  13

  River Mharcaidh

  20

  Glen Dye

  36

  Balquhidder

  20

  Whiteadder

  35

  503

  Site

  Precipitation weighted mean acidity (microgramme equivalents per litre)

  Eskdalemuir

  20

  Redesdale

  32

  Loch Dee

  15

  Cow Green Reservoir

  23

  Bannisdale

  24

  High Muffles

  55

  Thorganby

  84

  Jenny Hurn

  64

  Driby

  47

  Wardlow Hay Cop

  37

  Beddgelert

  15

  Bottesford

  48

  Plynlimon

  14

  Stoke Ferry

  40

  Preston Montford

  36

  Llyn Brianne

  19

  Tycanol Wood

  18

  Woburn

  37

  Flatford Mill

  35

  Compton

  25

  Barcombe Mills

  15

  Yarner Wood

  20

  Goonhilly

  19

  Lough Navar

  10

  Hillsborough Forest

  13

  Isle of Man

  24

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for each region's estimated carbon dioxide emissions in 1988 by emission source consistent with the United Kingdom figures given in table 2.11 of the latest "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics".

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for sulphur dioxide concentrations in each region in the latest available year.

  Mr. Trippier
  The basic urban monitoring network data, for April 1988 to March 1989, analysed by region, are given in the table:

  Region

  Number of sites with valid results

  Concentration—microgrammes per standard cubic metre of air

  SO2

  Smoke

  Scotland

  13

  27

  12

  North

  12

  30

  16

  North West

  25

  39

  14

  Yorkshire-Humberside

  21

  43

  21

  East Midlands

  11

  43

  20

  West Midlands

  8

  37

  20

  Wales

  6

  19

  11

  East Anglia

  2

  28

  12

  London

  11

  41

  17

  South East

  9

  31

  12

  South West

  5

  23

  11

  Northern Ireland

  4

  46

  27

  United Kingdom

  126

  36

  16

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for each region's estimated nitrogen oxides emissions in 1988 by emission source consistent with the United Kingdom figures given in table 2.6 of the latest "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics."
  504
  Mr. Trippier
  Estimates of emissions of nitrogen oxides are not made by region.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for each region's estimated sulphur dioxide emissions in 1988 by emission source consistent with the United Kingdom figures given In table 2.3 of the latest "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics."

  Mr. Trippier
  Estimates of emissions of sulphur dioxide are not made by region.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for each region and each county for the estimated(a) acidity of rain and (b) wet deposited acidity in 1988, consistent with figures given in tables 2.5 and 2.6 of the latest "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics."

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not available.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to monitor the impact in the United Kingdom of the CITES ban on ivory trade.

  Mr. Trippier
  Records of trade in ivory are being maintained by the Department in accordance with article VIII.6 of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the amount of tradeable ivory currently in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department does not have comprehensive details of tradeable ivory currently in the United Kingdom. Such information as we have is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 11, if he will make it his policy to establish the total amount of ivory currently held at United Kingdom ports of entry and which is not accompanied by CITES documentation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. Enforcement of CITES controls at ports of entry is primarily the responsibility of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the current controls relating to internal trade in ivory among EEC countries.

  Mr. Trippier
  Internal trade in ivory among EC countries is controlled under EC regulations 3626/82 and 3418/83. Ivory which has been legally imported into one Community country may be moved to other Community countries provided that it is accompanied by a copy of the original import permit, or an EC CITES certificate granted by the Community country from which it is being moved.

  Nature Conservancy
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements have been made for designating the United Kingdom's scientific authority for
  505
  animals under the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora resulting from his proposals to reorganise the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Trippier
  All the functions and responsibilities of the existing Nature Conservancy Council will continue under the new organisational arrangements. Those with a clear international and Great Britain dimension, including that of acting as the scientific authority for animals under the convention on the international trade in endangered species, will he exercised under the auspices of the joint committee of the councils, within the terms of clause 109 of the Environmental Protection Bill.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Nature Conservancy Council has estimated the additional funding which will be required as a result of the Government's reorganisation proposals in order to maintain its existing functions and work programmes.

  Mr. Trippier
  We are discussing with the Nature Conservancy Council the resources needed by the successor bodies to the existing Nature Conservancy Council to carry forward the work of nature conservation and this work will continue throughout the summer. The Government expect to announce the grant in aid to be made available to each of the three new councils within the normal timetable for the public expenditure survey.

  CITES
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to grant any exemptions under article 6 paragraph 1(a) of Council regulations (EEC) No. 3626/82 on the implications in the Community of CITES; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Applications for exemptions under article 6.1(a) of EC regulation 3626/82 are considered on their individual merits at the time they are made, having regard to the objectives of CITES, and any other relevant considerations.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what factors he ascribes the substantial increases in discharges of Krypton-85 to the air from Sellafield in 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the British Nuclear Fuels annual report on radioactive discharges and monitoring of the environment 1986, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Pollution
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what targets his Department has identified as desirable in respect of cuts in the supply of(a) CFCs, (b) halons, (c) carbon tetrachloride and (d) methyl chloroform.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 30 April 1990]: We must reduce production and consumption of all ozone-depleting substances as quickly as possible. In international
  506
  negotiations we are pressing for: CFCs and carbon tetrachloride to be cut by 85 per cent. by 1995–96, and 100 per cent. by 2000; halons to be cut by 50 per cent. by 1995, and 100 per cent. by 2000 with exceptions for some essential uses; and methyl chloroform to be cut by 25 per cent. by 1994 with decisions to be made then on further cuts. We are considering whether we can go further and faster on methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride.

  Ministerial Visit, Leeds
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps were taken by the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to inform Leeds city council of his visit to the city on Wednesday 4 April.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 18 April 1990]: My visit to Leeds on 4 April was on party business.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce the special financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme to be given to those local authorities whose coasts suffered damage as a result of the severe storms during 25 and 26 February.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 April 1990, c. 1034]: I am pleased to announce that the Bellwin scheme for special financial assistance to local authorities in emergencies has been activated for the severe flooding in the Maidenhead area in early February 1990, and the storms of the period 26 to 28 February in England. My officials will be writing to local authorities shortly with the details.

  Grant under the scheme will be given to those authorities whose eligible expenditure in coping with the

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Wheelchair Access
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what facilities are currently available, or will be made available in future for hon. Members who are confined to wheelchairs to take their place and to speak in the Chamber.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  No special facilities are available in the Chamber, but I am confident that hon. Members and staff of the House would give every assistance to a Member unfortunate enough to be confined to a wheelchair in order that he or she might take a full part in our proceedings.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the current disproportionate cost threshold for answering a parliamentary question; who determines the level; why it was introduced; and if there are any proposals to change it in line with inflation.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The disproportionate cost threshold currently stands at £250. The figure is calculated by the Treasury and is set at a level to identify and draw to ministerial attention those questions which are likely to be particularly expensive to answer. This does not alter the discretion of individual Ministers to decide that a particular question should be answered, partially or in full, regardless of cost.
  507
  The threshold figure is kept under regular review and a further increase will be proposed when thought necessary.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to introduce further concessions to the community charge legislation to allow local authorities to waive payment where there is clear evidence of poverty.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The collection of the community charge is the responsibility of local authorities. The community charge benefit scheme is available to assist people on low incomes with their community charge payments. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to make changes to the present collection arrangements.

  Quality Assurance (Surveying)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what evidence he has with reference to the issuing of quality assurance certification within the surveying profession of the effect of certification charges on incentives to secure quality assurance certification;

  (2) what analysis he has made of the impact of the level of certification charges across Scotland on the willingness of smaller size surveying businesses to seek certification; and if he will make a statement,

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of professional firms on the Department of Trade and Industry quality assurance register is currently very small and no specific monitoring has so far been carried out. However, based on experience with the many manufacturers now registered, steps to help small firms are being taken. More certifying bodies are being approved, and this will increase competition and reduce costs to those seeking quality assurance certification.

  Miss Gail Sutherland
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress in the handling of the claim of Miss Gail Sutherland, Rosshire about which he last wrote to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye on 5 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since I last wrote to the hon. Member regarding Miss Gail Sutherland's damages claim, the Office of the Solicitor for the Secretary of State has been pursuing the information required to enable an assessment of liability to be made. The claimant will be advised of the decision shortly and, indeed, as soon as possible.

  Multiple Births
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to the number of(a) twins, (b) triplets, (c) quadruplets, (d) quintuplets and (e) sextuplets, born in Scotland in 1989; and what was the total number of maternities in that year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:s508

  Multiple births, (live and still) and maternities leading to live or stillbirths, Scotland 1989, provisional figures

  Number

  Twins

  677

  Triplets

  13

  Quadruplets

  2

  Quintuplets

  0

  Sextuplets

  0

  Total maternities

  63,090

  Hip Replacements
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many operations for the insertion of an artificial hip are carried out on United Kingdom citizens in(a) National Health Service hospitals, and (b) private hospitals in Scotland annually.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is available centrally only for National Health Service hospitals. The numbers of United Kingdom patients receiving total or partial hip replacement in National Health Service hospitals in Scotland in each of the last three years are as follows:

  Year

  Total hip replacement

  Other arthroplasty of hip

  Total

  1986

  3,236

  1,630

  4,866

  1987

  3,485

  1,709

  5,194

  1988

  3,798

  1,786

  5,584

  Nursing Staff
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of nursing staff employed in private hospitals in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total number of nursing staff employed in private nursing homes and hospitals subject to the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 or the Mental Health Acts 1960 and 1984 in Scotland at 31 March 1989 was 8,435 (3,189 whole-time and 5,246 part-time).

  Health Boards
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the amount of money which health boards were required to find from their own resources to meet centrally agreed pay awards from 1979 to 1989, by health board, on an annual basis.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The amounts included in health board revenue allocations to meet the cost of pay and salaries are not separately identified. However additional resources have been made available towards the cost of pay review body awards.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the amount of money which has accrued to individual health boards from the sale of hospital land and buildings; and if he will make a statement on how this money is treated for the hospital board's capital allocation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Details of the receipts for NHS property sales retained by health boards are as follows:
  509

  Health Board

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  £

  £

  £

  Argyll and Clyde

  749,664

  1,352,562

  3,079,594

  Ayrshire and Arran

  115,324

  49,530

  5,814,154

  Borders

  94,091

  832,197

  753,430

  Dumfries and Galloway

  172,272

  213,761

  500

  Fife

  283,559

  619,124

  247,756

  Forth Valley

  429,108

  659,414

  577,385

  Grampian

  507,060

  719,537

  712,196

  Greater Glasgow

  1,633,038

  1,398,410

  6,061,349

  Highland

  556,902

  560,331

  690,557

  Lanarkshire

  194,665

  153,050

  380,532

  Lothian

  1,018,969

  2,033,405

  1,870,490

  Orkney

  23,475

  90,826

  51,500

  Shetland

  55,099

  79,152

  21,900

  Tayside

  581,126

  1,163,484

  637,291

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  Total receipts retained by boards

  6,414,359

  9,924,788

  20,898,639

  Since November1988, boards have retained the total proceeds from the disposal of land and property and will continue to do so until March 1991. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) on 11 November 1988 at column 345. These arrangements replaced the previous rules allowing boards to retain only the first £250,000 proceeds of a single sale; the remainder was distributed to all the health boards.

  Capital allocations to boards have regard to their expected income from capital receipts.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current total of psychogeriatric beds available in each Scottish health board area; and what are the relevant Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation targets.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 25 April 1990]: The average numbers of available staffed beds in the psychogeriatric specialty in NHS hospitals in Scotland are set out in the table. Targets are a matter for individual health boards; the service has top priority among the SHARPEN recommendations which the Government have accepted.

  Health board

  Average available staffed beds1

  Argyll and Clyde

  529

  Ayrshire and Arran

  411

  Borders

  162

  Dumfries and Galloway

  211

  Fife

  528

  Forth Valley

  390

  Grampian

  635

  Greater Glasgow

  711

  Highland

  11

  Lanarkshire

  741

  Lothian

  1024

  Orkney

  —

  Shetland

  —

  Tayside

  609

  Western Isles

  —

  Scotland

  5,963

  1 Year ending 30 September 1989.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total amount of development 510
  funds allocated to each Scottish health board for the next financial year; and if he will detail allowances made for the current rate of inflation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 25 April 1990]: The percentage increase in the 1990–91 gross revenue allocation over the 1989–90 gross revenue allocation for each health board in Scotland was as follows:

  Health board

  Percentage Increase

  Argyll and Clyde

  8·10

  Ayrshire and Arran

  8·88

  Borders

  10·13

  Dumfries and Galloway

  9·72

  Fife

  8·

  Forth Valley

  8·24

  Grampian

  8·09

  Greater Glasgow

  5·86

  Highland

  8·40

  Lanarkshire

  8·21

  Lothian

  7·94

  Orkney

  9·73

  Shetland

  9·66

  Tayside

  7·75

  Western Isles

  7·46

  Further sums totalling 1·54 per cent. of the all Scotland 1989–90 allocations mainly representing resources for systems implementation, and breast cancer screening, will be allocated in the course of the year.

  Resources released by cost improvement programmes are expected to release an average of a further 1 per cent. in the current financial year.

  Boards receive an overall cash allocation and are expected to manage their expenditure within that amount. Allocations contain no specific allowance for inflation.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current waiting list for psychogeriatric beds in each of the Scottish health board areas; and what is the current average length of time between application for a full-time bed and allocation of beds.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 25 April 1990]: Information on waiting lists for psychogeriatric beds as at 30 September 1989 (the latest data available) is set out in the table. Information on average length of time between application and allocation of psychogeriatric beds is not held centrally.

  Health board

  Number on waiting list

  Argyll and Clyde

  25

  Ayrshire and Arran

  25

  Borders

  16

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  Fife

  59

  Forth Valley

  33

  Grampian

  212

  Greater Glasgow

  193

  Highland

  5

  Lanarkshire

  70

  Lothian

  125

  Orkney

  —

  Shetland

  —

  Tayside

  27

  Western Isles

  —

  Scotland

  790

  Radioactive Substances Act
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many firms or organisations have been successfully prosecuted in each year since 1979 under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960; and what penalty was incurred in each case.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There have been successful prosecutions under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 in Scotland on two charges in each of the years 1982 and 1989 and on one charge in 1990. The convictions in 1982 led to fines of £50 and £300, those in 1989 to fines of £200 and £500 and that in 1990 to a fine of £250.

  Firearms
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of firearms licensed, by category, held in Scotland in each of the past 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of firearm and shotgun certificates in force in Scotland at 31 December is shown in the following table:

  Year

  Firearm

  Shotgun

  1980

  38,752

  85,126

  1981

  38,548

  84,847

  1982

  38,115

  84,183

  Crimes and Offences in Scotland recorded by the police in which a firearm was alleged to have been used, by main firearm used and police force area

  Shotgun

  Rifle

  Pistol/ Revolver

  Airweapon

  Imitation/ Other1>

  Total

  Total (excluding airweaponsj

  Northern

  1980

  6

  2

  1

  0

  1

  10

  10

  1981

  9

  0

  1

  26

  0

  36

  10

  1982

  11

  2

  0

  19

  0

  32

  13

  1983

  4

  1

  1

  15

  0

  21

  6

  1984

  9

  0

  0

  19

  1

  29

  10

  1985

  6

  2

  2

  13

  0

  23

  10

  1986

  4

  0

  2

  12

  0

  18

  6

  1987

  11

  2

  0

  11

  0

  24

  13

  1988

  7

  4

  0

  14

  2

  27

  13

  Grampian

  1980

  22

  6

  0

  144

  4

  176

  32

  1981

  4

  1

  0

  123

  3

  131

  8

  1982

  7

  0

  0

  106

  0

  113

  7

  1983

  5

  0

  1

  105

  3

  114

  9

  1984

  8

  5

  0

  79

  2

  94

  15

  1985

  3

  1

  3

  93

  2

  102

  9

  1986

  2

  1

  0

  86

  0

  89

  3

  1987

  2

  3

  0

  122

  4

  131

  9

  1988

  3

  2

  0

  120

  3

  128

  8

  Tayside

  1980

  4

  0

  8

  22

  2

  36

  14

  1981

  9

  4

  4

  74

  2

  93

  19

  1982

  9

  2

  1

  80

  4

  96

  16

  1983

  11

  4

  1

  94

  3

  113

  19

  1984

  7

  2

  4

  57

  0

  70

  13

  1985

  4

  0

  0

  78

  4

  86

  8

  1986

  13

  0

  2

  84

  9

  108

  24

  1987

  8

  I

  1

  60

  6

  76

  16

  1988

  5

  0

  1

  32

  3

  41

  9

  Fife

  1980

  0

  0

  0

  29

  0

  29

  0

  1981

  0

  0

  1

  13

  0

  14

  1

  1982

  0

  0

  0

  24

  1

  25

  1

  1983

  2

  0

  1

  26

  1

  30

  4

  1984

  3

  0

  0

  19

  0

  22

  3

  1985

  2

  0

  3

  30

  1

  36

  6

  1986

  4

  0

  0

  48

  1

  53

  5

  512

  Year

  Firearm

  Shotgun

  1983

  37,825

  84,306

  1984

  37,750

  84,606

  1985

  38,165

  86,198

  1986

  38,295

  87,528

  1987

  38,465

  89,104

  1988

  38,341

  89,493

  1989

  33,540

  87,049

  Note: A certificate may authorise the holding of more than one firearm or shotgun. Figures for the total number of firearms and shotguns authorised to be held are not available.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will bring forward proposals to further restrict the availability of shotguns.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 introduced stricter controls on the acquisition and possession of shotguns. There are no present plans to introduce further legislation, but the matter is kept under continuing review.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by area, the number of reported offences involving the use of firearms, by category, in each of the past 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the table. Data for 1989 are not yet available.
  513

  Shotgun

  Rifle

  Pistol/ Revolver

  Airweapon

  Imitation/ Other1

  Total

  Total (excluding airweapons)

  1987

  5

  0

  0

  50

  1

  56

  6

  1988

  3

  0

  0

  35

  3

  41

  6

  Lothian and Borders

  1980

  5

  7

  3

  162

  2

  179

  17

  1981

  8

  4

  10

  125

  2

  149

  24

  1982

  13

  16

  23

  155

  11

  218

  63

  1983

  16

  3

  13

  121

  9

  162

  41

  1984

  11

  0

  14

  228

  5

  258

  30

  1985

  25

  1

  12

  329

  23

  390

  61

  1986

  19

  3

  3

  282

  21

  328

  46

  1987

  15

  5

  10

  184

  18

  235

  51

  1988

  12

  1

  4

  116

  9

  142

  26

  Central

  1980

  1

  0

  0

  93

  6

  100

  7

  1981

  4

  1

  0

  89

  0

  94

  5

  1982

  1

  0

  1

  96

  3

  101

  5

  1983

  1

  1

  1

  74

  0

  77

  3

  1984

  1

  0

  0

  68

  0

  69

  1

  1985

  0

  0

  1

  91

  3

  95

  4

  1986

  2

  0

  0

  81

  0

  83

  2

  1987

  0

  0

  0

  69

  0

  69

  0

  1988

  1

  0

  0

  25

  0

  26

  1

  Strathclyde

  1980

  24

  4

  10

  474

  50

  562

  88

  1981

  48

  3

  10

  672

  61

  794

  122

  1982

  56

  3

  21

  570

  45

  695

  125

  1983

  81

  2

  25

  645

  65

  818

  173

  1984

  92

  4

  5

  614

  88

  803

  189

  1985

  78

  0

  6

  719

  114

  917

  198

  1986

  109

  1

  4

  605

  112

  831

  226

  1987

  97

  5

  13

  586

  122

  823

  237

  1988

  103

  0

  7

  473

  151

  734

  261

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1980

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1981

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  1982

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  3

  3

  1983

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1984

  6

  2

  0

  0

  0

  8

  8

  1985

  11

  4

  1

  10

  0

  26

  16

  1986

  4

  1

  0

  8

  2

  15

  7

  1987

  1

  1

  0

  12

  1

  15

  3

  1988

  5

  2

  1

  9

  2

  19

  10

  Scotland

  1980

  62

  20

  22

  924

  65

  1,093

  169

  1981

  84

  14

  26

  1,122

  68

  1,314

  192

  1982

  98

  24

  47

  1,050

  64

  1,283

  233

  1983

  120

  11

  43

  1,081

  81

  1,336

  255

  1984

  137

  13

  23

  1,084

  96

  1,353

  269

  1985

  129

  8

  28

  1,363

  147

  1,675

  312

  1986

  157

  6

  11

  1,206

  145

  1,525

  319

  1987

  142

  17

  24

  1,094

  152

  1,429

  335

  1988

  139

  9

  13

  824

  173

  1,158

  334

  1 The rise in the "Other" category of firearm type in 1985 probably reflects the introduction in that year of a new firearm type category, "Unidentified", in the data collection procedures. Previously, unidentified types of firearm would have been forced into one of the specific categories.

  2 Variations in police recording practice can occur between areas and over time. It is known that the introduction of computerised crime logging systems has resulted in improved recording procedures and as such systems come to be more used minor corrections to recorded figures will continue to occur.

  Salmon Poaching
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to revert to the position, as described in Scottish records office document AF 62/1161, that salmon poaching prosecutions should not be taken by procurators fiscal as part of their official duties.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.
  514
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland since when, and under what statute, it has been the policy of the Scottish Office that prosecutions for salmon poaching should be instigated by procurators fiscal rather than privately.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Acts 1862 to 1868 prosecutions were usually raised by clerks of district salmon fishery boards. Procurators fiscal were also entitled to prosecute these
  515
  offences and did so in appropriate cases according to the practice in the particular district. The Salmon Act 1986 made fresh provision for the administration of salmon fisheries in Scotland and repealed the 19th century legislation. The relevant part of that Act came into effect in January 1987 since when the clerks have had no right to prosecute. Offences under the relevant salmon fisheries legislation—like nearly all other offences—are now prosecuted by procurators fiscal.

  Police
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Strathclyde on the number of officers on each relief in(a) Linwood, (b) Erskine and Inchinnan, (c) Bishopton, (d) Bridge of Weir, (e) Houston, (f) Lochwinnoch, (g) Johnstone, (h) Paisley, (i) Howood and (j) Renfrew.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 April 1990]: I understand from the chief constable of Strathclyde that all these areas lie within the boundaries of K division, the total uniformed strength of which is 399 officers. The number of officers on duty in particular areas at particular times varies according to the policing requirements.

HEALTH

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to bring forward legislation requiring the registration of homes with fewer than four residents.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to bring forward legislation requiring the registration of homes with fewer than four residents.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to bring forward legislation requiring the registration of homes with fewer than four residents.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to bring forward legislation requiring the registration of homes with fewer than four residents.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As I said on Report of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, we will seek a legislative opportunity to bring homes with fewer than four residents under control. I cannot at present say when that opportunity may occur.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals requiring the disclosure of criminal convictions by persons who are, or intend to become, proprietors, managers or care staff in private residential or nursing homes.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals requiring the disclosure of criminal convictions by persons who are, or intend to become, proprietors, managers or care staff in private residential or nursing homes.
  516
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Members for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) and for Wigan (Mr. Stott) earlier today.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to extend the powers of health authorities to allow them to make top-up payments to residents of private and voluntary nursing homes over retirement age.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no such plans. Topping up would be contrary to a basic principle of the National Health Service to meet the full cost of a patient's care unless there is a specific power to charge, for example for prescriptions.

  The White Paper "Caring for People" published in November last year proposes the introduction of a new funding structure for those seeking help from public funds for the cost of care. From 1 April 1991 there will be a single budget to cover the cost of such care, whether in a person's own home or in a residential or nursing home. We propose that local authorities should, subject to qualification, assume responsibility for meeting the cost of care, making the best use of those funds available in the light of an assessment of an individual's needs.

  Internal Contracts
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any assessments have been made of how internal contracts in the National Health Service would work.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any pilot schemes have been carried out in the National Health Service on internal contracts.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) and for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) earlier today.

  Health Service (Collaboration)
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on collaboration between the National Health Service and the private sector.

  Mr. Freeman
  Our policy is to encourage collaboration between the National Health Service and the independent sector. We expect all district health authorities to consider the opportunity for co-operative ventures as part of their regular reviews of performance.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how collaboration between the National Health Service and the private sector affects services to patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Cost-effective collaboration releases National Health Service resources for further improvement to health services for all. We expect district health authorities to consider the opportunity for co-operative ventures as part of their regular reviews of performance.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to require private hospitals and clinics to ensure that patients are in a position to pay for treatment before such treatment is given.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to require private hospitals and clinics to ensure that patients are in a position to pay for treatment before such treatment is given.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to require private hospitals and clinics to ensure that patients are in a position to pay for treatment before such treatment is given.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to require private hospitals and clinics to ensure that patients are in a position to pay for treatment before such treatment is given.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. Payment for private medical treatment is a matter for the parties concerned. The National Health Service continues to provide a high quality comprehensive service, available to all regardless of means.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the operation of the new general practitioner contracts.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The GPs' new contract was introduced on 1 April 1990. The new contract will raise standards of care, extend services and promote greater choice for patients in the family doctor services. First indications are that GPs are responding positively to the new arrangements.

  Laboratories are already reporting a significant increase in the number of cervical smear tests as GPs aim to meet the targets. More GPs are applying to attend training courses in order to qualify for the new postgraduate education allowance. Some FPCs are also reporting that well over half of all GPs in their areas are applying for a place on the child health surveillance and minor surgery lists, demonstrating their wish to take advantage of the new opportunities offered by the contract.

  We are supporting the changes being made by the new contract with very substantial additional sums to enable GPs to recruit more practice staff and to improve their premises. Between 1988–89 and 1990–91 expenditure on staff and practice premises has increased from £232 million to £359 million, an increase of 36 per cent. in real terms. I also expect to add to the £359 million for 1990–91 in the summer in order to meet the cost of commitments entered into before the start of this financial year and which are not yet fully reflected in the current allocation.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the operation of the new general practitioner contracts.
  518
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the operation of the new general practitioner contracts.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the operation of the new general practitioner contracts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The GPs' new contract came into operation on 1 April. The changes that have been introduced will raise standards of care, extend services and offer greater consumer choice in the family doctor services.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what effect the new general practitioners' contract will have on general practitioner list sizes.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the new general practitioner contract will affect doctors' lists.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Average list size has fallen steadily over the past decade. This should continue as the population is almost static and the number of GPs is increasing each year. There are no grounds for supposing that the GPs' new contract will affect this trend.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average list size of a family doctor in 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people on average a general practitioner currently has on his or her list; and what was the equivalent figure in 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on 20 February at column 717.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of the new general practitioner contract on services to patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) on 20 March at column 549.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the general budget-holding scheme.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Progress on the general practice scheme remains very encouraging. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced on 14 March at column 280, over 850 practices in England have expressed an interest in the scheme. These practices are now in discussion with regional health authorities to determine whether they are likely to meet the eligibility criteria for participation in the scheme from 1 April 1991, subject to parliamentary approval of the relevant provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any extra assistance will be available to general practioners' practices which choose to become fund-holding.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation, practices which
  519
  volunteer to join the general practice funding scheme will be able to claim an annual management allowance of up to £32,000 to meet expenses legitimately incurred in running a fund. In 1990–91 an allowance of half that level will be available in recognition of the preparatory work which practices will need to undertake before entering the scheme. Furthermore, practices which commit themselves formally to participating in the scheme will be able to claim an additional 25 per cent, over and above the 50 per cent. which all GPs can claim, of their computer purchasing, leasing and upgrading costs according to a scale to be published in the statement of fees and allowances.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources are being allocated for 1990–91 to family practitioner committees in England to enable them to fund the direct reimbursement to general practitioners for the cost of employing a wider range of practice and support staff.

  Mr. Freeman
  Family practitioner committees (FPCs) in England have been given a preliminary allocation of £359 million to fund the direct reimbursement of general medical practitioners' practice staff and premises improvement costs in 1990–91. Within this total, FPCs have been allocated £256 million to reimburse the costs of practice staff, including new types of staff. Within their overall cash limit, FPCs are free to reapportion funds between practice staff and premises improvement costs in the light of local priorities. FPC allocations for 1990–91 will not be finalised until FPCs have reported their actual level of commitments for practice staff reimbursement and premises improvements as at 31 March 1990. A further allocation will be made in June or July to meet any difference between the preliminary allocation for 1990–91 to fund existing commitments, and the actual level of commitments.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of practice staff in the average general practitioner's practice now; and what was the number in 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The average number of practice staff per partnership employed under the direct reimbursement scheme increased by 66 per cent. from 3·8 (2·3 whole-time equivalents) in 1979 to 6·3 (3·7 whole-time equivalents) in 1988.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners' practices have expressed an interest in becoming fund-holding practices.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) on 14 March at column 280.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners' practices in England and Wales have now registered their interest in becoming fund-holding practices.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Over 850 practices in England have registered their interest in the practice funding scheme. Fund-holding practices in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, but I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the 520
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales gave the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 20 April at column 1056. While not all of these practices are likely to meet the full eligibility criteria and opt to take part in the scheme, we are clearly on course to meet our target of a few hundred practices choosing to participate from April 1991.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on 20 April, at column 1048, what factors were taken into consideration in determining to make a modification to the operation of screening targets after the commencement of the new contract for general medical practitioners; what steps have been taken to minimise any disruption resulting from this change; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The change made to the target payment system followed representations from the general medical services committee of the British Medical Association. The Government have accepted the GM SC's argument and new arrangements are being implemented. There should be no associated disruptive effects. The first target payments will not be made until the end of September giving sufficient time to implement the change and to ensure payments are made on time.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what benefits there are for hospitals which choose to become National Health Service hospital trusts.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  National Health Service trusts will have substantial freedom to manage their own affairs. In particular, they will be free to determine the terms and conditions of service of the staff they employ, to acquire, own and dispose of assets, to borrow money and to retain surpluses. These freedoms will enable trusts to improve the quality of the health care services which they provide and to respond flexibly and effectively to the needs of National Health Service patients.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how services to patients will be affected in those hospitals which choose to become National Health Service hospital trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  National Health Service trusts will remain fully part of the National Health Service, but will be given substantial freedom to manage their own affairs. We intend that they should use their powers to improve the quality of the health care which they provide and to respond flexibly and effectively to the needs of general practitioners and National Health Service patients.

  Patient Care
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to promote the quality of care for patients.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives are being taken to promote a better quality of care for patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The White Paper reforms aim to provide a better National Health Service with more
  521
  attention to quality of care and customer service flowing from greater devolution, the separation of purchaser and provider functions and the introduction of contracts, wider choice and the extension of medical and clinical audit. These proposals are being reinforced by a £10 million programme of project-based initiatives to make the consumers' interest more central to the management and delivery of health care. The Government have also initiated talks with the royal colleges and other statutory bodies with an interest on assessing clinical standards in the National Health Service after implementation of the reforms. A first meeting took place on 4 April, when broad agreement was reached on the need to adopt a multi-professional approach by setting up a national clinical standards advisory group.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new proposals he has to reduce the hours worked by junior doctors.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he intends to take to limit and to progressively reduce the hours of junior hospital doctors(a) in National Health Service hospitals and (b) in trust hospitals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I recently met with representatives of all the key parties including the profession to discuss this matter.

  The talks were both productive and encouraging. A working group has been established to explore the main issues. It has been asked to make an initial report by the early summer.

  Self-governing hospitals will be expected to comply with Government policy relating to the number of hours for which junior doctors may be employed.

  NHS and Community Care Bill
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any pilot studies are being undertaken on proposals in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Although no specific "pilot studies" are being undertaken, the Health Service, frequently supported and funded by the Department of Health, is undertaking a wide range of projects designed to inform the future implementation of the proposals contained in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role he envisages for the voluntary sector in implementing the community care proposals in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We envisage a substantial and significant role for the voluntary sector in implementing proposals on community care and as set out in the White Paper "Caring for People". The voluntary sector will continue directly to provide services, represent user and carer interests, be active consultees in the care planning process and continue to respond to new and changed needs through innovative service developments. The precise role in each area will, of course, depend upon local expertise and needs.
  522
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how quality of care for patients will be affected by the proposals in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the National Health Service and Community Care Bill will affect the quality of service to patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Our proposals aim to raise the level of services in all parts of the Health Service closer to the standards already achieved by the best and so produce an improved quality of care for patients. District health authorities will have the specific responsibility of ensuring the availability of a full range of services for all people living within their boundaries. They will use contracts to specify both the nature and quality of the services to be provided. Hospitals will have much more freedom to manage their own affairs and will be able to respond more effectively to the needs of patients. The service on admission to hospital will improve by providing:—more reliable appointment times;
  —better facilities for waiting and counselling;
  —more information about the services which are available and on clinical matters; and
  —a wide range of optional extras and amenities.

  The introduction of the GP practice fund scheme will give family doctors the opportunity to decide for themselves which hospital will offer the best quality treatment for their patients.

  The effect of these, and of our other proposals, will be to make the NHS more patient conscious and better able to provide high quality care.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on steps being taken to implement the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Implementation of the Bill itself will follow from the completion of its parliamentary passage. Regional and district health authorities are well advanced in planning for implementation to ensure the delivery of improved services to patients. The Bill has been considered in detail for 147 hours in this House and is now being considered by a Committee of the House of Lords.

  For a detailed explanation of all the progress we have made in putting into action the changes outlined in the White Paper "Working for Patients" I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 20 March at column 546.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on funding for regional health authorities in 1990–91.

  Mr. Freeman
  Cash allocations for regional health authorities were announced on 14 December 1989. Total planned revenue spending on hospital and community health services in England for 1990–91 rose by £1·3 billion to £15·4 billion gross.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much the number of front-line doctors, dentists, nurses and professional and technical staff has changed since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information required is shown in the table:

  NHS Staff in post at 30 September of each year

  Whole-time equivalent1

  1979

  1988

  WTE Change

  Medical and Dental Staff2

  39,000

  44,700

  5,800

  Nursing and Midwifery Staff3

  358,400

  403,900

  45,400

  Professional and Technical Staff

  60,100

  79,800

  19,600

  Source: Department of Health (SM 13) Annual Censuses of NHS Medical and Non-Medical Manpower.

  1All figures independently rounded to the nearest one hundred (100) whole-time equivalent.

  2Includes all permanent paid, honorary and locum staff in hospitals and primary health care services, hospital practitioners and part-time medical/dental officers.

  3Includes agency staff. Not adjusted for the reduction in nurses working hours during 1980–81 from 40 to 37·5 hours per week.

  NHS Chief Executive
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the chief executive of the National Health Service; and what matters are to be discussed.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) on 20 March at columns 998–99.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities were in deficit at the end of the last financial year.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities were in deficit at the end of the last financial year.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities were in deficit at the end of the last financial year.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Information about the income and expenditure position of district health authorities in 1989–90 will be available when their accounts are submitted later in the year.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the hospitalisation rate currently achieved by the Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde district health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) raised the subject of hospitalisation rates in Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde health authority in his Adjournment debate on 22 November 1989 about funding of that authority.

  Hospital Building
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital building schemes worth over £1 million are planned or under construction.
  524
  Mr. Freeman
  From information held centrally, in the National Health Service in England there are currently 527 schemes each costing over £1 million at various stages of planning, design and construction; this represents the largest sustained building programme ever. Of these schemes, 149 are currently under construction.

  Day Care and Domiciliary Services
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward legislation to require the inspection and registration of day care and domiciliary services.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward legislation to require the inspection and registration of day care and domiciliary services.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward legislation to require the inspection and registration of day care and domiciliary services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no plans to introduce legislation for the registration and inspection of day care and domiciliary services for elderly and other dependent people.

  In-patients
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-patient cases were treated per available bed in 1978 and in 1989.

  Mr. Freeman
  Between 1978 and 1988–89, the number of in-patient cases treated per available bed rose from 14·5 to 23·3; an increase of 61 per cent.

  Leicestershire Health Authority
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the financial problems of Leicestershire health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  My ministerial colleagues and I have had a number of conversations with my hon. Friend. We have received a number of letters from members of the public also.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's latest estimate of the reduction in the number of eye tests since the introduction of charges.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's latest estimate of the reduction in the number of eye tests since the introduction of charges.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's latest estimate of the reduction in the number of eye tests since the introduction of charges.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 20 April at column 1048.

  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to base the proposed
  525
  survey of the number of people having sight tests over the last 12 months on records kept by ophthalmic opticians and ophthalmic medical practitioners rather than on the recollections of patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The survey recently commissioned by the Government is of the number of sight tests during the first quarter of 1990. It is being carried out by a market research company and is based on information obtained from patients, in order to ensure that the results are clearly independent.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any proposals to assist housebound people in need of eye tests.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am pleased to announce that regulations are to be laid before Parliament shortly, introducing a free domiciliary visiting service for housebound patients requiring an NHS sight test. The scheme will be available for those patients who are entitled to an NHS sight test but because of illness or disability are unable to travel to an optician. In future, such patients will be eligible to receive an NHS sight test in their own home. The service will benefit many housebound people, particularly the elderly for whom good eye care is so important. Opticians will receive a fee from the family practitioner committee for providing this service. It will be in addition to the NHS sight test fee. The service will come into force in June 1990.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to introduce free eye tests for all.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to introduce universal entitlement to a free NHS sight test. It is right that those who can afford to do so should pay for their optical care. Provision exists for the more vulnerable in the community who continue to receive free NHS sight tests.

  Plans have been announced to lay regulations for a free domiciliary visiting scheme for housebound patients requiring an NHS sight test.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is owing to the Durham, Sunderland and Hartlepool health authorities from private patients; and how much debt has been written off over the last five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The annual accounts for the four-year period 1985–86 to 1988–89 (inclusive) of the Hartlepool, Durham and Sunderland health authorities record sums written off in respect of private patients' debts totalling £2,493, £334 and £1,852 respectively. The amounts written off in each year (which may include sums due for earlier years) were in general significantly less than 1 per cent. of the relevant annual income. Prior to 1985–86 the annual accounts of health authorities did not provide for the separate identification of these sums.

  Information on the total amounts due to health authorities from private patients is not specifically identified in their annual accounts or otherwise collected centrally. For the health authorities concerned, I would refer the hon. Member to the chairman of the Northern regional health authority who may be able to assist.

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve the availability and quality of day care services for the mentally handicapped.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve the availability and quality of day care services for the mentally handicapped.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to improve the availability and quality of day care services for the mentally handicapped.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) earlier today.

  Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the pay and conditions of hospital doctors in the National Health Service have changed since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) on 20 April at column 1047.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital doctors there are in the National Health Service; and how many there were in 1979.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the number of hospital doctors in the National Health Service since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of hospital doctors has risen from 39,859 at 30 September 1979 to 45,574 at 30 September 1988, an increase of 5,715 (14 per cent). These figures include permanent paid and honorary staff.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any proposals to revise his Department's capital expenditure plans for the 1990–91 financial year.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any proposals to revise his Department's capital expenditure plans for the 1990–91 financial year.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any proposals to revise his Department's capital expenditure plans for the 1990–91 financial year.

  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any proposals to revise his Department's capital expenditure plans for the 1990–91 financial year.

  Mr. Freeman
  They remain as set out in this year's public expenditure White Paper.

  Food Poisoning
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has recently received representations regarding the causes of food poisoning.
  527
  Mr. Freeman
  We have received a number of questions and comments about food safety and related matters. If my hon. Friend can be more specific, I will endeavour to reply further.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received in favour of pilot schemes before implementing his National Health Service proposals in full.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Some of those commenting on the proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients" and the National Health Service and Community Care Bill have proposed "pilot studies" though it is seldom clear what is meant by that or whether this novel approach to management change would be practicable. The Government approach to implementation is one of determined but considered progress, learning and sharing the practical lessons of experience and assisted by enthusiastic volunteers. This approach has the merit of speed and sensitivity without damage to morale and the blight on development that would be the inevitable result of "piloting".

  Maternity Services
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be in a position to respond to the National Audit Office report on maternity services.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be in a position to respond to the National Audit Office report on maternity services.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be in a position to respond to the National Audit Office report on maternity services.

  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to be in a position to respond to the National Audit Office report on maternity services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Public Accounts Committee took evidence from the chief executive of the National Health Service management executive on 25 April. In due course we expect the Committee to publish a report on its findings to which the Government will in the usual way publish a response.

  Community Care
  Mr. Rees
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now bring forward proposals for users of community care services to be consulted regarding local authority care plans.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now bring forward proposals for users of community care services to be consulted regarding local authority care plans.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now bring forward proposals for users of community care services to be consulted regarding local authority care plans.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now bring forward proposals for users of community care services to be consulted regarding local authority care plans.
  528
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The White Paper "Caring for People" lays stress on both users of services and those who care for them being consulted and involved in the care plans process. The guidance which the Department is preparing to assist local authorities and other agencies will reinforce the responsibility to consult.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the funding arrangements for local authority community care.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the funding arrangements for local authority community care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) earlier today.

  Mr. Carttiss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is being done to improve financial management information systems for the implementation of community care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is predominantly for local authorities to determine the financial information systems they need to develop in order to implement community care policies in the way best suited to local needs and circumstances. Many authorities are working with the Audit Commission, and other advisers to develop their strategies and systems to support them. In addition, the Department of Health is supporting a joint project between the Association of Directors of Social Services and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy with the objective of producing guidance on financial management.

  NHS Management
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to streamline management in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in the streamlining of management within the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The NHS management executive, whose central role was proposed in the White Paper "Working for Patients", has now been set up. The management executive is in close contact with regional health authorities as they take forward proposals for the delegation of functions and other management aspects of the White Paper.

  Copies of the report, "Developing Districts", which was published yesterday and which provides advice to district health authorities to help them adapt to their new role, have been placed in the Library.

  Progress overall is good and we remain confident that management arrangements will be in place to enable the reforms contained in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill to be implemented next year.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further representations he has received regarding balloting prior to any hospital coming out of the existing National Health Service management structure.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the need for balloting before hospitals opt out of the existing National Health Service management structure.
  529
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received representations on this subject from a number of hon. Members, representative organisations and from individual members of the public since the beginning of the year. Regions will make arrangements for consulting on any proposals which are brought forward for the establishment of NHS trusts.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much nurses' pay has increased in the last four years.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the pay and conditions of nurses and midwives employed by the National Health Service since 1979.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the pay and conditions of nurses and midwives in the National Health Service have changed since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Pay for nursing and midwifery staff has risen by more than 43 per cent. on average in real terms since 1979, and over 22 per cent. since 1985. Pay levels are higher in real terms than those recommended in the Halsbury report (1974) and the Clegg report (1979).

  In 1983 the Government established an independent pay review body to recommend levels of pay for nursing and midwifery staff. All seven review body reports have been implemented in full, with staging in three cases.

  Hours of work were reduced from 40 to 37·5 a week during 1980–81 without loss of pay. This was equivalent to a 6·5 per cent. increase in pay.

  New clinical and education grading structures were introduced in 1988 and 1989 respectively, which provide better and more flexible career opportunities for those staff engaged in clinical and teaching practice. A new pay structure for senior nurse managers is currently being discussed in the nursing and midwifery staffs negotiating council.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the midwifery profession to discuss their grading.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Ministerial colleagues and I have met representatives of midwives on a number of occasions to discuss a range of matters. The issue of grading was specifically raised most recently when the Royal College of Midwives met my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in December 1988.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the current levels of nurse staffing.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the current levels of nurse staffing.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 18 April at column 875.

  Indicative Budgets
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received in response to his recently published further working paper on indicative prescribing budgets.
  530
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We expect to publish this month a further working paper on indicative prescribing which reflects the outcome of extensive consultation on the original working paper.

  Asthma
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he proposes to take to assist asthmatics.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for district health authorities to ensure that a comprehensive range of services is provided for their resident populations, including asthmatics. As announced on 21 March, we intend to make peak flow meters available on prescription by general practitioners. Suppliers of these meters are being consulted and the date from which they will become available from general practitioners will depend upon the discussions between the Department and interested parties, including suppliers. A further announcement will be made as soon as a firm date can be established.

  Medway Health Authority
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the date by which Medway health authority will achieve 100 per cent. of its funding entitlement from the South East Thames regional health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  South East Thames regional health authority's funding policy currently proposes that all districts should be within 98 per cent.-102 per cent. of their weighted capitation target by 1996–97.

  Heart Attacks
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has issued any guidelines to local health authorities about the resuscitation of elderly heart attack victims.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The treatment of an individual patient is a matter for the clinician responsible for his or her care.

  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research.

  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 19 April at column 990.

  HIV
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he anticipates making financial support available to those individuals who contracted the HIV virus through blood supplied by the National Health Service during surgery.
  531
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to do so.

  Royal College of Nursing
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last met the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing on 4 April at a meeting of the royal colleges and other statutory bodies to discuss the NHS review and clinical standards.

  Hospital Performance
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment is made by his Department of the(a) financial performance and (b) clinical success of hospitals.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department does not carry out assessments centrally of the financial performance or clinical success of individual hospitals. It is for health authorities to make such assessments as they consider necessary within the framework of their processes for planning, monitoring and review of hospital performance.

  Abortion Drugs
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on the licensing of RU486 in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the past six months we have received 41 representations about the licensing of the drug RU486 in Britain.

  Out-patients
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to improve services for out-patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Specific measures taken to improve services for out-patients include—(i) issue of a report to health authorities in December 1989 on "Reducing Waiting Time in Out-Patients"; this work is being followed up by development of a visual simulation package for use in improving out-patient appointment systems;
  (ii) issue to health authorities in March 1990 of a departmental study report on "The Role of Nurses and Other Non-Medical Staff in Out-patient Departments"; this report contains advice on changing the skill mix of qualified and non-qualified staff better to reflect the tasks required and to make best use of available resources;
  (iii) a series of six demonstration projects has been initiated by the Department at a cost of £750,000 to encourage improvements to the quality of services including upgrading of the physical environment, to complement improvement in services for patients including more efficient appointment systems. The results will be disseminated as good practice advice to the Health Service later this year. A further series of projects are being planned in 1990–91.

  British Medical Association
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association; and what matters were discussed.

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

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State met with members of the general medical services committee on 14 February when the report of the doctors and dentists review body and the pay of doctors and dentists were discussed.

  I met representatives of the joint consultants committee, which includes the royal colleges, the British Medical Association and NHS management, on 10 April to discuss the way forward on junior doctors' hours of work.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the president of the British Medical Association; and what he intends to discuss.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the president of the British Medical Association; and what he intends to discuss.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no present plans to meet the president of the British Medical Association.

  Children (Illegal Employment)
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest official estimate of the number of children illegally employed in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest official estimate of the number of children illegally employed in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest official estimate of the number of children illegally employed in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish official statistics on the number of children illegally employed in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Members for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 9 March at columns 893–94.

  Family Practitioner Services
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in expenditure on family practitioner services in the past 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The change in net expenditure on the family practitioner services in England, excluding administration, between 1978–79 and 1988–89 is shown in the table:
  533

  Expenditure

  (£ million)

  1988–89

  4,293

  1978–79

  1,329

  11978–79

  2,922

  1expenditure adjusted to 1988–89 prices using the GDP deflator

  Expenditure between 1978–79 and 1988–89 increased by 223 per cent. in cash terms, and by 47 per cent. in real terms.

  Family Welfare Association
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further support he proposes to give to the Family Welfare Association.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am pleased to announce that I have agreed a renewal of the grant made by the Department under the section 64 scheme to the Family Welfare Association of £106,000 a year for the next three years. This represents a 10 per cent. increase in funding. In addition, I have agreed a capital grant of £30,000 for the current year.

  Waiting Lists, West Norfolk
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received in respect of waiting lists in west Norfolk.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My hon. Friend wrote in January of this year to which I replied in February.

  Royal Colleges
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the presidents of the royal colleges; and what subjects will be discussed.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next intends to meet representatives of the royal colleges; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the presidents of the royal colleges; and what subjects will be discussed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) on 18 April at column 874.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from local health authorities about problems in recruiting speech therapists.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None.

  Staff-Patient Ratios
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on nurse/patient and doctor/patient ratios.
  534
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received no such recent representations.

  Patient Choice
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what ways the National Health Service reforms will affect patient choice.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A fundamental aim of the Government's proposals to improve the Health Service is to put patients first by providing choice and responding sensitively to individual needs. The proposals will stimulate better services and greater choice by delegating responsibility to local level, by encouraging competent and willing hospitals to seek NHS trust status and by making it easier for patients to obtain early and effective treatment. The new GP practice fund scheme will offer participating doctors greater ability to decide with their patients which hospital will offer the best treatment with the least waiting time for their particular illness.

  Mental Patients
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking in the move to care in the community for mental patients to give recognition to the role and skills of nurses qualified to care for them.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 23 January at column 664. The key functions and responsibilities of Health Service staff remain essentially unaltered by the proposals in "Caring for People". There are two key health care initiatives in which psychiatric nurses will be involved—continuing health care flowing from the requirement which will be placed on health authorities to ensure that discharge of patients into the community is more effective; and the production of a multi-disciplinary document following the recently produced report by the Royal College of Psychiatrists on "Discharge and After-Care Procedures for Patients Discharged from In-Patient Psychiatric Treatment".

  Deprivation
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the recent recommendations by Professor Jarman about relevant deprivation of health authority areas.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Professor Jarman wrote to the Department of Health on 9 March 1990 suggesting that the trigger point on his index for deprivation payments to GPs should be reduced from 30 to 16 or 20 points. A trigger point of 16 would extend coverage to some 25 per cent. of the population. We have considered this proposal carefully and the issue has since been debated in the House on 4 April at columns 1313–20. The Government's view remains that our policy objective of targeting payments on practices that serve areas of highest deprivation is best achieved at the present level of 30 points or more. By this means 9 per cent. of the population will attract a deprivation payment for their GPs in some 5 per cent. of the wards. The introduction of this payment is an important primary health care initiative and recognises for the first time the additional work that GPs working in areas of deprivation undertake.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to conclude the negotiations with Ordnance Survey concerning the terms on which general practitioners will be able to reproduce Ordnance Survey maps in their practice leaflets.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department expects to conclude its discussions with Ordnance Survey shortly.

  Computerised Tomography Scans
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements exist for patients of Durham district health authority to have CAT scans.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I understand that patients of the Durham district health authority needing this service are scanned in Newcastle.

  Prostate Gland Removals and Hysterectomies
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average time spent in hospital in each year since 1980 for(a) prostate gland removals and (b) hysterectomies.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information available centrally is shown in the table:

  Mean duration of stay (days)

  Year

  Prostatectomies

  Hysterectomies

  1980

  14

  12

  1981

  13

  11

  1982

  13

  11

  1983

  13

  11

  1984

  12

  10

  1985

  11

  10

  Source: Hospital in-patient inquiries 1980–85.

  Information is not available for 1986 or 1987 because the NHS was introducing a new data coding system. Data for 1988–89 should be available shortly.

  Hospital Re-admissions
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in each year since 1980 have been re-admitted to hospital in the following month to receive treatment for their original illness.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Dental Estimates Board
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance he gives to the Dental Estimates Board regarding the choice between suggesting short-term financially cheaper treatment or long-term slightly more expensive treatment;

  (2) what guidance he gives to the Dental Estimates Board regarding due notice that it should take of the treatment plan submitted by the patient's dentist;

  (3) what representations he has received about the distress and discomfort caused to many patients by the length of time taken by the Dental Estimates Board to give decisions on dental treatment plans;
  536
  (4) what is the average time taken by the Dental Estimates Board to give a decision on a dental treatment plan; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) how many complaints he received in each of the years (a) 1983, (b) 1984, (c) 1985, (d)1986, (e)1987, (f)1988 and (g)1989 regarding the length of time taken by the Dental Estimates Board to give decisions on treatment plans;

  (6) how often procedures are reviewed by the Dental Estimates Board with regard to the length of time taken to reach decisions on dental treatment plans;

  (7) how often the Dental Estimates Board reviews its procedures for the filing and retrieval of dental treatment plans.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Dental Practice Board (its name was changed from Dental Estimates Board with effect from 1 April 1989) is a statutory body, independent of the Department of Health. The board is required to consider all dental estimate forms submitted to it for approval of treatment or for approval of payment and may give or withhold approval as it thinks fit. Guidance of the type referred to by my hon. Friend is, therefore, not appropriate.

  The board keeps all of its internal operating procedures under routine review. For the last complete quarter to 31 March 1990 it responded to requests for approval of treatment in an average time of 14 calendar days. For the same quarter, in 98 per cent. of cases dentists were notified of the decision about payment by the first payment schedule following the request. The average time to notify dentists of a decision about payment was 26 calendar days, which reflects the fact that schedules are issued once each month.

  Information concerning representations and complaints about the time taken by the board to give decisions on treatment plans is not readily available. In particular, yearly statistics are not kept. Complaints are, however, very few in number and I am not aware of any specific representations concerning distress or discomfort to patients.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 42, if he will make it his policy to collect centrally and report to Parliament the figures in respect of the ambulance dispute referred to, for each regional health authority; and what is his policy on the collection and publication of such figures relating to London.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to collect this information centrally. Each health authority was responsible for making its own arrangements for emergency cover during the recent dispute and for ensuring that costs could be met from within existing resources including savings resulting from suspension of normal NHS services.

  The costs of military assistance, amounting to £4.8 million to the end of February 1990, which in part resulted from the need to bring services to a state of national preparedness, are being shared between all regional health authorities.

  Deaf Children
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers local health authorities have to require parents of deaf children to take out insurance on commercial hearing aids loaned to them under the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health authorities have no power to require any patient to insure a hearing aid, whether this be a commercial model or a model from the NHS standard range.

  NHS Trade Unions
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent meetings he has had with representatives of the National Health Service trade unions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State replied to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 20 March at columns 996–98 I have had one further such meeting.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
Lord Inchyra Lord Inchyra —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Orthoptists' Training: Funding
Lord Oram Lord Oram asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have for financing on a national basis the training of orthoptists as undertaken in paragraph 6.11 of Working Paper 10 (Education and Training) issued in conjunction with the White Paper Working for Patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government propose that from 1992 orthoptic training will be financed on a national basis and located an two or more universities in England and one college of further education in Scotland. Negotiations are in progress with a number of universities and we hope to reach agreement on financial arrangements in good time for the next financial year.
Lord Oram: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that helpful reply. I hope that there will be a good outcome to the discussions that are going on. However, is she confident that this matter is being approached with a sufficient sense of urgency? I understand that there is considerable danger that the deadline: for publication of the degrees is February next year. A great deal of preparation has to be undertaken before that properly can be done. Can the noble Baroness give the House the assurance that sufficient money for those degree courses will be forthcoming, and in good time?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I certainly hope that we shall be in a position well before February next year to publish the results of the negotiations which are now being carried on. The universities' requirements for capital funding in order to refurbish accommodation and to purchase equipment are central to the discussions. We are exploring exactly what these costs will be and how best they may be met.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Minister's assurance that negotiations are going well. Is she aware that there is a good deal of concern particularly within the British Orthoptic Society? The society seems to think, despite the upbeat approach of Working Paper 10 (Education and Training) , that the required sum of a quarter of a million sounds has somehow been lost, withdrawn or become unavailable. Since there is such anxiety, will the noble Baroness or an appropriate Minister
894
get in touch with the society to ensure that the uncertainities in its mind are removed?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on the remarks that have been made in the course of this Question. Officials are in close and regular contact with the British Orthoptic Society, the relevant universities, and the College of Ophthalmologists.
The working paper to which the Question on the Order Paper refers went out in October of last year as a consultative document. We are now considering and assessing responses with a view to issuing guidance.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, where will the funding come from? Will it come from the Universities Funding Council or from the DHSS?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps I can best quote the White Paper. It states that from the date when the new arrangements take effect the department will top slice centrally for the cost of orthoptists' training although it will look to the regions within which the centres are situated to manage the training and contracts.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend help my education and possibly that of others in the House by telling us what orthoptists are?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Orthoptists form one of the professions allied to medicine. They have traditionally been concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of muscular conditions of the eyes, in particular squints, but their role has widened and expanded over the years. Their main clients are children. Increasingly, they undertake vision screening for young children, and also work among the elderly, including stroke and glaucoma victims. They work closely with ophthalmologists and increasingly act as the first point of referral for patients from a variety of sources.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Baroness further assist us by explaining what is meant by top slicing centrally?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it means withholding allocations which would otherwise be made direct to the regions for the purpose of a particular need.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is there an established need for an increase in the number of orthoptists? If so, do government proposals take that sufficiently into account?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not aware of any particular pressure to increase the number of orthoptists. I understand that there are about 150 orthoptists undergoing training at any given time and that there are some 650 working orthoptists. I am not aware of any great demand to increase numbers.
Lord Oram: My Lords, is it not the case that the present training units are being phased out? Is there not a danger that they will be phased out before a satisfactory alternative arrangement is made? Will the Minister ensure that that dilemma is avoided?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. The negotiations taking place are intended to cover everything, including detailed arrangements for the closure of schools. Our intention is that intakes of new students to existing training schools will cease from the autumn of 1992 by which time we expect to have the new arrangements in place.

The Baltic States and Lithuanian Government
2.45 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether annexation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union in 1940 affected their right to recognition as independent nations; and whether they recognise the recently freely elected President and Government of Lithuania.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we have never recognised the legality of the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union in 1940. The question of the recognition of Lithuania as a state is, however, a separate issue. Lithuania does not at present satisfy the long-standing criteria which we apply to the recognition of a state.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this morning in Red Square thousands of demonstrators demanded the immediate return of independence to Lithuania and the Baltic States and the ending of the illegal blockage, and booed Mr. Gorbachev off the May Day platform? Also, can we not send some encouragement to Lithuania and the Baltic States and stop urging them to give in to whatever Mr. Gorbachev wants in the way that we told Czechoslovakia to give in to Hitler? Can we not at least send some humanitarian supplies to Lithuania to lift the blockade, because Lithuania is still a sovereign nation and we have never said that it is anything else?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, although I have not yet seen the film of the demonstrations, I am aware of what took place in Red Square this morning. We and our Western allies are deeply concerned about the future of Lithuania but nobody, including the Lithuanians, would profit from a deterioration in East-West relations at a stage when crucial negotiations on European security are taking place. We underline the need for a purposeful dialogue between the two parties aimed at reaching an agreement acceptable to all concerned.
As regards aid, the EC is keeping in close touch with partners over possible responses to the current situation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while we sympathise with the aspirations of the Lithuanian people, we recognise also the difficulties which confront President Gorbachev. We further recognise that Lithuania would not be in a position to seek independence today were it not for the policies of Mr. Gorbachev over the past four years. Can the noble Lord say what diplomatic steps Her Majesty's Government have taken with the United States in particular, which is independently seeking a compromise, and through the European Community?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition said in the first part of his question. Of course we should not be in the present situation were it not for the recent measures which Mr. Gorbachev has taken.
As regards consultation with the United States and our other allies, we are keeping in close and regular contact with our allies and European partners as the situation develops. The most recent statement by the Irish presidency on behalf of the Twelve was made on 21st April followed by a demarche by the Irish ambassador in Moscow. That was at our initiative. I assure noble Lords that we are keeping in close touch not only with our partners in the EC but also with the United States as to what is happening there.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that in spite of all the honeyed words he has used it is time that we took a lead on this issue and made ourselves more purposeful over the matter of Lithuania? My noble friend says that the long-standing criteria have not been reached. Can he explain what are the long-standing criteria?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was referring to the criteria for the recognition of states. As I said, that applies to the recognition of Lithuania as an independent state. Those criteria are that a state should have and should seem likely to continue to have clearly defined territory with a population, a government who are able to exercise control over that territory and independence in their external relations.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that Her Majesty's Government should associate themselves with the initiatives taken by Mr. Mitterrand and Mr. Kohl in which they suggested that negotiations were the right way out of this particularly difficult problem? Does he also agree that in the case of independent movements within the USSR to which President Gorbachev has given his assent, structured independence by means of negotiation is the right way forward rather than unilateral declarations?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree with the latter part of the noble Lord's question. The letter from Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand reflects the wishes of the West to see a constructive dialogue started as soon as possible. Both sides must move if that is to happen; and we certainly agree with the sentiments expressed in that letter.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in addition to what the Minister has already said, perhaps I may ask this question. Will he take the opportunity of reminding the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, that if the Soviet Union had not occupied Lithuania in 1939, it is highly likely that the Nazis would have won World War II and we probably would not be sitting here discussing Lithuanian independence or anything else?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not certain that I wish to indulge in that sort of speculation. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, heard the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins; but I do not intend to comment on it.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, as the Government of the Soviet Union have at last admitted to lying when they said that the Nazis massacred the Polish officers at Katyn, can we not persuade them to admit that they are lying when they say that the rape of the Baltic States by agreement with Hitler did not end the sovereignty of those nations which at the time were members of the League of Nations?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we have never recognised the legality of the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union in 1940. The Soviet Union is well aware of our attitude to that matter.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind that many of us can remember the events of that time, perhaps I may say this. We are not so concerned with the Government of the Soviet Union in the years 1940 until 1945, but with the tremendous effort the Soviet people made in support of us. The support that we had from America and the Soviet Union contributed to the destruction of Nazi Germany. Bearing in mind that Mr. Gorbachev has softened his sanctions, encouraged by President Bush, ought we not to recognise that and, together with the Americans, continue to make sensible representations to President Gorbachev in order to help him and thus ultimately all the Baltic States?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there is much that I agree with in what the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, says. We should like to see Lithuania regain its independence, which was illegally taken away in 1940. The best way to do that is by peaceful negotiation with President Gorbachev and the Soviet Union. The fact that Lithuania is in difficulty at the moment with the blockades and so on, proves that it is no: that simple just to declare independence.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us regard the suggestion that the Soviet occupation of Lithuania in 1939-40 was crucial to the Allied victory in World War II is as far fetched as the comparison between Hitler in 1938-39 and Mr. Gorbachev today?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we shall be best occupied in looking to the present time and the future rather than going back into the history to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Kennet: My Lords——
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords——
Noble Lords: Order! Cross-Benches!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would like to ask his question; he has tried to ask it many times. The noble Viscount can then ask his question, and then perhaps the House will move on.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House. Is it not the case that the Soviet constitution permits constituent republics to secede, and has permitted that for decades? Are we therefore discussing not whether Lithuania has the right to secede, but what is the best and most peaceful way to do that? Given the fact that the first action the Lithuanian Government took after proclaiming its secession was to ask all Lithuanian soldiers in the Soviet army in Lithuania to leave the Soviet army and join a national Lithuanian army, it would have been extremely difficult for Moscow to do anything except what it did.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure that I can comment on the details which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked in his question. It is true that there is the possibility of secession under the law of the Soviet Union, and that is the path which Lithuania should be adopting.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, has the noble Lord noticed the similarity to the occasion when Russia invaded Finland? Then the United States said that it sympathised and the Finnish ambassador in Washington, in somewhat unambassadorial frame, said how pleased he was that the United States, with its vast resources of men, money and materials had sent its sympathy.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that that is of great interest to the House. I do not think that we are in a position to take any military action to assist the Lithuanians, even if we wished to do so.

Diplomatic Service: Language Training
2.56 p.m.
Lord Rodney Lord Rodney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What language qualifications are required by applicants to the foreign service.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, no language qualifications are required by applicants to the diplomatic service. The service looks for candidates to show aptitude and interest in learning languages, which are then brought on as necessary with targeted language training.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which on the face of it does not seem very satisfactory or reassuring. Can he say a little more about the policy of the Foreign Office

899
and the ability of its members to speak foreign languages? Can he say what procedure they follow to ensure that the majority of our diplomats speak foreign languages?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the reason we do not restrict applicants to the diplomatic service to those who already have a language qualification is twofold. First, it would considerably restrict our recruitment at a time when competition for high quality graduates is intense. Secondly, there is no evidence that language students make better diplomats than non-language students. It is easier to train a recruit who is good in other respects to learn a language than it is to turn someone with a language qualification into a diplomat if he does not have the basic characteristics for diplomacy.
All administrative grade applicants who are successful at the Civil Service selection board are tested for the aptitude to learn languages before attending their final selection board. Once they are accepted into the diplomatic service, there is an intensive programme of language training, depending on where they are to be posted. Approximately 50 per cent. of the administrative grade are given intensive language training for specific postings after their first year or two in the diplomatic service.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it a qualification that those applicants should speak English?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Certainly, my Lords. I should hope that as they are all graduate entrants they should be fully qualified to speak English.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while accepting the proposition in the first part of the noble Lord's Answer, I should like to ask this question. Will he tell the House the level of graduates in languages that are recruited by the Foreign Office every year, and also what resources are allocated to language training for existing Foreign Office employees?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can answer both questions. Last year 32 per cent. of administrative grade new entrants had pure language degrees, and a further 5 per cent. had degrees involving languages. With regard to resources allocated to training new staff, as I have said, 50 per cent. of the administrative grade new entrants are given intensive language training for specific postings after their first year or two in the diplomatic service; others receive training at a later stage in their career. All officers are given pre-posting language training as necessary, which involves training in the United Kingdom and may involve immersion training depending on the language and the level the officer is required to reach.
I shall give two examples. Someone being posted to Italy would receive four months' training in Italian in the UK, followed by one month's immersion training in that country. For a more difficult language, such as Chinese or Japanese, he would receive 10 months' training in the United Kingdom
900
followed by 12 months' training in that particular country.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned Japanese. Is not the justification for the Foreign Office's sensible policy that he outlined to the House the fact that for many years in our embassy in Tokyo we have had far more fluent Japanese speakers than are to be found in the embassies of any other European country, and, I suspect, of any other country in the world?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his observation. I know that he takes a close interest in Japanese matters. As I said, new entrants have 10 months' training in the United Kingdom followed by 12 months' training in Japan, providing unique qualifications compared with others.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister say whether diplomats' wives are automatically given language training? Is it not important for the wives also to be well versed in the language of the country to which their husbands are accredited?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, nowadays we refer to them as spouses, of course. All officers and their spouses are entitled to 100 hours' tuition in the language of the country to which they are to be posted, and also tuition in French, German and Spanish.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while it is highly desirable that we should improve our British linguistic qualifications (which, alas, are not high) in my experience by far the most distinguished British diplomat of my generation—judged by posts held and results achieved—was almost as bad a linguist as myself?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, without wishing to ask the name of the person to whom the noble Lord refers, there is not much I can say in reply to his question.

The Blandford Fly
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, when the preliminary trials to control the Blandford Fly were successful, permission was not given for a full-scale treatment on the River Stour in April.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords approval for full-scale treatment of the River Stour was issued on 12th March.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that unexpected reply: my information is somewhat different. Can my noble friend say how many sites on the River Stour will be attacked with BTI and how much the cost is estimated to be?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, approval has been given for treating eight sites on the River Stour at an estimated cost, I understand, of £70,000.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the informal European Council Meeting in Dublin.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order 1990 will be taken.

Business of the House: Debates, 9th May
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Earl of Shannon and the Earl Baldwin of Bewdley set down for 9th May shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
The Lard 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 CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 286G:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
("Drug trafficking confiscation orders
Registration and enforcement of external confiscation orders.
The following sections shall be substiuted for section 30 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987—
"Enforcement of other external orders.
30.—(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council—
(a) direct in relation to a country or territory outside the United Kingdom designated by the order ("a designated country") that, subject to such modifications as may be specified, this Part of this Act shall apply to external confiscation orders and to proceedings which have been or are to be instituted in the designated country and may result in an external confiscation order being made there;
902
(b) make—

(i) such provision in connection with the taking of action in the designated country with a view to satisfying a confiscation order; and

(ii) such provision as to evidence or proof of any matter for the purposes of this section and section 30A of this Act: and

(iii) such incidental, consequential and transitional provision, as appears to Her Majesty to be expedient; and

(c) without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, direct that in such circumstances as may be specified proceeds which arise out of action taken in the designated country with a view to satisfying a confiscation order shall be treated as reducing the amount payable under the order to such extent as may be specified.
(2) In this Part of this Act—
"external confiscation order" means an order made by a court in a designated country for the purpose of recovering payments or other rewards received in connection with drug trafficking or their value; and
"modifications" includes additions, alterations and omissions.
(3) An Order in Council under this section may make different provision for different cases or classes of case.
(4) The power to make an Order in Council under this section includes power to modify this Part of this Act in such a way as to confer power on a person to exercise a discretion.
(5) An Order in Council under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. Registration of external confiscation orders.
30A.—(1) On an application made by or on behalf of the Government of a designated country, the Court of Session may register an external confiscation order made there if—

(a) it is satisfied that at the time of registration the order is in force and not subject to appeal;

(b) it is satisfied, where the person against whom the order is made did not appear in the proceedings, that he received notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to defend them; and

(c) it is of the opinion that enforcing the order in Scotland would not be contrary to the interests of justice.

(2) In subsection (1) above "appeal" includes—

(a) any proceedings by way of discharging or setting aside a judgment; and

(b) an application for a new trial or a stay of execution.

(3) The Court of Session shall cancel the registration of an external confiscation order if it appears to the court that the order has been satisfied by payment of the amount due under it or by the person against whom it was made serving imprisonment in default of payment or by any other means.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment it might be convenient if I indicate at this stage that I am speaking also to Amendment No. 304AA which is consequential. Although at first sight these amendments look formidable they are in fact purely technical. They correct a deficiency in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 with regard to requests from overseas countries for the confiscation of proceeds of drug trafficking.
The problem of drug trafficking is of concern to governments world wide. With a view to assisting enforcement authorities in other countries in the fight against drug trafficking, this Government have been concluding agreements with various foreign countries on mutual assistance in tracing, freezing, and confiscating the proceeds of drug trafficking. Agreements have been signed with a number of countries including the United States of America, Mexico and Spain. Unfortunately, because of the deficiency in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987, it is not possible for us to make an Order in Council extending these agreements to Scotland. The

903
amendments before the Committee would rectify that position and bring Scotland on course to take a full part in the fight against this evil trade. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: We on this side of the Chamber welcome this reform to law in connection with drug trafficking. We agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is an evil trade and that we must do what we can to stamp it out all over the world.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 287:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
("Amendments to s.8, Administration of Justice Act 1982.
Section 8 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 shall be amended as follows:—

(a) in subsection (1) for the words "have been rendered" there shall be substituted "have been or will be rendered";

(b) in subsection (1) for the word "repayment" there shall be substituted "payment"; and

(c) in subsection (1) after the word "incurred" there shall be inserted "or to be incurred".").

The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment is designed to correct a minor defect in the Administration of Justice Act. This provides for compensation to be awarded where services have been rendered to an injured party by a relative. The difficulty is that, unlike in England, damages can only be awarded where services have been rendered and therefore do not cover the future. Often in the most tragic cases it is the future that has to be considered as the more heavy responsibility.
I am aware that the noble and learned Lord's learned friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland discussed the amendment with the Law Commission but I am not aware of the result. Therefore, I merely move the amendment in the hope that the noble and learned Lord will be prepared at least to take it away and think about it. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the noble and learned Lord said, the Scottish Law Commission, on whose recommendations Section 8 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 is based, is currently considering this question in the light of the recent case of Forsyth's Curator Bonis v. Govan Shipbuilders 1989. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has asked the commission to provide advice on this important matter and it has undertaken to give it priority. The matter has already been discussed with the Solicitor-General for Scotland, as the noble and learned Lord said.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will give urgent consideration to the Law Commission's recommendations and, if appropriate, will consider bringing forward a government amendment at a later stage of the Bill. From what I understand, the commission is likely to take a slightly different approach to that advanced by the noble and learned Lord, but the end purpose is precisely the same. Given that assurance, I hope the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am pleased to hear what the noble and learned Lord said. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Restriction of periods of non-cohabitation required in relation to actions of divorce]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 288:
Page 47, line 9, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 289. At Second Reading I raised the question of whether the reduction in the period of non-cohabitation meant that divorce would become too rapid a process. The effect of the Bill would be that, with consent, divorce would be granted after a separation of one year, changing from two years. Where there was no consent the period of five years would be reduced to two years.
Separation leading to divorce is a traumatic experience for the parties concerned. I suggest that sufficient time should be allowed for the parties to be sure that they are doing what they really believe is correct. If there are children of the marriage it is important that proper arrangements are arrived at which are suitable and accepted by the parties in the best interests of the children.
Often the conciliation services are able to help; but it all takes time. In moving this amendment I suggest that the periods of time in the Bill are too short. I propose through Amendment No. 288 that we retain the period of two years and through Amendment No. 289 that we change the five years to three years instead of the two years specified in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support this amendment, to which my name is attached. I originally tabled it as a probing amendment. Since then the Lords' and Commons' All-Party Family and Child Protection Group has expressed considerable concern. Clause 43 as it stands might well adversely affect the public concept of marriage and devalue the institution of marriage to an unacceptable degree.
It is in that spirit that I hope my noble and learned friend may be able to take this amendment on board and reconsider it in the light of the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Shuna and the concern expressed by the all-party group.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: We on this side of the Committee also support this amendment. It is necessary that people should have time to think matters through properly rather than rush into the ultimate stages of divorce. I do not wish to sound pompous, but it is one of the sad facts of life today that I have received no representation from any church organisation as regards the changes being made in the divorce law. Perhaps that is a sign of the times. It may be that the institution of marriage is becoming out of date and the cheapest thing may be to destroy it. I say that in a rather flippant way.

905
However, it is rather sad that, as I have said, neither I nor my noble friend Lord Carmichael has had any representations from any church organisation on this matter.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I hope that the Committee will forgive me for intervening in this Scottish domestic dispute. Ever since the Act of Union there have been many reasons why the Scots have desired to have their own separate system of law. That system has served them very well to the present day. I venture to suggest both to my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench and to Members of the Committee who have spoken in this debate that the institution of marriage should be common to both parts of Great Britain. It is not really conducive to respect for the institution of marriage to have different periods of time affecting the continuance of marriage and divorce. Perhaps the way forward is to try to keep the two periods in step with one another.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to give some reasons and, for example, give the number of marriages which can be saved by conciliation after a year. If there is no conciliation after a year it is unlikely that further efforts will be successful. After all, the break-up of a marriage is itself a terrific decision. If there is no conciliation within a year I should like to see figures showing the success rate before agreeing with the amendment.
The Earl of Perth: I agree with those who advocate a longer period. I am ashamed to say that I am not aware of the rule in England. I hope and suspect that it is two years. In any event, one year is an awfully short time. I very much hope that this matter is not a question for dispute. I hope that the Government will bear in mind how all sides of the Committee have advocated leaving the period at two years and changing from five years to three years.
Baroness Phillips: In supporting the amendment I say to the noble and learned Lord, speaking as an Englishwoman, that we all know that the Scots have frequently led in the field of law as they have in education. Surely the sensible course would be for us to accept the amendment and then to change the English law.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish to put the record straight about religious associations. I think the Committee knows that I am a Protestant. I have received a letter from the Catholic Press and Media Office as regards Amendment No. 289. It reads:
"I write to assure you of our support for the Amendment".
I understand that the Catholic press service was established by the bishops of Scotland.
The Earl of Balfour: I cannot support Amendment No. 288 because that is where both parties have agreed 1o a divorce. As regards Amendment No. 289, there is one factor that should be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, from time to time men and women have a change of life. A man or a woman can be very unstable for a period of up
906
to three years. That difficulty can be helped by gynaecological medicine. As regards Amendment No. 289, a marriage may be saved if the period is set at three years as opposed to two years.
The Earl of Selkirk: I support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said. I was responsible for bringing in the 1975 Act which introduced the principle of the breakdown of marriage. I am sure that that principle is right and that we all accept it today. The Scottish Law Commission has gone a little too far. I have great respect for that body. I recall that when the late Lord Gardiner introduced this system I was very critical of it. I did not know the form that it would take. I now regard it with the greatest respect.
In the course of the arguments a little too much attention was paid to people who had already been through the divorce procedure. If one gets caught up in divorce there is much to be said for making the procedure simple, straightforward and short. However, let us be quite frank: two-thirds of the people of Scotland have never had anything to do with divorce. To my mind they are more important than those who have been involved in divorce.
The longer period which has been mentioned is particularly important. Whatever the future may be for this matter, we will not again lengthen the period of waiting. We should go slowly on this issue. I say to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham that there is a big difference between two years and three years. There are occasions when both husband and wife agree that the marriage has broken down and they have come to that conclusion within two years. However, there are very often reasons why one party does not agree. In those circumstances there must be a reasonable time. Three years is not an excessive period in that respect. There may be all kinds of reasons for wanting extra time. There may be financial problems and the question of the house and the children which may make one party anxious for divorce and the other not so willing to take that step. I support this amendment. It goes as far as it is wise to go at the present time.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Amendment No. 288 tabled by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Morton and Lord McCluskey, seeks to retain two years as the period of separation for divorce with the consent of both parties instead of the reduced period of one year proposed in the Bill. In making these proposals to alter the periods the Scottish Law Commission, on whose recommendation these proposals are based, stated the situation shortly and simply. It said that the periods chosen are arbitrary within a certain range.
I immediately accept that there is no absolutely correct figure to be settled. As regards Amendment No. 288, it is worthy of note that when the Law Society of Scotland considered this matter and offered its view to the Scottish Law Commission it indicated that where there was consent the period, far from being restricted to one year, should be six months. I mention that not because I agree with it but because it gives some indication of the range of

907
opinion that has been expressed in relation to this matter.
Amendment No. 289 proposes extending the period of divorce without consent from two years, as the clause proposes at present, to three years. Members of the Committee will have observed that if Amendment No. 288 is agreed to and Amendment No. 289 is not, the two separation periods will be the same irrespective of whether there has been consent. Interestingly, the Scottish Law Commission considered but rejected that possibility in its report. However, that does not appear to be the result that the noble and learned Lords' amendment seeks to achieve.
While I accept what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham had to say about matters of consistorial law, one would not want Scotland to march significantly out of step with England and Wales. We have diverged in the past and periods have been different. As I understand matters, the approach that the Law Commission on this side of the Border may be taking as it looks again at divorce may be very different from what is being proposed here. Although there is some desirability in keeping things the same, it would be a wrong approach simply to suggest that, if England and Wales wish to go in a wholly different direction on divorce, Scotland should be stuck with what is essentially the position in England and Wales at the present time.
The main criticism of the existing law is that the present periods of separation are unnecessarily long and have the effect of causing many people to rely on proving unreasonable behaviour for the sole purpose of obtaining an earlier divorce. This can frequently involve making allegations of an unpleasant and exaggerated nature against the other party, which in turn makes negotiations more bitter, prolonged and expensive and settlements harder to reach. I spent some time in private practice dealing with these matters. Nothing is more unattractive and difficult than that there should be a divorce in which parties make extraordinary and exaggerated allegations against each other. There is a group in the middle which suffers as a consequence—the children of the marriage in question.
The Scottish Law Commission carried out consultations and research which indicated that a shortening of the separation periods would be widely supported. Its consultations included obtaining comments from some 30 organisations on the commission's earlier discussion paper and conducting a public opinion survey involving some 696 persons. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is correct that probably some two-thirds of the people in Scotland have managed to avoid the unhappiness of divorce, but 64 per cent., having had no experience of divorce, supported the proposals put forward by the Scottish Law Commission as a recommendation in the Bill.
There emerged a view on consultation that separation periods of one year with consent and two years without consent would be fairer than the present two-year and five-year periods which public opinion, certainly in Scotland, regards as unduly
908
repressive. Such reduced periods should reduce the number of acrimonious disputes generated by recourse to behavioural grounds but will be long enough to prevent the risk of precipitate divorce and the undermining of marriage as a serious lifelong commitment. No one wants to take the hardback off the marriage certificate, but once the marriage has broken down there is little purpose in unduly prolonging the period before divorce can be achieved.
While clearly a case can be argued in support of the view held by noble and learned Lords that one year's separation with consent and two years without are too short, it should be observed, on the basis of the research to which I referred, that that view does not entirely accord with views in Scotland. Three years has been suggested as a more appropriate period where there is no consent. Such a period would be at variance with the current period of desertion. In this clause the ground of desertion is removed. The practical effect of the amendments would be that the period for desertion would in a sense be extended from two years to three years.
There is no place for such a ground if divorce can in any event be obtained after a separation of two years. Accordingly, if the Committee takes the view that three years is a more appropriate period of separation for divorce without consent, it may be necessary to reconsider whether the desertion ground ought to be retained. We should otherwise be placing a significant group of people—those who seek divorce on the ground of desertion—in a worse position than they are now.
It may interest the Committee to know that the Scottish Marriage Guidance Council wrote to the Scottish Home and Health Department to express its support the commission's proposals. As well as describing the proposals as "eminently sensible", the council stated:
"We can appreciate that others may be concerned about the reduction of time in relation to encouraging couples to take marriage less seriously but can honestly claim that we, in our work, have not experienced this attitude".
No absolute figure can be argued for, but given the careful work undertaken by the Scottish Law Commission, the wide range of views canvassed in Scotland and the desirability of avoiding any unnecessary resort to the ground of unreasonable behaviour, I believe that the provisions of the Bill as they stand at present should be maintained and both of the amendments should be rejected.
The Earl of Perth: Is there not room for compromise? One year is a short period. It is a question of easy come, easy go. Can we not say one-and-a-half years? There is no magic in one year to two years. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, once the period is shortened one can never go back. This is a serious matter. For most of us marriage is something of a sacrament. Even those to whom it is not enter it, I hope, with great seriousness. I hope that the period will be a little longer.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: One year is proposed where there is an agreement by both parties that the marriage is effectively at an end. Once parties have

909
resolved that their marriage is over—each marriage seems to have its own breaking point—there is little purpose in protracting the period until the parties can secure a divorce. What particularly concerns me is that if the period is protracted, the children, who are often at the centre of difficulties, will experience even greater problems than they otherwise would.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am grateful to all noble and learned and noble Lords who have spoken. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said about keeping the two countries in step is of great importance. I should like to emphasise that the fact of separation and the recognition of an irretrievable breakdown in a marriage are two entirely different matters which happen at different times. Therefore, we are perhaps going too fast in accepting the Law Commission's view.
I was interested that a member of Her Majesty's Government should rely on public opinion surveys in Scotland. Perhaps some of those in Scotland might wish that the Government paid more attention to them on other matters. But 696 people is not necessarily a full survey of Scottish views. I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage but I may come back to it later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 289 not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 290:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("Continued exercise of occupancy rights after dealing
In section 6 of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 (continued exercise of occupancy rights after dealing)—

(a) in subsection (3)(e) the words "at or before the time of the dealing" shall be omitted:

(b) subsection (3)(e)(i) shall be amended to read "an affidavit sworn or affirmed by the seller declaring that the subjects of sale are not or were not at the time of the dealing a matrimonial home in relation to which a spouse of the seller has or had occupancy rights; or").

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 302UA and 302ZA. The amendment in my name has been noticed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate who has tabled his own amendment which covers the point suitably. Therefore I shall not move Amendment No. 290 but merely express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord for what he has done.
[Amendment No. 290 not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 290A:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("Confidentiality of conciliation proceedings. In section 2 of the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976 (encouragement of reconciliation) there shall be added—
"(5) Where the parties in an action for divorce engage in any conciliation procedure designated by act of sederunt, anything communicated to a conciliator in connection with such procedures shall be privileged information and not admissible as evidence in any proceedings under this Act except with the consent of both parties and the consent of the conciliator." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: I hope that this amendment will be acceptable. It relates to
910
the confidentiality of people engaged in conciliation proceedings. The conciliation service exists to encourage parties who have decided to divorce to reach reasonable and proper decisions about custody of and access to children and about financial provision. It is important that the people engaged in the conciliation exercise should be free from any risk that they will be cited to attend court and give evidence about what was said during the conciliation process.
The amendment is in line with a practice direction of the Family Division which was issued as far back as November 1982. I hope that it meets with the approval of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, as it brings Scotland in line with England. In my view it would be a useful measure. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I should immediately say that I have some sympathy with the principle of this amendment. It is clearly desirable that parties should enter the conciliation process with no inhibitions that what they might say could subsequently be used against them if the conciliation failed and they had to resume their litigation. There are, however, issues which I believe require further and serious consideration. In particular, it would be necessary to achieve a balance between the desirability of making available to the court all relevant evidence in a case and the understandable concern about confidentiality in relation to the conciliation proceedings. Clearly we would not wish to provide blanket confidentiality which might preclude the parties or the conciliator giving evidence on, for example, child abuse. We should also wish to avoid creating any incentive to repeat something to a conciliator so as to attract confidentiality.
In addition, the noble and learned Lord's amendment would appear to restrict confidentiality to those cases which have been referred by the court within actions of divorce. As conciliation is believed to be most effective where couples resort to the service prior to any court action, it would seem desirable to ensure that the rule of confidentiality can also be applied in such circumstances and, moreover, in relation to actions relating solely to custody of or access to children. To restrict confidentiality to actions for divorce might create a bias towards awaiting court proceedings before resorting to conciliation. Such a delay would be undesirable.
I should also point out that Section 2 of the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976, which the noble and learned Lord's amendment seeks to amend, deals with "reconciliation" rather than conciliation. I believe that these points have to be addressed before we seek to alter the law in the manner which the noble and learned Lord has suggested. I understand that the Law Commissions for both Scotland and England have been giving some thought to these issues which are not easily resolved. I would like to thank the noble and learned Lord for raising this important matter, but I would ask him to withdraw his amendment with the assurance that the

911
Government clearly recognise that there may be a problem in this area and that we are as anxious as he is to find a good and practical solution. However, I believe that further work on this issue is required.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his helpful comments, even if he was not prepared to accept the amendment. In the light of those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 [Matrimonial interdicts]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 291:
Page 47, line 19, after ("arrest" ") insert ("for the words "upon the termination of the marriage" there shall be substituted the words "five years from the date when it was granted";").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment deals with the unfortunate situation which arises all too often of violence in the marriage and the requirement for a "power of arrest" and in interdict. The difficulty which will arise if the period of unagreed divorce is reduced from five years to three, or even to two years, is that one reduces the protection available to the wife—usually—who is subject to the violence. At present the court can give an interdict which lasts until the divorce takes effect and attached to that is a power of arrest. For that reason many battered wives choose to take the five-year period in order to have the protection of the court for that period of time after the separation.
If we are to reduce the period to two years, it naturally follows that the period of protection available to the battered wife is also reduced. It is for that reason that Amendment No. 291, which is in very much the same terms as Amendment No. 291A with which it is grouped, suggests a change in the wording so that the interdict and the right of arrest will last for five years from the date it was granted rather than until the decree of divorce. That has a subsidiary but very helpful effect in that it gives the police knowledge of when the right of arrest still subsists.
At present the police have considerable difficulty—which the Law Commission has recognised—in that no one tells them when the divorce is pronounced. Therefore, they do not know whether the interdict with a right of arrest is still in force. However, if you have an interdict with a five-year maximum period attached to it, the police will automatically know when that period expires. Such an interdict could always be recalled by the court at any time. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My name is associated with Amendment No. 291A, which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said, is very closely related to his amendment. The information I have on the subject is in a way quite plaintive. It comes mainly from Scottish Women's Aid, which is extremely concerned about the matter. It does not disagree with the reduction in the time
912
for a divorce being implemented but it is concerned about the protection of women if the time limit were to be reduced. From its very great experience in such matters, the organisation knows that many men who have abused their partners during the course of their relationship will continue to harrass, assault and intimidate them after separation and even after divorce has taken place. It believes that it is essential for the protection of these women that this amendment should be accepted so as to give the women the necessary protection. I also support the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This is a matter which the Scottish Law Commission addressed following representations made to it by Scottish Women's Aid when it was considering the reform of grounds for divorce. However, the commission took the view that this important question was not directly linked with the divorce reform which it recommended and which is given effect to by Clause 43. It further suggested that consideration of this question should not delay implementation of that reform.
As the commission noted in its report, a question of principle arises: is it justifiable to attach a power of arrest to an interdict relating to the conduct of former spouses but not to interdicts relating to conduct between other people? The commission's view was that in the absence of consultation it would be inappropriate to make any such recommendation in its report. It pointed out that a divorced spouse has the same protection against assault or breach of the peace as does any other citizen.
I believe that there should be consultation in this important matter and I note that the Scottish Law Commission, in one of its latest discussion papers (No. 83) on Family Law Pre-consolidation Reform which was issued on 29th March of this year, has sought comments on the desirability of proceeding as the noble and learned Lord's amendment suggests. The commission also addressed the related question of whether the definition of "matrimonial interdict" should be wide enough to cover an interdict against molestation of a former spouse.
In my view it would be preferable to undertake such consultation before proceeding to amend the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 in the manner that the amendment would require. However, given the consultation which is taking place—and it is not just a vague idea; it has reached the stage of the Scottish Law Commission putting forward this proposal in a discussion paper—I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. It seems to me that the Law Commission's views, as reported by him, are a typical lawyer's academic response to the problem. I should have thought that if one is or has been a battered wife, one is far more likely to be attacked by someone one has been married to than by an absolute stranger. There is therefore something to be said for keeping a power of arrest. But in view of what has been said and the necessity for

913
consultation—I agree that one should not bring in radical reforms to the law without proper consultation, a matter that we may come to in a future amendment—I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 291A not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 291B:
Page 47, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) In section 18(3) after the words "section 15" leave out the words "except the words in subsection (2) from "and such powers of arrest" to the end.").
The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 295 and 297A. They relate to the He using (Scotland) Act 1987. The amendment inserts in the Act that it should not be competent for a (lousing authority to hold a person to be intentionally homeless solely on the grounds that he or she does not intend to exercise his or her rights under the Matrimonial Homes (Scotland) Act 1981.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that local authorities do not classify as intentionally homeless women suffering abuse who choose not to exercise their rights under the Act. The amendments aim to close what has now become a loophole in the existing homelessness legislation with regard to the rehousing of abused women. The introduction of the Matrimonial Homes (Scotland) Act aimed, among other things, to give women suffering from marital violence additional protection through, for example, exclusion orders if they wished to remain in the matrimonial home. It was never intended to be used as an alternative to rehousing under the homelessness legislation, if the latter was what the women chose, having taken into account all relevant factors, including the safety of herself and her children. That point was made clear during the passage of the Matrimonial Homes (Scotland) Bill and in subsequent guidance. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I am somewhat worried about the amendment because if my memory serves me rightly—it is some years since I served on a local council—in the case of council houses where a husband who is the householder under the council tenancy rules has behaved badly, the local authority has a power to evict him and put the family back into the home if he has thrown them out. The wording of this group of amendments gives me the impression that they could affect a private landlord. However sympathetically I as a private landlord might feel towards the battered wife, if the husband were the tenant I might be treading on dangerous legal ground if I attempted to help the wife, however badly the husband had behaved. That is the point that worries me about these amendments.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The amendments relate essentially to the occupancy rights of cohabiting couples. I continue my refrain that the Scottish Law Commission is involved in this matter and intends to publish a discussion paper this month on the effects of cohabitation in private law as a precursor to
914
the commission's proposed codification of Scottish family law. I understand that that particular point will be covered in the paper. I wish therefore to await the outcome of the commission's consultations and to resist undertaking any piecemeal amendment of the existing matrimonial homes legislation except where it is necessary to amend the Act for purposes of clarification.
With that brief explanation I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that the matter is not one that has been neglected but compares with other matters that have already been discussed and is something that the Scottish Law Commission should consider after consultation.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement. He has given an assurance that the matter is being dealt with, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 291C:
Page 47, line 29, at end insert:
("() In section 17 of the Act of 1981, in subsection (5)(b)(iii) leave out "substantial risk of violence" and insert "substantial risk of breach of interdict" ").
The noble Lord said: The amendment again seeks to amend the Housing (Scotland) Act. It deals with homelessness. It is similar to the previous amendment that I moved. I ask the Committee's indulgence because I probably went ahead of myself with my arguments. The amendment is intended to close a loophole in the Matrimonial Homes (Scotland) Act and relates to the homelessness of a woman who feels that she has to leave the home because of the difficulties there. She should be able to claim that she is genuinely homeless. The Minister to some extent dealt with that point in his earlier reply. Perhaps he could tell me whether his earlier reply extends also to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The amendment seeks to tackle a problem encountered by some sheriffs in applying the provisions of Section 17(5)(b)(iii) which enable the sheriff to order the detention of a non-applicant spouse where the sheriff is satisfied that there is a substantial risk of violence by him against the applicant spouse or any child. The amendment would substitute the words,
"substantial risk of breach of interdict",
for,
"substantial risk of violence".
Arguably, that risk may be more easily assessed and certainly the immediate consequences of getting it wrong are less harmful.
There is a view that more radical revision of the Section 17 procedures may be required to render them more effective. In its discussion paper, Family Law: Pre-consolidation Reforms, which was published on 29th March this year the Scottish Law Commission explores the difficulties in operating that section and seeks views on a proposal to replace the Section 17 procedures with a new, simpler provision. In this instance it would seem preferable

915
to deal with Section 17 in the context of the commission's proposals without embarking on the noble Lord's complicated proposals.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am again grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Council, Dublin, 28th April
3.47 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should now like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the informal meeting of the European Council in Dublin on 28th April. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the informal meeting of the European Council in Dublin on 28th April, which I attended with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The text of the Council's conclusions has been placed in the Library of the House.
"The Council was convened for two main purposes: to consider the consequences for the European Community of German unification; and to discuss the way ahead in the Community's relations with Eastern Europe. We made useful progress on both issues.
"The Council agreed clear guidelines for the detailed discussions which will be necessary in order to incorporate East Germany into the Community, taking account of the interests of other member states. These discussions will cover trade, agriculture, fisheries, the environment and many other issues. It will be for the Commission to make proposals for any transitional arrangements which are necessary. I emphasised that derogations from Community law and practice should be brief and that we must avoid unfair competition and disruption to trade. These points are well understood by the Federal German Government.
"In the period before unification East Germany will have access to normal Community funds which have been set up to help Eastern Europe and will also be able to benefit from full access to the European Investment Bank. Chancellor Kohl indicated that the Federal Republic is not seeking any special fund for Community financial assistance to East Germany.
"A very welcome feature of the discussion on German unification was the strong support
916
expressed by heads of government for NATO and that a united Germany should be a member of NATO. This corresponds very much to our own views and those of the United States.
As regards Eastern Europe, the Council reached two main conclusions: first, that assistance from the OECD Group of 24 countries ought to be extended to East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Romania, as well as to Poland and Hungary as at present; and, secondly, that as soon as possible we should negotiate association agreements between the European Community and those Eastern European countries which are making decisive progress to market economies and genuine democracy. This responds to a British initiative before the Strasbourg European Council last December and we very much welcome the decision.
"The Council also provided an opportunity to take forward discussion on other items of European Community business, in particular political union. This has never been defined and it was clear from our discussion that there are widely differing views on what it covers. I pointed out that the term 'political union' raises anxieties among many people about a loss of national identity, national sovereignty and national institutions. I suggested that we should all make clear that political union does not mean, for example, giving up our separate heads of state, or our national parliaments, or our legal or electoral systems, or our defence through NATO.
"I also proposed that we indicate that we do not intend to alter the role of the Council of Ministers as the Community's main decision-making body, with ministers each accountable to their national parliaments; and that we are opposed to centralising powers in Europe when decisions are better taken by national parliaments and governments.
"If we could agree that none of these things would happen as a result of political union, we could show that many of the fears about it were groundless. I suggested that the positive way forward lay instead through ever closer co-operation among member states and reform of the Community's existing institutions to make them more effective and more efficient. We shall ourselves have constructive ideas to put forward for this.
"I found a number of these views shared by other heads of government. Indeed our discussions during the day, particularly on matters connected with foreign affairs and defence, showed very clearly that in practice we all continue to think in terms of keeping certain key issues as matters for national decision.
"We therefore agreed to instruct our foreign ministers to analyse more thoroughly what political union should cover and report back to the European Council at the end of June with a view to a decision then on the holding of an inter-governmental conference. Such a conference can of course be convened by a simple majority of member states. But its decisions have to be

917
reached by unanimity and approved by national parliaments.
"I will summarise briefly the other main issues which we discussed. First, the Council confirmed the commitment to complete the European single market by 1992. Secondly, we agreed to intensify preparations for the inter-governmental conference on economic and monetary union which will start in December this year. We also set an objective of finishing the work of that conference in time to permit ratification of the results by the end of 1992. It is rather early to say at this stage how feasible such a target is. The results of this conference would have to come before this House, which has already expressed its views on stages 2 and 3 of the Delors plan. Thirdly, we confirmed our commitment to a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round of trade negotiations in the GATT. Fourthly, we repeated our desire to strengthen relations with EFTA nations and extend the single market to them. Fifthly, we asked our officials to make proposals in time for the next European Council for improving the effectiveness of the Community's co-operation against drug trafficking and drug abuse.
"Foreign ministers also discussed a number of international issues. They agreed a statement on Cyprus, as well as guidelines for our approach to the CSCE summit, which we expect will be held later this year. These texts are annexed to the Council's conclusions.
"This additional meeting of the European Council set the way ahead for the Community on several important issues. It was also an opportunity to put clearly on record Britain's views on what political union should and should not mean and not least our determination to defend the powers of this House."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. As it makes plain, the crux of the discussion at the Dublin Summit was the movement towards political union. The meeting was certainly much less turbulent than was predicted. That was mainly, I think, because the Prime Minister was able to agree a four-stage programme which could lead to a European political state. Can the Minister clarify this? Are the Community leaders, or the majority of them, including France and Germany, working towards one centralised European government and parliament? The Prime Minister was reported as saying after the meeting that,
"Political union means different things to different people".
Can the noble Lord tell us what "political union" means to the Government and what policy they will aim for during the next months of negotiation? For example, will the Government be prepared to surrender more of our national sovereignty and contemplate a reduction in the powers of this Parliament in favour of the European Parliament?
918
There is a vague reference to this in the Statement, but I believe that it is very much in our interests that it should be clarified.
Is not a clear and practical policy essential, since the Dublin Summit next month to which the noble Lord referred will propose that the constitutional issue will be put on the agenda for the Rome meeting in December? It is therefore vital that Parliament and the British people should know exactly where the Government stand on the central issues.
Does the noble Lord agree that a deep, fundamental division on political union, as well as possible division on economic and monetary union, would result in a major crisis in the Community? Is it not therefore as well that we should recognise that now rather than later on?
Speaking personally, there seems to me to be a case for inter-party talks in this country to see whether agreement can be reached on the main issues, although I concede that that may be difficult. But as these will be some of the most important decisions taken in the history of this country, we should treat them with the gravity they deserve.
We welcome the decision on OECD assistance for the East European countries. We note the conclusions reached on German reunification. I particularly noted that Her Majesty's Government agree that East Germany should enter the Community and that the reunified Germany will be a member of NATO. Can the noble Lord say whether we have any further assurance that the Soviet Union will agree to this? Has it modified its views on these two aspects of reunification? We further note and support the other important agreements on drug trafficking and the GATT trade negotiations.
Those are the comments that I have to make. On the major issue of political union I shall be most grateful to have the views of the noble Lord.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. The Statement is one of extreme significance and importance. It is ludicrous to suppose that we can discuss or examine it properly in the time available at this moment. I very much hope that the official channels will provide us with an opportunity to have an extended debate to discuss the implications of the decisions and proposals made at the Dublin Summit which are of great importance to the future of the country.
In following the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, I should like to make the following relatively brief points. I welcome greatly the change of tone which seemed apparent in the Statement that has just been made from that which was used in the past. It appears to be more one of argument and persuasion than of lecturing and hectoring. I regard that as extremely important. It is high time that this country and your Lordships recognised the danger of our becoming isolated not only within the European Community but also within the Commonwealth and equally from the United States. That is a very real and dangerous possibility and one to which we should pay attention.

919
I believe that the recent Kohl-Mitterrand initiative on Lithuania, which was encouraged from Washington and from which this country was excluded, is a significant symptom of the isolation which we have reached and which means that our political role in guiding the destiny of the world in which we live has been severely diminished. We have to look to the future. It is perfectly clear that the role of NATO will change while the role of the European Community must deepen and may expand in response to German unification and in response to the events in Central and Eastern Europe. If we oppose the deepening and expansion of the role of the European Community I believe that we shall find ourselves isolated.
The central point of the Dublin Summit was political union. It seems to me that the Statement which the noble Lord the Leader of the House has just repeated to us put up a great many Aunt Sallys which simply do not exist. No one has ever suggested, least of all the French, that heads of state of the sovereign countries of the Community should be abandoned. No one has suggested that the role of national parliaments should be abolished, though clearly it will have to be adapted. When one talks about the electoral systems and the future of NATO one is talking about a different order of events. They will inevitably change. Those are not bottom-line issues on which this country will refuse to move.
National sovereignty, about which the Prime Minister speaks so often, has already been diminished by our signing of the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. If the democratic deficit which we talk about, and which is indeed important in the European Community, is to be dealt with then the role of the Council of Ministers must be altered. Its proceedings must be public and known to the people to whom it is responsible and its role must be changed.
Finally, if subsidiarity, which is a crucial element in the discussion, is to be enforced it must apply not only within the Community but within the countries which are also members of the Community.
I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will provide an opportunity for us to discuss these crucial issues which affect the future of this country very significantly so that they can be given proper consideration.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their responses to the Statement which I have repeated. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, suggested that the Statement raised a series of Aunt Sallys which were matters that had not been raised at all. Yet I was interested that the very first question which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked was whether I would, despite what was said in the Statement, confirm on behalf of the Government where the United Kingdom stands over the question of government, parliament and sovereignty in the European Community of the future. I should say in reply to that point that the Government feel that we need to be certain that the proposals for political union, not
920
so far defined, will not in any way affect the existence, role or functions of heads of state, including Her Majesty the Queen. That is one point on which I believe a great many people wish to be reassured—that we are not being drawn inexorably down a road to a federal Europe.
I should add that I believe that most people do not want to see more power accumulated and centralised in Brussels. Nor do we want to create the sort of Europe which it would be difficult for others to join later.
I was very interested that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, at the very end of his remarks referred to the doctrine of subsidiarity. One of the positive ideas of the United Kingdom is that we should like to see specific recognition that the Community should only do those things which cannot be done better by member states.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked whether, if there was a deep fundamental division on political unity, that might not lead to a crisis in Europe in the future. That is why I believe that it is so terribly important that in the Statement which I have repeated it was recorded that there was unanimous agreement to instruct the foreign ministers of the Community countries to analyse more thoroughly what political union should cover and report back to the next European Council at the end of June with a view to a decision then on the holding of an intergovernmental conference. I believe that that was wise and constructive and that it was a consequence of the intervention of my right honouraable friend.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me a direct question: could I give an assurance that the Soviet Union agrees to what has been said about the unanimous view taken by the member states at Dublin that not only is NATO important but that a united Germany should be a member of NATO? I can only say this afternoon that that was the unanimous agreement at Dublin. All the member states hope and believe that the Soviet Union will come to accept that it is in its own best interests that that should come to pass.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, we too on these Benches are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. We are very glad that the atmosphere in Dublin on this ocasion was so much happier and so much more co-operative than at some similar meetings in the past. I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister on her contribution to bringing that about.
I have very little to add to what other noble Lords have already said. However, I should like simply to make one point, which I hope is not petty and carping. The Statement talks about the anxieties among many people about loss of national identity, national sovereignty, national institutions, and so on. A little later it states:
"We therefore agreed to instruct our foreign ministers to analyse more thoroughly".
It is all very well, and I am sure that it is constitutionally correct, for President Mitterrand to

921
instruct his foreign minister as to what should be done. However, surely it is not consistent with our own habits in this country and our own constitution that any one minister, even the Prime Minister—the first among equals—should instruct not her or his foreign minister but Her Majesty's foreign minister. It should surely be a question of requesting her foreign minister to do that.
If there is already a feeling that the Prime Minister of this country can instruct her foreign minister, surely that is an indication that we have already gone much further than many of us would like towards a loss of our national sovereignty and national institutions. Perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten me.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not want to quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, about the use of a verb. It was unanimously agreed at Dublin that an initial step that is needed is an examination and analysis by foreign ministers of whether a further treaty change is necessary. They and those who advise them are the experts. It was therefore felt by the heads of government that that was what they wanted their foreign ministers to do. There will then be the report back to the Council in June. That Council will then have to decide whether to hold a second intergovernmental conference in parallel with the economic and monetary union IGC. I hope that that answer more or less satisfies the noble Lord, even if there is a slight difference over the use of a verb.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the country owes a great deal of gratitude to the Prime Minister for the stalwart way in which she has defended the interests of this country as a good member of the Community, but with the interests of this country obviously first, in resisting the urge to rush towards conformity for conformity's sake, particularly in the areas of anxiety which she spelt out? Should she not receive the wholehearted support of both Houses in that respect?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. The Statement records that the Government have positive ideas for the future of the Community. I simply wish to assure the House that, in the discussions which are taking place, we shall not be slow 10 put forward constructive ideas.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, has made what seems to me a most interesting personal suggestion; namely, that the Government should hold inter-party consultation on those matters which are of the gravest importance for the whole country and on which our future depends. I hope that the Government will consider that personal suggestion most carefully.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am interested to see that the noble Earl makes that point in addition to it being made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. I must apologise for not having
922
responded to it. I shall certainly take it on board and draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the change of tone of this Statement compared with some other post-summit communiques is greatly to be welcomed? If, to achieve that, it is necessary that there should be tilting at windmills or pretending that the monarchy must be defended—I am not sure that the Spanish, Dutch, Belgian or Danish monarchies are greatly in favour of winding themselves up or that even the President of France is in favour of losing his status as head of state—as a smokescreen for a change of tone, so be it.
Is the noble Lord also aware that, although there is widespread support in this House for the doctrine of subsidiarity—I wish that we could find another word for that concept—by which issues should be dealt with only at the level which is most appropriate, the Government's cries against centralisation are bound to be received a little cynically so long as this country remains the most determinedly centralised country in the European Community? The other two traditional, centralised countries are Spain and France, both of which are endeavouring to devolve vigorously whereas that is constantly resisted in this country. Does the noble Lord agree with regard to subsidiarity, the principle of which is that matters should be decided at as low a level and as close to the people as possible, Brussels should not do too much, but that Whitehall should not do too much either?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, although the noble Lord, who is enormously experienced in European Community matters, welcomed the tone of my right honourable friend's Statement—I thank him for that—he nonetheless referred to the need, as he saw it, for a smokescreen. At the risk of being tedious, I must underline the fact that even those most active in pressing for political union agree that the important proposals for political union, over which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and I had an exchange earlier, are linked to words which have no definition of any kind at the moment. It therefore seems sensible to try to proceed by a process of elimination. That is the process which my right honourable friend has started, although we shall now wait to see what comes back from the meetings and deliberations of the foreign ministers of the Twelve.
On the issue of subsidiarity, the noble Lord is perhaps a little out of touch with reality when he suggests that the Administration in this country does not stand as close to the people of this country as the administrations in other countries stand to their people, save, he said, for Spain and France. I simply do not think that that is the case. If the noble Lord believes that, he would be wise to go and talk to people about such matters as planning and the legal system in this country. He will find that he is not correct.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, on the face of it, the Statement which he has just made and the attitude of the

923
Prime Minister in Dublin seems very reasonable and acceptable? However, does he agree that, certainly according to the press, there appears to be some confusion as to exactly what the Prime Minister means? Is it possible for the noble Lord the Leader of the House to clarify exactly what she means? Some of us remember that she initially opposed measures in the Single European Act. However, when it came to the push, she used a guillotine to force the Act through the House of Commons, although the House of Commons and this country stood to lose a great deal of sovereignty as a result of passing the Act. Are we again hearing a great many fine words from the Prime Minister only to find, when it comes to action, that this country is again asked to lose an amount—whatever that amount may be—of its sovereignty?
Will the noble Lord take seriously the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn about inter-party talks? The matter of this country's constitution, which has been built up over a thousand years, is important. There is already a Back-Bench consensus against federalism among all parties. Will the noble Lord take the matter seriously and put it to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister that she should try to proceed on an all-party basis before any deep constitutional changes are made?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord rather briefly because we have started to go over ground which has already been covered. He asked me what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister meant in her contributions to the Council. My right honourable friend meant that we must define the term "political union"; that we shall await the report of the foreign ministers; and that Britain will then contribute to a decision at the next European Council in the light of the foreign ministers' report on whether there should be an intergovernmental conference on the issue of political union.
The noble Lord put the same point about inter-party talks as that on which I responded to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and my noble friend Lord Perth. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, will forgive me if I say that the policy of noble Lords opposite on political union has not become wholly apparent during these exchanges.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it not sensible for the Government to continue thinking about the proper location of a reunited Germany in the scheme of things? Is it not asking a bit much of the Soviet Union that it should agree to a united, armed Germany in NATO? Should we not consider for a moment what we would think if the cookie had crumbled the other way and there was a proposal that there should be a united, armed Germany in the Warsaw Pact? Western Germany is bigger than Eastern Germany; but we have to try to see the situation from the other fellow's point of view.
My noble friend Lord Cledwyn asked whether the Government can state whether the Soviet Union has
924
withdrawn its objection to a single Germany in NATO. The noble Lord the Leader of the House repeated that we on this side had no objection to it. Do we not all know perfectly well, and have known since it was first mooted, that the Soviet Union objects most strongly and is most unlikely to withdraw its objections? It was only the victory of the Right in East Germany as opposed to a victory of the Social Democrats that led to the matter being pressed so far as it has been pressed already. If anyone is alarmed by the economic advantage that might be gained by a reunited, neutral Germany in neither pact, do they think that that could be neutralised by a lowering of arms levels in the rest of Europe on both sides? I see that the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip looks anxious.
Lord Denham: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me if I interrupt him for just a moment. We are strictly limited to 20 minutes for this part of the discussion. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that it is much better to ask brief questions because that gives more people time to participate in those 20 minutes.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly right. I cannot see the Clock from here. I shall forgo my last point.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the quick answer to the noble Lord is that Germany is to be united, and the unanimous belief of the 12 member states is that a united Germany should be part of the NATO alliance.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I have been involved in the Community for many years, mainly at the industrial and commercial level. Undoubtedly a very strong momentum has developed over the years toward firms with mixed ownerships getting together on a consortium basis and working more closely together. The fear of those who do that work at the commercial and industrial level is that their momentum may not be matched by the momentum at the political level. They fear that they may find obstacles at the political level; for example, in the exchange rates, or other arrangements which could stultify that highly desirable growth.
Will the Government confirm that they consider that momentum at the industrial and commercial level to be entirely desirable, and that they will seek to do everything possible at their level to promote it further?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think that there is anything that I can reasonably add to the Statement about the movement that is taking place in Europe. Political union is ground which we have covered again and again in the past 18 or 20 minutes, and I have nothing to add. The matter that we have not mentioned at all, which arises from the very interesting question that the noble Lord asks, is that of the single market. I am delighted that the statistics that the Commission made available at Dublin show that Britain is in the lead among all the nation states of the Community in implementing the directives to bring into effect the single market.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, do the Government and the noble Lord not think that there is some relationship between Germany's membership of NATO and closer political union, however that may be defined? I should have some sympathy with the Prime Minister if she showed exasperation about the failure to define it. Are there not two real dangers for Europe? One is that its politics should be renationalised; the second is that Germany should stand independently. Is it not at least possible that Germany's membership of NATO will to some extent become dependent upon achieving a closer political union? Otherwise, is it not likely that if Germany is denied a closer political union and finds that membership of NATO will become a cause of great disturbance with the Soviet Union to which its relations are very closely tied, we could then have a Germany that would be independent, free floating and without political union? Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House say whether the Government have in mind the fact that there is a close connection between those two in the ultimate resort?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the reply to that question should await the deliberations of the foreign ministers. At risk of repeating myself, the Government feel very strongly that they would like to see specific recognition that the Community should do only those things that cannot be done better by member states. Therefore we believe in the so-called doctrine of subsidiarity. The noble Lord said that nonetheless it is surely important that cohesion within the Community should take place so that a united Germany could feel confident that it would be a part of the NATO alliance. All I can say is that we know inevitably—indeed we have welcomed it—that both parts of Germany are on a course to become unified. Therefore it was interesting that it was agreed unanimously at Dublin by all the nation states that a united Germany should become part of NATO.
Lord Renton: My Lords, would my noble friend give an assurance that the Government do not follow the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra; namely, that political union should follow commercial initiatives? Would not that place sovereignty at the mercy of commercial interests?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend is yes. Perhaps I may just explain why I so readily say yes. I understand that one of the topics that was discussed at considerable length at Dublin and which started as an initiative from the United Kingdom was that inter-trade agreements with the Eastern bloc countries should now be embellished to became association agreements. However, those association agreements will not inevitably lead to the countries concerned becoming Members of the European Community. That step could be much further off and all the conditions will have to be right. Provided that the conditions are right, we shall no doubt welcome them. Therefore I agree with my noble friend, by giving the example of the association agreements with the Eastern bloc countries, that it is not right to say that commercial cohesion should inevitably inform political cohesion.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, does the Common Market imply complete free trade throughout the European Community?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I believe that the single European market to be achieved in 1992 comes at last very close indeed to being the Common Market which we envisaged joining some 17 years ago.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I noticed in the Statement that stress was laid on the importance of a unanimous decision. I should like to know the Government's attitude to majority voting. I can understand that for important decisions one might insist on anything up to a three-quarter majority before they were taken. If the Government are to insist on unanimous decisions, it places a veto in the hands of an increasing number of states and can hold up important decisions.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer can be very quick. For example, setting up an intergovernmental conference will be decided by majority voting; but if the decisions which are needed as the result of that conference were to lead to changes in the treaties, that would require unanimity.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
4.28 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 292:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Evidence in criminal proceedings
Evidence in criminal proceedings.
.—(1) In section 32 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (evidence by letter of request or on commission)—
(a) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3A) Where any such record as is mentioned in paragraph
(b) of subsection (2) above, or any part of such record, is not a document in writing, that record or part shall not be received in evidence under subsection (3) above unless it is accompanied by a transcript of its contents."; and
(b) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(5A) In subsection (2) and (3) above, "record" includes, in addition to a document in writing,—
(a) any disc, tape, soundtrack or other device in which sounds or other data (not being visual images) are recorded so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced therefrom; and
(b) any film (including microfilm), negative, tape, disc or other device in which one or more visual images are recorded so as to be capable (as aforesaid) of being reproduced therefrom."
(2) After section 32 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Evidence from abroad through television links in solemn criminal proceedings.
32A.—(1) In any solemn criminal proceedings in the High Court or the sheriff court a person other than the accused may given evidence through a live television link if—

(a) the witness is outside the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man;

927

(b) an application under subsection (2) below for the issue of a letter of request has been granted; and

(c) the court is satisfied as to the arrangements for the giving of evidence in that manner by that witness.

(2) The prosecutor or the defence in any proceedings referred to in subsection (1) above may apply to a judge of the court in which the trial is to take place (or, if that court is not yet known, to a judge of the High Court) for the issue of a letter of request to—

(a) a court or tribunal exercising jurisdiction in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man where a witness is ordinarily resident; or

(b) any authority which the judge is satisfied is recognised by the government of that country or territory as the appropriate authority for receiving requests for assistance in facilitating the giving of evidence through a live television link, requesting assistance in facilitating the giving of evidence by that witness through a live television link.

(3) An application under subsection (2) above shall be granted only if the judge is satisfied that—

(a) the evidence which it is averred the witness is able to give is necessary for the proper adjudication of the trial; and

(b) the granting of the application is in the interests of justice.

(4) The power of the High Court to make Acts of Adjournal under the 1975 Act shall include power to make such provision as it considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of this section.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: In the midst of a Bill that deals with miscellaneous provisions for the law of Scotland, we now enter upon discussion of a group of amendments which, as appears from representations made to me, clearly have implications well beyond the private law of Scotland. In moving this amendment, I propose to speak also to Amendments Nos. 292A, 292B, 292C, 293A and 293ZA (which I appreciate is the one which relates to a proposal to disapply this provision to any prosecution under the War Crimes Bill which is at present about to start its passage through this House). That is clearly the one that attracts the most interest and attention. But if your Lordships will bear with me, I should like to explain something of the importance of Amendment No. 292 outwith the context of war crimes.
Before the passing of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 evidence in criminal trials had to be given personally in court. Section 32 of that Act usefully makes available in criminal proceedings the procedure in civil proceedings for taking evidence on commission or by letter of request. Where the witness resides outside the United Kingdom, Channel Islands or Isle of Man, his or her evidence may be taken by a tribunal in the place where he or she resides in accordance with a letter of request issued to that tribunal from the High Court or the sheriff court and accompanied by interrogatories and cross-interrogatories.
The new provision to be introduced into the 1980 Act by the new clause contained in this amendment builds in two respects on the existing provisions in the 1980 Act. I have brought these provisions forward following the consultation which I carried out as announced in my speech opening the Second Reading debate in this House on the Bill.
The first new provision makes clear that when the 1980 Act refers to the "record" of the examination of the witness under the letter of request or commission
928
procedure, that record can be, in whole or in part, a record in the form of an audio or video recording. I think that this is a helpful recognition of the increasing use of new technology. However, in order to assist the Scottish court which has to consider the evidence, it is specifically provided that the record—the video tape, for example—must be accompanied by a transcript of its contents for ease of reference by the court.
The second new provision makes it possible in certain defined circumstances and only after the court has granted its authority for a High Court judge or sheriff hearing a case with a jury to receive evidence from abroad through a live television link. There already is statutory provision with regard to England and Wales for the evidence of a witness outside the United Kingdom to be given through a live television link. The relevant provisions for England and Wales are in Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Accordingly, the provisions which we are considering are not novel, and the principle of the introduction of this procedure for taking evidence from abroad has already on a previous occasion been accepted by this House.
My consultation, to which I referred earlier, confirmed that there was general approval of the introduction of this procedure for Scotland. I should like, however, to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the procedure is not available as of right—it must be authorised by the Scottish court—and the authority of the court will be granted only if certain conditions are satisfied. The provision we are considering sets out the arrangements carefully. Either the prosecution or the defence may apply to the court for the issue of a letter of request asking the authorities abroad—a court, a tribunal or other authority—for their assistance in facilitating the giving of evidence by the witness through the live television link.
The judge is only to grant that application if he is satisfied of two things: first, that the evidence which it is averred the witness is able to give is necessary for the proper adjudication of the trial; secondly, that the granting of the application is in the interests of justice; further, in terms of subsection (1) of the new Section 32A, the evidence is admissible only if the court is satisfied as to the arrangements for the giving of evidence by a live television link from abroad.
The Crown would of course endeavour if at all possible to have the witness in court to give oral testimony there. Only if this was not possible would it be necessary to consider making use of the new procedure. Other matters with regard to this method of obtaining evidence from abroad can be regulated by rules made by the High Court in the form of acts of adjournal. This is specifically provided for by subsection (4), which provides that the High Court's powers to make acts of adjournal include power to make such provision as is necessary in connection with the new section.
As announced in this House on 8th March in the statement about the Government's response to the war crimes inquiry report, the English provision for live video links is to be brought into operation in

929
the first instance in respect of homicide trials and trials of serious and complex fraud. If the provision in the Bill is enacted, I propose to bring that provision into operation for Scotland on a similar basis.
I am sure that we all wish that all necessary evidence should be before a Scottish court considering a serious criminal charge and that the oral evidence of a witness should, in appropriate circumstances and restricted as I have indicated, be available even if he or she is living abroad. This provision does that, with the necessary safeguard that the court must grant its authority before the new procedure can be used.
Before I turn to the other amendments and in particular to Amendment No. 293ZA, given the approval that this House and another place have already given to the use of video links in criminal trials in England and Wales, whatever view may be taken about the desirability or legitimacy of using them for war crimes trials if they are to take place, I hope that the issue will not be confused and that it will be accepted that if video links are to be permitted, as they indeed are for England and Wales, it is only right that as a general principle such a provision should be allowed to the criminal courts in Scotland.
In addition to Amendment No. 293ZA there are a number of others which I understand will be moved and I should like to deal with them briefly. The first, Amendment No. 292A, seeks to enable the accused, as well as other witnesses, to give evidence to the High Court of Justiciary or the sheriff court in Scotland by means of a live television link from abroad rather than being present in court. That appears to be the effect of the amendment, but it may be proposed that the reference to the accused should be deleted as it is unnecessary.
Certainly there is a statutory provision in Section 145(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 to the effect that no part of a trial shall take place outwith the presence of the accused. This amendment, if it were adopted, would depart from that provision and I can see no reason for such departure. Accordingly, I shall in due course invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
Amendment No. 292B seeks to make it a requirement that the court in Scotland has sanctioned the arrangements for the giving of evidence by live television link by a witness from abroad before that method of giving evidence may be used. In the amendment which I have brought forward there is provision that the court be satisfied as to the arrangements for the giving of evidence by live television link from abroad before such methods can be used. I see no need for the court in Scotland specifically to sanction those arrangements provided that it is satisfied as to their adequacy. Accordingly, again I shall invite the Committee in due course to reject that amendment.
Amendment No. 292C seeks to impose a restrictive deadline for applications by either the prosecution or the defence for the issue of letters of request to seek assistance from the appropriate authorities outside the United Kingdom for the
930
giving of evidence by live television links. There may, however, be circumstances where shortly before the date of the trial it is desired to use the new procedure. For example, the prosecution or the defence might become aware of important evidence held by an additional witness abroad, or it might become apparent that a witness abroad whose name and address has already been intimated and who it was expected would appear at the trial in Scotland cannot, for whatever reason, attend the Scottish court. In either of those circumstances it would be unfortunate if that evidence were lost due to the restrictions which this amendment seeks to impose.
I should indicate though that I would envisage, if video links were to be used and applications were to be made to the court for such use, and in view of the fact that letters of request is a critical step before that can be achieved, that such application would be made to the court very considerably before the 21 days in this amendment. What the new clause that I promote seeks to provide is a flexible procedure for the obtaining of evidence in those circumstances. For that reason, I would reject this amendment and similarly invite the Committee in due course to do so.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with Amendment No. 293A on the basis that it is not necessary. The trial judge in any criminal proceedings in Scotland may entertain and decide on objections to the competency of evidence. It is important to appreciate that the use of modern methods of technology such as live television link by satellite from abroad or by direct land line to present evidence to the court in Scotland would not alter the nature or characteristics of the proceedings. In particular it would in no way affect the competence of the judge to entertain and dispose of objections to the competency of any evidence. Again I accordingly invite the House to reject that amendment as unnecessary.
Amendment No. 293ZA obliges us to consider again in the context of the Bill the issues raised by the War Crimes Inquiry and the report by Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. Williams Chalmers, the former Crown Agent in Scotland. These are difficult and possibly uncomfortable issues. They have been debated in this Chamber and in another place. On 8th March, as I have already indicated, the Government announced that they were responding to the report by Mr. Chalmers and Sir Thomas Hetherington by introducing legislation to enable war crimes trials to be held in Scotland. The War Crimes Bill has now completed all its stages in another place and gives effect to the principal recommendation of the War Crimes Inquiry that British courts should be given jurisdiction over offences of murder, culpable homicide and manslaughter committed as war crimes in Germany or in German occupied territory during the period of the Second World War by persons who are now British citizens or resident in the United Kingdom.
As will be abundantly obvious in due course, this House will have the opportunity to consider the principle of that Bill. It would seem to me undesirable and unnecessary during the course of the amendment for us to anticipate the general debate on

931
whether legislation to allow such prosecutions should be introduced.
The new clause deals with two specific procedural changes which I undoubtedly and clearly have to accept the inquiry report recommended for Scotland. The first of these is providing a procedure to enable a Scottish court to allow a witness outside the United Kindgom to give his evidence through a live television link. As I have already spelt out, such provision is already in place in England and Wales in terms of Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary explained in another place during the Second Reading debate on the War Crimes Bill that the provision in the 1988 Act was included principally for use in serious and complex fraud trials but it is not regarded as sensible to limit its application to such trials alone and to exclude it in the most serious of all types of cases—those involving the taking of human life. It is therefore intended to bring Section 32 into effect in respect of murder, manslaughter and serious and complex fraud.
The second procedural change recommended in the inquiry report is that relating to audio and vido recordings of evidence taken abroad by letter of request. It was unclear whether the record of the evidence obtained under Section 32 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 could competently include a video or audio recording. A specific provision to this effect is now included.
Both these changes are of general application. It would certainly appear to me that it is clearly in the interests of justice that our criminal courts should have the best available evidence before them. Both the prosecution and the defence should be able to call on a witness wherever he or she is in order to give oral testimony in person in Scotland or through a live television link from abroad. In some cases a television link may be the only way of obtaining that direct oral testimony.
Neither of these changes can, I consider, reasonably be regarded as representing the setting up of a novel evidential or procedural regime solely with possible war crimes prosecutions in mind. It would indeed be wrong to set up a regime specifically for war crimes. Equally, the procedures available for the obtaining of evidence for possible use in criminal proceedings in general should be available for all war crimes trials.
I could not be unaware of the depth of views that have been expressed in this Chamber on possible prosecutions for certain war crimes. I attended the last debate and it was obvious to anyone there how deeply feelings ran. However, again I suggest to the Committee that that is not the central question now before us. My concern as the public prosecutor in Scotland must be that, if there are to be war crime trials in Scotland—and I stress "if—it is only right that the fullest range of appropriate powers that would otherwise generally be available should be available in such a trial in Scotland. In particular, if there are equivalent powers available to the courts in England and Wales, those powers should be available in Scotland.
It may be a matter of concern to some Members of the Committee that the amendment is the only opportunity that is provided to raise issues affecting the evidential regime that might apply in relation to any war crimes trial. First, with respect, that is not correct. There will be the opportunity which would seem to me more appropriate to deal with such matters once this Chamber has considered the general principle of whether there should be prosecutions for war crimes.
Furthermore, if Amendment No. 293ZA were to be carried and the War Crimes Bill passed into law, there would be an extremely undesirable—indeed, bizarre—consequence. The jurisdiction that would be allowed to the courts if that Bill passed into law would not depend on the residence of an accused person specifically within a Scottish jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of the courts in England and Wales. Clause 1 of that Bill makes it clear that the jurisdiction of the court is in respect of a person who is a British citizen or is resident in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands.
I would consider this position extraordinary. I stress that this must be a matter simply of example and is not to be taken as a particular case. There might be allegations of involvement in certain war crimes defined in the War Crimes Bill involving a British citizen who was resident in Scotland. That person might be brought to trial in London because the video links allowed for in Section 32 of the English Act of 1988 were not available. If the amendment were carried such comparable powers would not be available in Scotland. I find that a rather startling and extraordinary idea.
If video links are to be allowed for in England and Wales, they should similarly be allowed for in Scotland. If they are not to be allowed for war crimes trials in Scotland, the only rational conclusion is that similarly the provisions of Section 32 of the 1988 Act in England and Wales should be disapplied in respect of war crimes prosecutions on this side of the Border. I hope that I have clearly and obviously set out the position.
If my position seems to the Committee to be logical and sensible, my suggestion is that once the principle of prosecutions for war crimes has been determined in this Chamber, it would be appropriate at that stage to decide whether the video links proposal—not only for Scotland but also for England and Wales—should be disapplied in the event of such prosecutions taking place.
As public prosecutor in Scotland, I have been very careful to avoid making any reference to a particular case. Members of the Committee will be aware that the Hetherington Chalmers Report suggested that such live video links should be permitted to bring Scotland into line with England. I want to make it very clear, particularly in view of the decision by a court on this side of the Border last week, that I am saying nothing about any particular prosecution which there may be in Scotland in the months or years ahead. Apart from anything else, it would be wholly premature of me to give any such indication that there will be a war crimes trial. Indeed, it will be obvious to many that, given the present state of

933
affairs there is no live investigation being undertaken. It is only right for me to discover whether a jurisdiction is to be given to the Scottish courts before embarking on that course.
However, I emphasise that if I have to discharge my public duty as prosecutor in Scotland by setting up investigations into allegations of war crimes and taking that to the further stage of coming before the courts with a prosecution, I should be very concerned were I to be excluded, unlike my counterpart in England, from relying on video links.
This is a very difficult matter. I hope that I have set out the appropriate way to deal with it. Whatever view the Committee takes of the disapplying amendment, I request that there should be no confusion with the more general principle which my amendment introduces. I invite the Committee to reject Amendment No. 293ZA not because I consider this to be the last and exclusive opportunity to deal with the matter of evidence but because, if that is to be the approach taken by this Chamber, it should be taken on a United Kingdom basis once the issue and principle of prosecutions of war crimes in relation to those individuals specified in the War Crimes Bill have been resolved.
[Amendments Nos. 292A to 292C not moved.]
[Amendment No. 293 had been removed from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 292, Amendment No. 293ZA:
After Clause 44, at end insert:
("( ) The provisions of subsections (1) and (2) above shall not apply to any trial involving alleged war crimes committed in German-held territory during the Second World War.").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to exclude the application of Amendment No. 292 to admit sound and videotapes taken abroad and live television link evidence from abroad as an aid to conviction in a war crimes trial in implementation of the recommendations of the war crimes report.
There are two reasons for the proposed exclusion. It is idle for my noble and learned friend to talk about undesirable pre-emption. The boot is on the Government's foot. First, the principle of the War Crimes Bill has not been accepted by this Chamber. Secondly, if Amendment No. 292 were to apply to war crimes trials, it has not yet been shown, and it must be shown, that after a delay of some 50 years, justice would be or could be secured according to our traditional standards. It is far easier to cry, "Let justice be done", than to ensure that it is done and is seen to be done according to our traditional standards.
Likewise, the sister provisions of English law, introduced, as Members of the Committee will remember, for a totally different purpose, now thought to be assimilated with and by Amendment No. 292, are called into question if used for the purpose of a war crimes trial. Let us not waste time and indulge in an argument about using what my noble and learned friend called undesirable anticipation. Let the facts speak for themselves.
First, the war crimes inquiry was set up on 8th February 1988. The report was presented to Parliament in July 1989. On 4th December 1989 the report was debated in this Chamber; its recommendations attracted somewhat scant support. On 19th December the Bill before us was introduced into this House; it was read a second time on 30th January. In a long and detailed speech lasting 26 minutes my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate at col. 174 referred to the absence of any provision allowing evidence to be given through live television links from abroad saying that he thought that such a provision would be useful. However, no mention was made of the purpose for which it would be used.
On 31st January a newspaper circulating in the north-east of Scotland referred to a discussion with my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate on 30th January. The newspaper published an article by its political correspondent under the heading, "TV links may aid war crimes trial"—a matter which had not been brought to the attention of this House on Second Reading of the Bill.
On 8th March, a government Written Answer to a Question that I tabled asking what plans they had for responding to the war crimes inquiry announced the immediate introduction of the War Crimes Bill in another place on that day and the subsequent introduction into the Bill before us of an amendment along the lines of Amendment No. 292 for the intended purpose of aiding a conviction in a war crimes trial.
Arising from Amendment No. 292, Amendment No. 293 was tabled. On 2nd April that was amended with the help of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. Why was that amendment tabled? It happened because, search as you will, the purpose for which Amendment No. 292 was introduced was simply not apparent on the face of the clause and is only apparent from the Written Answer. Unless Members of the Committee happened to read the Written Answer or the rather obscure newspaper circulating in the north-east of Scotland, nobody would have had the slightest idea of the Government's intentions on this matter. That was the reason the amendment was tabled.
On 19th March on the Second Reading of the War Crimes Bill, the right honourable gentleman the Deputy Leader of the party in opposition in another place expressed certain views in the context of the second reason to which I referred, which your Lordships may remember was the "fair trial after 50 years" assumption—Amendment No. 292. I cannot quote them; it is contrary to tradition and good form. The reference is Vol. 169, No. 74, cols. 897-900.
The right honourable gentleman made four crucial observations. First, he said that the Bill would be a better Bill if Amendment No. 272 were not to apply to war crimes trials. Secondly, he said that if there had been any real need for clarification or reform of the law these provisions would have been included in the Bill when introduced to your Lordships' Chamber in December 1989. Thirdly, he said that there were the gravest reservations regarding the removal of the provisions of Amendment No. 292

935
from the War Crimes Bill and their introduction as an amendment to this Bill.
I shall come back to that because those provisions were once in the War Crimes Bill and the separation of the consideration is part of the design or wish of the Government. For my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate to criticise the amendment of which I speak in that context is not well founded and I shall reply to that in due course.
The right honourable gentleman further said that when your Lordships discovered that the provisions of Amendment No. 292 related to the War Crimes Bill, your Lordships might oppose that amendment. Steps were therefore taken to inform some noble Lords of the situation so that they might attend, if so advised, and listen to the argument. The usual channels were kept fully informed throughout and the request for a free vote was granted, for which noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber would be grateful. The War Crimes Bill was read a first time on 26th April. It is unofficially understood that the Second Reading may be on 4th June.
I now turn to the intended purpose of Amendment No. 292, for use in war crimes trials, which rests upon three assumptions; first, that in the context of the question of principle your Lordships shall give the War Crimes Bill a Second Reading, there being no breach of convention if your Lordships should decline to so do; for we are concerned with matters of moral judgment, the distinctive endowment of man from the very beginnings of time. It is not a mandated Bill and there is no question of any party with an inbuilt majority in your Lordships' Chamber frustrating the will of another party in government in another place. It would therefore be wrong for my noble and learned friend and the Government to assume that against a reasoned amendment your Lordships would give the War Crimes Bill a Second Reading.
The second assumption is that the traditional safeguards of quashing an indictment for abuse of process on grounds of delay have not been slighted by the express provisions of Clause 1 of the War Crimes Bill. I propose to show that they have been. The third assumption in the context of the fair trial assumption is that if the procedures of Amendment No. 292 were to apply in these trials a fair trial would be secured. The rectitude of each of those assumptions is doubted for the reasons I shall shortly deploy.
Perhaps I may deal with matters of common ground before I turn to the argument—and there is an argument—on all three issues. The matters of common ground must be, first, whether the principle as to whether these trials should ensue has overriding effect; secondly, that it is wholly inappropriate to consider some of the assumptions in one Bill and others in another—a sort of piecemeal approach; thirdly, that on the fifth day of the Committee stage of this Bill there is no opportunity that can be afforded to debate these assumptions or consider how they react and interact on each other and upon the fundamental principle of whether such trials should ensue. That is not a subject for consideration
936
in a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill; it is for consideration in the War Crimes Bill where the appropriate time can be taken and all matters can be considered as they react, interact and affect the fundamental decision of whether these men should be tried at all. They are questions of procedure.
Fourthly, if such trials are to ensue it must be common ground that the laws, procedural and substantive, must be assimilated by the Bill on both sides of the Border. My noble and learned friend asked for an assurance on that and I gladly give it. I accept that if the trials are to proceed the same laws, procedural and substantive, must apply.
The next matter of common ground is that the sister provisions of English law sought to be assimilated by Amendment No. 292 were introduced to implement the provisions and recommendations of the Roskill Report to combat serious and complex international fraud and are at present in a putative pre-experimental state as no implementing rules or opposition procedures have yet been issued. It therefore comes to this. By that proposed process of assimilation in Amendment No. 292, a law introduced for one purpose in England—albeit cast in the form of general application—is to be used for a totally different purpose in Scotland. That is a curious legislative approach.
The last matter that must be common ground is of considerable importance. It was recognised as such in the war crimes report. It was said—and I choose my words with care—that it would be extremely difficult to mount a prosecution against any of these men unless Amendment No. 292 was passed. That is why it is introduced.
I have dealt with the matters of common ground. The argument as to the first assumption can be put briefly. The first point is whether genocide—that is what it was—in implementation of an act of state by subordinates of some hostile power within a limited area of general conflict during the Second World War can under convention then applicable be treated as a war crime. In the debate my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham thought assuredly not. With respect, he was entirely right. It was not accepted as a defined offence until 1948.
The second matter to be considered is whether legislation should be introduced with extra-territorial effect to implead those who owe no allegiance in respect of acts committed outside the jurisidiction of our courts. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, thought not. The Committee may remember that the noble Lord—he is unfortunately unable to attend today—reminded us that when that file was closed, in I believe 1948, it was known then that there were those who might be liable to prosecution if some sort of statute such as the one proposed were to be enacted. However, the file was closed as an act and decision of government. I believe I am right that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was then in the position of the Minister having to make the decision.
The third matter to be considered on the question of principle as to whether the War Crimes Bill is I given a Second Reading is whether as a matter of

937
morality it is right or wrong to put these men on trial after a delay of some 45 years. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg—
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. Is it in order in a debate on this amendment to deal with how this Chamber should approach the Second Reading of the War Crimes Bill when we are not dealing with that Second Reading?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am, as always, in the hands of the Committee. I consider it to be strictly relevant. It is wholly wrong, reprehensible and unfortunate on the part of the Government that I support that they took these relevant provisions out of the War Crimes Bill. However, as they have been taken out—
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I would be grateful for a clear understanding of the basis on which my noble friend makes that decision.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The only basis which I can state publicly is the view expressed by the right honourable gentleman the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the passage to which I referred. My noble and learned friend laughs, but I should not have thought it at all possible that anything like that could have been stated by the right honourable gentleman unless he had grounds for his belief. That is the basis on which I made the decision.
I was concluding the passage to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, took objection. I have only this to say further, if the Committee will allow me. Noble Lords took the view by a substantial majority that it was not right that these trials should continue. I referred to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and I was about to remind the Committee that the right reverened Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans spoke of the backlash effect, but at that time—and again the relevance is this—the question of evidence from abroad as a requisite and aid to conviction was not considered as it was not then even before this Chamber.
On the second assumption that the express provisions of Clause 1 of the War Crimes Bill would appear to oust the jurisdiction of the courts to quash an indictment for abuse of process on grounds of delay, in a recent Privy Council case a few words were said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman. He said:
"The longer the delay the less likely the trial can be fair. The trial might be unfair even if there were no specific prejudices".
This year in the Lloyd's trial, Grob and Hart, at Southwark Crown Court the indictment was quashed after 10 years' delay—justified delay—because the defendants had suffered prejudice in the preparation and conduct of their defence.
Only last week, after four weeks of preliminary submissions—this is the sort of argument one is involved with—the indictment was quashed in the Manx Bank trial because a fair trial was not possible on the ground of delay. That bank collapsed in 1982. The criminal investigation into fraud started in 1987 and the delay was held not to be justified. Where is
938
the justification for the delay of 45 years? Where are the material witnesses for the defence? How can it be shown, especially if resort is had to Amendment No. 292, that a fair trial can take place?
I conclude by saying that this way the second assumption—the ouster of the jurisdiction that the courts cannot quash an indictment on the ground of delay because of the way that Clause 1 is drafted—and the fair trial assumption to some degree merge, but not totally.
I have spoken to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, who is not able to attend, and other noble and learned Lords, some of whom are able to attend. The view is that a fair trial is just not on and that the logistics of using this amendment in those circumstances presents insuperable difficulties. With the leave of the Committee, I leave it to other noble Lords who are more experienced than I to deal with those aspects of a fair trial, especially in Scotland, where the practice as regards identification differs from that south of the Border. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: To my mind it is clear that Amendment No. 292 is being brought forward at this time only because of the War Crimes Bill. The English legislation was passed of course before the Hetherington and Chalmers report was available and therefore had nothing to do with war crimes but was concerned with Lord Roskill's report.
It is clear from the Written Answer to which the noble Lord referred that that is the purpose of the amendment. It is also clear when we consider the position about children giving evidence on television links, because that, which is perhaps a related subject, is outside the normal type of consultation in Scotland and is not included in this Bill, though I believe—I may be wrong—that there is similar provision already in England. Therefore, it is not a case of trying to bring the two together but of introducing this matter quickly in order to fit the War Crimes Bill.
It is fundamentally wrong to legislate to change the law of evidence with retrospective effect merely for the purpose of trying two or three individuals. It is one thing to change the rules of evidence to cater for events of which the prosecuting authorities are unaware or to take account of changes in technology. That is what this House and the other place did in changing the English provisions concerning television links. It is quite another matter to say—and it offends deeply against the principle of fairness—to two or three individuals, "We abhor what you are said to have done but on the present law we cannot prosecute you. Therefore, we are going to change the law so that we can prosecute you for what you did, or are said to have done, nearly 50 years ago".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that if we pass the amendment to his amendment it will open the door to the prosecution of a resident Scot in England. I have always had great respect for those who have held the office of Attorney-General and I hope to continue to have respect in future for those who will hold that office.

939
However, I am startled to think that, if this Parliament passed a Bill saying that there should be no such prosecution in Scotland, any Attorney-General would then prosecute a resident Scot in England. It would offend against everything that Parliament has said. In my view what is proposed is fundamentally wrong because it is retrospective and aimed at two or three individuals.
Apart from the question of principle there are severe practical difficulties. The use of a live television link or video-recorded evidence has not been allowed before. As I understand it, English law has not yet been used. We have not had any experience of dealing with these measures. In general I would accept the amendment because it gives a procedure which we would normally expect to be tried out cautiously, starting with fairly non-contentious evidence. I am thinking of evidence from, say, a foreign banker speaking to his records or his transactions. Instead, I understand that we are to go straight into murder trials in relation to matters that took place 40 or 50 years ago.
Clearly, from the Hetherington-Chalmers report, the evidence that is to be taken on a television link, whether recorded or live, is concerned with identification. The issue in any such trial will be whether the person standing trial can be identified as a person who committed an offence nearly 50 years ago. There are obvious difficulties about doing that. They are compounded by the difficulties of having interpretation and a television link.
The judge is only to allow that procedure if it is in the interests of justice. How is the judge to make the assessment? As I understand the procedure in England, a witness statement taken by police or the prosecuting authority is signed by the witness and is available to the defence and to the judge. That is not so in Scotland where in general the witness statement is not signed by the witness. It is not shown to the other side. Each side obtains its own statements and does not see the statements obtained on the other side. The judge sees no statements whatever either before or during the trial.
With that procedure, how is a judge, faced with a request to take evidence, to measure the evidence according to the proposed new Section 32A(3)(a)? It says that,
"the evidence which it is averred the witness is able to give is necessary for the proper adjudication of the trial".
Is the judge to see all the statements that are available? If there are 10 people who can identify and the evidence of only one has to be taken through the television link, is that necessary or not?
This amendment produces a procedure which, in general, I recognise as being necessary. However, it should be used very cautiously and is not to be tried out in a case of this type. How are we to look at the issue of a witness who is to speak to matters of substance and who is fit to travel but who is unwilling to do so? As the Hetherington-Chalmers report says:
"It is clearly desirable that witnesses of substance should appear in person before the trial court so that their evidence could be challenged before a judge and jury and the credibility of the evidence assessed".
940
It is very difficult to assess the credibility of any witness. It is done more easily if the witness is there rather than being visible only through a television link. A witness is assessed sometimes through his hesitation, the lift of an eyebrow or by a change of expression. It may be that these are factors which become distorted on television.
What are we to do as judges if we are faced with a motion to recall a witness? Is the jury to be shut up while the Russian or other authorities try to find out where the witness has got to since his evidence was recorded? There are all kinds of practical difficulties which have to be faced. Fortunately for Scotland, there are many people from the Baltic states and Poland who have lived in Scotland since the war. They have been of great benefit to Scotland. Some may well have evidence of importance. One of them, seeing a witness give evidence on the video link may say, "That evidence is wrong" and then mention a certain fact. We have all had experience of that happening.
How does one deal with that situation? These are very severe problems. I suggest that it is entirely inappropriate that this type of case should come before us at this stage. The basic principle remains. In my view it is morally wrong to have retrospective legislation of this kind. I am speaking only about Scottish affairs. I do not wish in any way to be critical of English matters. It is crucial that the standards of Scottish justice should remain high and that nothing should be done to diminish the necessary impartiality and fairness of justice. As regards these proposed trials, I strongly believe that the substantive amendment would offend against that principle. I strongly support the alternative amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has carefully and fairly set out the Government's position in relation to this very important amendment. I share the same reservations as previous speakers concerning the timing of the amendment. Although it is a general amendment, there is a deep suspicion that it was tabled for the specific purpose of covering any impending war crimes trials. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, spoke about the amendment having been in the War Crimes Bill. I should have thought that it would be much more objectionable to put this provision into the War Crimes Bill and to make an exception of war crimes. It makes more sense on a broad basis that if such changes are to be made in the law of Scotland they should be made in the way that is being suggested. In saying that, I am not saying that I accept the government amendment. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, I am not happy about the phraseology and the protection which would be required for the operation of this type of evidence.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee that the Bill is called the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. This is the fifth day of the Committee stage and each day has been bedevilled by delay. I do not lay the blame at anyone's feet but I should not like to see the discussion on the Bill being

941
polarised on the principle of the war crimes debate. We are in severe danger of going off at a tangent and being here until goodness knows when—until perhaps the same time tomorrow—in order to finish the Committee stage: It must be finished today. I ask noble Lords, with respect, to be temperate and relevant in what observations they care to make about this provision.
The issue of war crimes is one for each and every one of us. It is an emotive issue. However, we are not debating that. We are debating the principle of the fairness of the evidential procedure proposed in the amendment. First, it is about fairness in general, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is directed to whether the procedure can be applied fairly in the circumstances of a future war crimes trial. I do not propose to go into that matter in any great detail because the War Crimes Bill has not been discussed fully in this Chamber. I have looked at the Bill and I have some reservations about whether in its present form it applies to Scotland. But we can deal with that at a later stage.
On this side of the Committee there is no objection in principle to taking advantage of modern technology in order to hunt down criminals of whatever kind—be they thieves, murderers or the perpetrators of war crimes. The question of retrospective legislation is entirely another matter. It might have come better from noble Lords to show a little faith in British justice, whether in England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales. We have seen the fortunate or unfortunate consequences of two major trials already dealt with in England. On each occasion—in the case of the Guildford Four and in the other case last week—the cry went up, "This was a triumph for British justice".
If that is so, and if we are proud of our legal system—no one says it is perfect as it is individuals who deal with justice—can we not trust the courts in the long run to apply the principles of fairness in the circumstances of each case? It is for the prosecutor, whether he be in England or in any other part of Britain, to decide whether to take a prosecution against an individual. But that is not the end of the matter. The courts are the fountain of justice and fairness. Those principles have been applied, and I hope will always be applied, no matter how heinous the crime before the court.
I have reservations about the wording of the new clause even if it does come from the English Act. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that there will be acts of adjournal to deal with procedure. But it is difficult to see how the legislation can encapsulate the principle of fairness. At the moment we only have the new clause to look at. We must ask the question: on the face of it, what difficulties can we anticipate? There is a standing rule that a trial should always take place in the presence of the accused. This is a departure from that rule. The witness may be in Russia and the accused in London or Edinburgh looking at the witness through a television link. That is why I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, that in applying this principle we have to be careful how far we go.
942
I give as an example the cross-examination of a witness on video tape. How will it be achieved if the witness is in the Far East and the accused is in Britain? It is not quite clear to me at what stage it is said the live television link will come into operation. Subsection (2) of new clause states:
"a person other than the accused may give evidence through a live television link".
Is it anticipated that evidence will be available for examination by the accused prior to the commencement of the trial so that he can properly instruct his advisers on the line to be taken with the witness and on the investigations required to enable him to present a defence at the trial? A witness may come on in the middle of perhaps the third or fourth week of a long, protracted trial and give evidence to which the accused says, "That man is talking a lot of rubbish. I have 40 or 50 witnesses in that country who can prove that he is entirely mistaken". What will then happen in the trial?
Even more important, what system of law will apply to the taking of the evidence? I am given to understand from information I have received that at least in one country no cross-examination is allowed. What will happen if the witness merely gives his or her evidence and no cross-examination to balance that evidence is allowed on the video link? Will the judge then to say to the jury, "You have heard that evidence but forget it because there has been no cross-examination"? Are we to reach the other stage of having what are called trials within a trial? When it is proposed to receive evidence in this manner, either for the defence or for the prosecution, will the court be adjourned for the evidence to be heard and assessed so that the judge can make a ruling as to whether it is fair in all the circumstances to allow the person's evidence to be received?
Another question arises as a matter of practicability. What will happen to the immunity of the lawyer who goes to a foreign country? I give as an example someone who has offended against Russia. If in the course of cross-examination the counsel or lawyer has to make certain propositions about the Russian state which in themselves are an offence against the law of Russia, is the lawyer to carry his immunity with him from Britain to Russia; and if so, how will it be enforced if the lawyer in Russia is taken downstairs for a considerable time? I pose these questions at this stage to indicate why I am unhappy about some of the phraseology.
I am concerned in particular about proposed new Section 32A(l)(c). It states that a live television link will be allowed if,
"the court is satisfied as to the arrangements for the giving of evidence in that manner by that witness".
That poses a problem as to how a judge sitting in Britain will be satisfied as to the manner of giving the evidence. I know that it may be an exaggerated example, but while the witness is appearing on television apparently giving a free account of his history how is the judge to know that someone in the background is not menacing him to give evidence in a certain way? How will the British judge know that short of going to the place and examining where the evidence will be given?

943
The same problem arises ultimately in subsection (3)(b) of New Section 32A where we see the test:
"The granting of the application is in the interests of justice".
I ask whether that is the proper test. Surely the proper test is whether the application is fair in the interests of justice. We come back to the touchstone of fairness. The test is much narrower than the interests of justice.
As I said at the outset, I am not taking up any of the Committee's time on the question of the principle of prosecuting war criminals. That is completely irrelevant at this stage. We must not shrink from the use of modern technology but equally we must be careful about resorting to evidential short-cuts which may lead to injustice and unfairness. That is why I should like to see more consideration given to the wording of the new clause.
It is well recognised that in war crimes—and, perhaps, in other crimes—with so much international movement involved, there will be witnesses who refuse to come to this country. The broad interests of justice require that their evidence should be obtained as quickly and as fairly as possible so as to bring the perpetrators of whatever crime it may be to justice. Those are the observations I wish to make at this stage of the debate. I await with interest the contributions of other Members of the Committee.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Soper: This is fundamentally a debate on justice. Therefore, I propose to try to say something about the Christian approach to justice in the light of the particular evidence which has been propounded today of one gate into that very large field. I do not believe that you can separate justice that belongs to the Christian faith from the deliberations of an officially Christian Chamber. I intend briefly to say three things about Christian justice as represented by the Christian Church.
The first does not initially sound too complimentary. It is the doctrine of original sin which most people avoid because it is so disagreeable. But it should be some comfort as well as being in the last analysis, a commendation of humility that those who judge are already guilty to some extent and that this world is contaminated by evil in so far as what our first forefather did has reverberated in all kinds of troubles ever since. We are not in any position to take an absolute position on justice because we are to some extent contaminated by an environment which is soaked with a very great deal of iniquity.
Secondly, the condition of this planet is not the ultimate residence of the children of God. We are beginning to see much more clearly than did our fathers that we have only a temporary lease of this earth. That should remind us of one of the great doctrines of the faith of our Hebrew fathers: there is no ultimate meaning in life, except that that life belongs to a larger area of which we are very largely ignorant but for which we must make some preparation and show care. Therefore, I do not
944
believe that there is any possibility of final and absolute justice on this planet.
Thirdly, I should be desolate in that concept were it not for the fact that I am also encouraged to believe that what we leave undone, because we cannot possibly accomplish it, God will in his good purpose continue to do in a way which has been impossible for us. That leads, of course, to highly undesirable and unpleasant concepts of heaven or hell. Indeed, there is no doubt that the measure of our cognizance of that future life becomes more dim almost daily. As far as I can remember, in my advocacy of the Christian faith I receive very few questions about hell; although I must remind myself and, indeed, dare to remind this Chamber that it is a constituent part of the Christian faith that the element of evil, which is the second strongest element of the universe, is overcome finally in the eternal purpose and love of God.
Members of the Committee will permit these ecclesiastical and theological references because they bear, as I see it, intimately upon the question before this Chamber today. I do not believe that it is possible to provide absolute justice. I take it that we cannot prosecute the Katyn murderers who were not Germans. We cannot escape from the contamination of the world in which we live, however decent and aspirate may be our desires for a better life. We can make partial, humble and compassionate judgments. Those judgments are by no means final; but they contribute to a preparation on this planet for what I believe is an eternal life offered to those who learn here sufficiently to accommodate themselves to the change which will be theirs when they die.
In that light, although this does sound a little like a sermon—and I make no apology for that—I believe that if the bishops were present today they would be in concordance ecumenically with me, or I should be in agreement with them, on this matter. We are now faced with an ultimate question: whether or not to prosecute in a very imperfect context the evils of the past, to shift the soot and the dirt of yesterday and to re-light some of the passions which were then ignited; or rather to light a candle for a future which, whatever may be the imperfections of our judgments, would at least not be a reiteration of their failures and inconsistencies.
I agree that that is not immediately applicable to the kind of argument to which we have been submitted today and which we have enjoyed in many respects. However, I believe that you cannot ignore the wider view if you are even to meet the hazards of one or more of the incidentals of trying to make sense, and above all to make decency, of the world in which we live which is in such dire peril today. I happen to believe that it needs above everything else a recognition of the fact that to let some bygones be bygones is not a confession of failure; it is the only way forward. In that regard I commend to the Committee the observations which I have made.
I believe that ultimately the hope of the future is the compassion of today, rather than the reminiscence—however dreadful or informative it may have been—of past days. That is a plea. I do not make it against the background of condonation of evil. I have been to Auschwitz. I was there almost

945
a fortnight after it had been frozen by the Russians. I saw the various instruments of torture still lying on the tables.
Perhaps I should conclude by saying that whenever I am concerned to say something about the Jewish people—and it is inferential in this particular amendment—I feel that I ought to apologise to them for the continual proclamation by the Christian Church of deicide which has only quite recently been repudiated. It is in that light that I am emotionally disturbed when I find any inference propagated that we should forget the past. I do not want to forget it; but I want to do justice in the future for those who have been so wickedly misused in the past. That is the one contribution I dare to make to this debate.
Lord Beloff: This might be an opportunity for a member of the Jewish community to which the noble Lord so generously and feelingly referred to make a few comments. I do not differ from him substantially in that it is always desirable that we should consider the present and the future rather than the past. However, my difference from him and from the movers of the amendment which we are discussing—that is, the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—may be that we risk confusing ourselves about the present and the future by a too ready acquiescence in the obliteration of the past.
I listened with great care, as I am sure did all Members of the Committee, to the long, complicated and informed speech of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and also to the supporting speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. I may disagree on detail. I have never regarded Mr. Roy Hattersley as a supreme authority on the internal affairs of my party. However, if my noble friend feels differently, that is no reason for disagreement.
During my noble friend's speech I felt that if the argument was, as it largely seemed, a technical and legal one in opposition to the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, it might have come better from someone who had not in our previous debate on war crimes been so emphatic as to the undesirability in principle of proceeding against war criminals. It has been said that we have not yet considered the Bill. That is true. However, we considered in great detail the Hetherington-Chalmers report. Although I agree with my noble friend that most of the speakers were critical of the conclusions reached, I should point out that three or four noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Jakobovits—who, unfortunately, cannot be with us today—made speeches on the other side.
My chief reason for feeling as I do about the amendment is due to its wording, because it provides:
"The provisions … shall not apply to any trial involving alleged war crimes".
Does that mean that the amendment's proponents do not believe that those crimes took place because the word "alleged" is affixed to the word "crimes"? I should have thought that only the lunatic fringe of the neo-Nazis—
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. The reason for the wording is that it is that of Clause 1 of the War Crimes Bill which refers to alleged offences.
Lord Beloff: Alleged offences refers to the possibility of the prosecution of alleged offenders. It is true that until persons have been prosecuted, and conceivably found guilty, what is against them is the allegation that they have committed offences. To use the words "alleged war crimes", particularly in the light of some speeches made when the Hetherington-Chalmers Report was debated in this place, seems to me to call into question the veracity of those crimes as detailed at considerable length by Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. Chalmers.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: If the noble Lord will give way for one moment: no, we do not call into question the veracity of those terrible crimes. No one but a heartless lunatic would do so. All we are saying is that no man is assumed to be guilty until he has been convicted of having committed the offence.
Lord Beloff: I am delighted to hear, and I hope that the Committee is delighted to hear, that statement. The question then arises: would it not have been better to put the amendment in that form or to have made the amendment refer specifically to the procedures to which the noble Lord objects? I do not wish this afternoon to return to or prolong the debate about those crimes. It may be more appropriate to so do if and when we have a Second Reading. To have tabled the amendment in those words today prejudices the issue, and I hope that the Commitee will agree with my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate and reject it.
The Earl of Longford: It is entirely appropriate that a Jewish Member of the Committee of the utmost distinction and eloquence should contribute to the discussion. I wish to say a few words only from the point of view of Christian forgiveness. If anyone wishes to know what are my qualifications, I at least have written a book on forgiveness which was published last year. I cannot see anyone else in the Chamber who can claim that peculiar distinction.
I submitted in that book—I do not say that it was widely reviewed, but those who reviewed it did not dispute my submission—that forgiveness in the modern sense is a Christian contribution to civilisation. I agree that a large part—some people would say the larger part—of Christian ethics derives from the Old Testament, but not forgiveness of man by man. There is a chapter in my book about the Jewish approach to forgiveness. I have discussed the matter with various rabbis. No one would claim—at least, I do not believe that any rabbis would claim—that one can find forgiveness of man by man in the Old Testament. One can find the forgiveness of man by God, but not the forgiveness of man by man. That concept was introduced by Jesus Christ. Rabbis would tell us that it was introduced into the Jewish religion soon afterwards in the Talmud. It is a distinctive Christian virtue. Most of the Christian ethics derive from the Old Testament.

947
Wherever forgiveness started, most of us would today regard it as a virtue to be a forgiving person. If one was to say that someone was an unforgiving person that would be regarded as insulting and almost libellous. We regard the capacity to forgive as a virtue, but there is one problem. If anyone studies the matter theoretically he soon runs into that problem: no one can forgive someone who has not injured oneself.
Baroness Phillips: Hear, hear.
The Earl of Longford: My noble friend says "Hear, hear", but she may not have considered all the implications. If one says that no one can forgive anyone unless one has been injured by that person, murderers can never be forgiven because the men that they have murdered are dead. One must realise the limitations in the idea that one can only forgive those who have injured oneself. No community could ever forgive another community. The Germans could never be forgiven. Some parties—I will not say which—in the long history of Anglo-Irish relations would never be able to forgive the others, and so forth; and so I am afraid I take my stand on the idea that forgiveness must not be limited to injuries one has suffered oneself. We must approach this whole matter in the spirit of forgiveness and I therefore support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
Jews all over the world are undoubtedly a people of a unique religious culture and inspiration. It does no service to them to stir up feelings and inflame them at present. It does them much more of a service to treat them as having the same idea of forgiveness as Christians. In that spirit I hope that not just Christians but Jews, and atheists for that matter, will support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I wonder whether we are doing ourselves justice in this debate. We are discussing a change in the law of Scotland on Amendment No. 292. I am interested in original sin, and I hope that I may be forgiven, whether or not I am a forgiving person. However, I hope that we can get down to the kind of argument advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, in support of the amendment or go in the other direction and destroy his argument. To use the amendment as a curtain raiser for the Second Reading of the Bill which is before this place is abusing the time of this place. We have now been discussing the amendment for nearly 90 minutes, and I believe that we should return to its merits.
Lord Wilberforce: I wish to say just one or two words of a strictly prosaic character. There is, first, a procedural difficulty. Many Members of the Committee feel that it would have been easier if we had been discussing that matter in the context of the War Crimes Bill, but unfortunately we cannot do that—it is not our fault—because that Bill has been passed by the other place and sent to us in the form in which it is.
It is a simple, three-clause Bill which merely says that the courts should have jurisdiction to try certain
948
matters. It does not enter into procedure except with regard to committal procedures which are not relevant here. It has nothing in it which would enable this place to deal with the procedure, the evidence and the mode of trial in relation to war crimes, and so this place has no alternative but to take the opportunity which is available on the Scottish Bill to deal with the procedure in the way that it believes to be appropriate, on the assumption no doubt that there will be the passage of something like the War Crimes Bill and that trials will take place.
The Committee has to consider whether the changes proposed in Amendment No. 292 are appropriate to be made in the context of a war crimes trial. The Committee will have to decide that matter on the basis of two simple considerations. First, there is the argument about changing the rules after the offence has been committed, which is undoubtedly what has been done. It has been admitted that those provisions are included in order to deal with war crimes. Many Members of the Committee may feel that it is not right to change the rules at this time. These criminals should be tried under the rules which existed at the time when they committed their offence. I say no more about it, because if noble Lords are not impressed by that argument, they are not impressed. If they are, they will decide accordingly.
The other point that requires a few more words is whether the changes are appropriate to be made in the context in which we are considering them. One starts from a simple point of principle which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has already stated to the Committee. It is that in principle under English and Scottish law a man has a right to be tried in the presence of his accusers and of his witnesses. He has the right to have his witnesses there and to confront them; the right for the jury to be confronted with them and for them to be confronted with the jury.
If that is not done, the accused loses an important right which may be vital to his defence. It is that as the witness gives his evidence the accused is able to say to his counsel, "This witness is lying; that witness is confused. Put this question to the witness; his memory is totally wrong". He has the right to suggest any matter which can be put to the witness that may effect his credibility. That is a fundamental right in any trial, civil or criminal. If we are to have a television link instead of an actual presence in court, that right is likely to be removed.
As regards the television link, let us discuss it rather than confusing it with references to video links. I am sure that the Committee appreciates that it is not possible to pass a general provision saying that evidence by television links is to be admissible in a court of justice. That cannot be done. We must consider the possibility, the relevance and the justice in relation to certain kinds of proceedings. That is the way in which the English law has dealt with the matter—through a general section in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which is similar to the clause proposed here. It was left to the Government, to the Secretary of State, to bring that provision into force at different times as he thought fit in relation to different subjects.

949
There is a similar clause in this Bill, Clause 49. I think I am right in saying that it has been brought into force in England only as regards children and the possibility of children under 14 suffering from abuse or sexual assault giving evidence by television link. This was done after careful consideration and research. Evidence was taken from psychiatrists. There was much consultation. Finally, it was decided to introduce it. The provision is now working very well and has proved to be a worthwhile change in the law. It enables better evidence to be obtained from the child and can be devised without injustice to the accused person's right. That concerns children and no doubt Scotland will follow the same line, if it has not already done so.
Then there is fraud, and a clause was introduced, as the Committee has been told, to enable complicated charges of fraud to be dealt with otherwise than by lengthy trials lasting years. This is being investigated, controlled experiments are being carried out and at some time sooner or later, no doubt under strict conditions and controls, the provision may be extended to cases of fraud. In other words, we can only move from step to step when we consider it appropriate in the interests of justice.
Compare with those cases the case of an alleged war criminal regarding whom there are witnesses all over the world. The Committee will have in mind that in almost all these cases there is not just one witness, as with a child, and not even several, as in the case of accountants. There are probably dozens of witnesses. In one example referred to in the Hetherington Report 40 people were interviewed in about five different countries. The Demjenjak trial lasted 14 months, with witness after witness. In a recent libel action in the courts here, witness after witness was called from different countries with different regulations.
To think of applying the television link to that situation causes one's imagination to boggle, simply considering the logistics. I do not wish to put this from the logistical or the practical point of view, but simply on justice. We cannot do justice to an accused charged with a war crime committed 50 years ago in a remote country by permitting evidence to be given in distance countries, possibly under the control of a foreign official, possibly of a foreign judge, simply because it is relayed by way of television to the court.
I put it to the Committee as a matter of elementary justice that this ought not to be done, quite apart from the logistical or the retrospective argument. I apologise for not taking longer and being more expansive. This is a simple point of principle on which the Committee must decide. I commend Amendment No. 293ZA to its consideration.
6 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I shall be brief as I am neither a lawyer nor an ecclesiastic but someone who merely tries to apply a modicum of common sense to what has been put to us. I was not able to be present at the last debate. But I feel that this is one of the most important questions which your Lordships will have to decide. For that reason I
950
have read very carefully the Hetherington-Chalmers Report. I have read the debates in the House of Commons. With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, even the House of Commons can sometimes produce something of wisdom, of merit and worthy of consideration. Of course I read your Lordships' report.
I must say that I find the arguments on both sides extremely cogent and evenly balanced. For the reason that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, gave this afternoon, I do not intend to say how my mind is moving on the matter. I am glad that I gave way to the noble and learned Lord. Lord Wilberforce. I think that his argument is absolutely irrefutable. I simply do not see how a provision which was introduced in relation to children and fraud at that time and which should be introduced stage by stage can now be used for a crime of a totally different quality in every respect from those to which the legislation was intended to apply initially. This dreadful crime requires the most detailed consideration if we are to be just not only to those who will be tried for the offence but to those who suffered by it.
I have no doubt in the light of what I have seen and heard that, although it may cause difficulty to the Government, they would be wise to think again about the matter and to accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. If they do not, I shall certainly follow him into the Lobby tonight.
Lord Grimond: I very much support what has been said by the last two speakers. We are on a narrow but extremely important point. I wish to return to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said. He moved a new clause to the Bill which he said was chiefly necessary in the case of homicide and serious fraud. Since then we have had other examples where it might be useful.
It is noticeable that the new clause was not in the original Bill. It cannot therefore be a matter of great urgency that it should be introduced. Nor can it be said, as I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said, that the law of Scotland must in all respects be brought into line with that of England. The law of evidence in Scotland is already different from that in England and the fact that it may remain so for a time in a small but important matter cannot be sufficient reason for pressing this new clause.
I am opposed to re-opening the question of war criminals and holding war trials. I think it is repugnant in law and in common sense and it may set an undesirable precedent throughout the world. What will happen in Israel, in Russia and other such countries?
Even if I were in favour of war trials, I should be deeply concerned about the distortions of our law which are apparently entailed. I hope they would be limited to a minimum. It is quite clear that if the new clause is applied to war trials, as has been said by previous speakers, it will open up a whole range of difficulties which were pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, and many others. It would be a range which it was never intended should be dealt with by this type of provision.

951
If the Committee were to pass the amendment to the new clause it would not thwart the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in his object of bringing new technology to bear upon crimes such as serious fraud and capital offences. All of that would still stand. As I understand it, it would simply exclude from the new provisions this very peculiar type of legal proceedings called war trials. It seems to me that whatever happens to the War Crimes Bill the Committee would be very well advised to take that step in regard to this Bill and to ensure that nothing is altered in the trial of war crimes by provisions which have apparently been brought in, rather belatedly and possibly not solely with war trials in mind, at a time when they will be extremely relevant to this very doubtful new form of justice.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: As a judge I have been brought up on a number of principles, two of which I venture to think may be relevant to the debate today. The first is that neither the judges nor the courts, not I believe the citizens of this country, are in the least concerned with the motives of government in introducing legislation or particular clauses in legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, seems to attach great importance to the Government's motives in introducing the amendment. For my part I know that the judges, and I should have thought most people concerned, would look simply at the wording of the statute as it emerges from Parliament. We are not concerned with the views of judges, or even, with great respect, with the views of Members of this Chamber as individuals. We are concerned with the will of Parliament, and that will be found purely in the legislation.
The second principle is that judges must never anticipate changes in the law in the sense of taking action in anticipation of them. I was made very well aware of that in 1974 with the election of a Labour Government when I was president of the Industrial Relations Court. It was as clear as daylight to me that the new Parliament would repeal the 1971 Act. Nevertheless it was my duty to go on administering that Act without the slightest regard to the likely changes in the law until the moment when the Act received Royal Assent. I do not claim credit for that. It is merely the way in which judges are expected to behave.
That principle does not apply to this Chamber, but it is a salutary rule that this Chamber should not legislate for a situation with which it is not yet faced. If the Bill were to receive Royal Assent tonight with this amendment, we should have the astonishing position of this Chamber saying that the provision shall not apply to a war crimes trial, knowing full well that it is impossible to hold a war crimes trial either in England or in Scotland as the law stands at the moment.
Surely the right time and place to debate the matter is in the context of a war crimes Bill when it comes before this Chamber. Whether or not it is appropriate for it to be dealt with on Second Reading is not a matter about which I know anything or on which I express a view. However, I assume that it
952
will be possible to put down an amendment in Committee which would have precisely the effect of this amendment. It would have the great advantage that it would apply to England and Wales as well as to Scotland.
My noble and learned friends Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Wilberforce have raised wider issues which apply to the amendment. It has been said, for example, that the impact of television evidence may be very different from the impact of evidence given by somebody who is present at the trial. That I would entirely accept. It is a point which deserves consideration. I would hope that the judge would be able to protect the accused in that respect. I would also hope that there would be power for the appropriate Minister to bring the law in by stages and perhaps confine it to particular types of trial for which there is existing jurisdiction.
One has only to think of the situation, for example, of the foreign bank manager—a Middle Eastern or Swiss bank manager—who does not wish to come to this country. One wants details of accounts of which he is in charge. Why should he not give evidence on a video link? On the other hand, if one was asking for identification evidence to be given on a video link, I for my part would be extremely wary. If I were exercising the powers which a judge would have under this clause I should hesitate for a very long time before I was prepared to give leave.
It has been said that under the law of Scotland, about which I know absolutely nothing and on which I express no view one way or the other, the trial judge in a criminal trial has no copy of the depositions—namely, the evidence that the prosecution witnesses in front of an examining magistrate or in other ways have said that they will give. It may be that the Scottish system works better. However, I can see a problem if a witness is to give evidence via a video link and one does not know what he is going to say. But I do not believe that that is a problem to be solved by primary legislation. Why cannot the judge say that he is not prepared to agree to video evidence being given unless he is furnished in advance with a statement of what the witness will say?
I have taken points rather at random as I jotted them down. I come now to the point that it is said that there may be a problem regarding immunity for counsel. I have every sympathy with counsel having immunity. I have even more sympathy with the judge having immunity. I shall not be in a position to conduct any trial—a criminal trial involving war crimes or any other criminal trial—because it is the tradition of my office that one does not try criminal cases, quite apart from the fact that I am an appellate judge in any case. It did not occur to me before this debate but I am now acutely aware that if in court I used my absolute immunity to criticise the secret police of Ruritania and was foolish enough to visit Ruritania afterwards, my immunity would not get me very far. That does not seem to me to be an objection to introducing such evidence.
Then it is said that we must ensure that remote witnesses are free of pressure. I agree. However, do not imagine that that is not also true of British

953
courts. I have a strong recollection of sitting in the divisional court and having an interesting argument as to whether a wife could withdraw the plea of guilty which she had entered in the magistrates' court when she and her husband stood in the dock together. The husband had told her before they entered the dock that if she did not plead guilty he would kill her. It struck me that that was an extremely good reason for the wife to withdraw her unequivocal plea of guilty.
I remember thinking at the time that one could have a situation in which there were two accused standing next to each other and one covertly holding a knife against the other. There can certainly be pressure in an English court. Obviously one has to watch for it, and if one has been deceived by it one has to put it right afterwards.
If people are worried about pressures in the foreign studio that could be met by some representative being present. I also suggest that pressure is not likely to be exerted in the foreign studio; it will be exerted outside the studio. There is probably no way of dealing with that, but it has to be taken into account as a possibility.
Some noble and learned Lords suggested that there were great problems as to what law of evidence would apply. I do not think that there is any problem about that. Scottish law or English law would apply. The video would merely be an extension of the trial court, so I cannot see the problem there.
Although the proposed provision to be imported into Scottish law would have to be used with great care and would put a considerable burden on judges in the first instance, the Scottish courts should have that power available to them. We should not discuss war crimes at this stage when there is no jurisdiction anywhere in the United Kingdom to try a case for a war crime.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Perhaps I may have five minutes of the Committee's time to beseech the Committee to support Amendment No. 293ZA. I should like to speak for five minutes as an advocate and to ask the Committee to realise what the situation with regard to war crimes will be if it accepts the provisions of the proposed Government amendment.
I should like to support every word that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said about the reality. What will happen when I, as an advocate, sit at my desk and an accused person comes in and says, "I have been charged with a war crime"? I shall say, "What is your defence?" and the person will say, "I was not there. I am not the person who has been identified. I have reason to believe that the witness who gave evidence did so under threat. I was somewhere else. I have an alibi to which 20 people can speak and I remember signing at least 50 documents 50 years ago at the town and in the building where I was". What will the advocate do?
The situation is totally grotesque. The advocate must first deal with the identification. Presumably, the trials will take place under the rules of British justice or, in this context, Scottish justice. Will there be a parade? Will a dock identification be allowed?
954
With regard to the alibi, how do you find those 40 witnesses? How do you set about it? Having read the Hetherington Report, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, will know perfectly well that it is the most astonishing document regarding the preparation of evidence for the prosecution. There is not one word in that report as to how you prepare the case for the defence. How can an advocate sitting in Scotland set out to establish an alibi involving 40 witnesses 50 years ago in Poland and German-occupied Russia? The situation is grotesque.
You apply for legal aid. You travel with your solicitor and look for the 40 people. When you find them, you ask them to give evidence on a television link at an astronomical cost. It is ludicrous. How can you discover whether the witness is giving his evidence under pressure? How can you discover that on a television link? How can you inquire into the background of how he is giving evidence? The documents in the Hetherington Report are set out in a whole chapter. The people concerned went through a mass of documents. With a translator, they went through whole archives in Freiburg, Berlin, Munich, Koblenz, Israel and the United States. How on earth could anyone be defended on that basis and obtain legal aid to go through all those archives and search out documents from 50 years ago?
I could continue for a long time. I am considering the government amendment as an advocate looking after the interests of a person who has been charged. I have used the word "grotesque" twice and I shall use it for a third time. The situation would be totally grotesque. I ask the Committee to bear that matter in mind and to look at it as a purely practical matter. Is it right and sensible to let the amendment go forward?
Lord Mishcon: It has been emphasised that this is a question of conscience and personal belief after trying to weigh up difficult arguments, in an important historic matter, as my noble friend Lord Callaghan said. I merely ask, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham: is this the time, the place or the appropriate debate in which to come to any such decision? Unlike others, I do not speak as a theologian. In this instance, I do not speak as a lawyer. I shall try to introduce what I believe every one of us wishes to protect; namely, the clarity of thought and disciplined business methods of this House.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will forgive me—he knows that I have the highest personal regard for him—if I say that I believe he made a great mistake in making a speech of considerable length which was addressed not to the amendment but to the War Crimes Bill, the Second Reading of which is to take place in this House in the future.
What are we considering at this moment? We are not even considering what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, or learned judges spoke about. I say that with deep respect. At this moment we are discussing nothing other than the government amendment to introduce into Scots law what is already in a 1988 Act dealing with the law of evidence in England and Wales. I could have

955
understood it if someone—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington—had said, "We do not like this as evidence because it does not produce justice and we shall therefore vote against the amendment". I would have understood that and all the arguments about television and technology and the difficulties of defendants, which may apply in any number of cases, would have been completely relevant.
We are not asked to consider such matters in this amendment. Presumably the amendment suggests that all that is perfectly all right. We know about the use of technology in certain types of cases, including those involving children and fraud. It may well be interesting to use it in drug cases. It may be interesting and useful to have that kind of evidence in other cases. That is what we are considering at this moment. Do we accept that it is a useful provision to have in our law of evidence in Scotland, with which, I am sure, the Scots will deal in the same way as we shall in England and Wales; in other words, there will be gradation, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said? Shall we see to it that it applies only in cases where we think it proper?
That would be a weird case for the statute book and for history and future generations to look at. They will see that we in this House accepted a provision stating that evidence which could be given by video or television could be given in any number of cases, but that we went down in history as saying that it could not be used for war crimes. What an odd state for our statute book! That is the consideration to which I now turn very quickly. As a lawyer I was taught to be concise and to try to be brief. I intend to follow that lesson.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, whom we all treat with respect and affection was wrong when he said that this was the only opportunity to deal with this matter if we feel that this method of evidence should not be used in war crimes cases. When the War Crimes Bill comes before this House, there is nothing to stop us from saying that this provision and the relevant section in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall not apply in respect of war crimes. There is nothing to stop this Chamber from doing that when we have considered the whole ambit of war crimes at the appropriate time.
For those who are in favour of not having that evidential measure for war crimes, that is the way, the place and the time in which to deal with this matter. I beg this Committee, for more than one reason, not to pass an amendment which states that this is perfectly correct for every type of case one can think of, that it is absolutely right that it should be the law of Scotland and that it is quite fair in every respect except in one case—that of war crimes.
This an ill formulated amendment, whatever our views may be on the issues that we have debated this afternoon.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: In view of the lengthy and involved contributions that have been made I should like briefly to summarise. In my wildest
956
dreams I never expected that, in promoting a law reform (miscellaneous provisions) Bill, I should be subjected to such a wide theological discussion of issues which are well beyond anything to do with the law in Scotland.
However, I have a much more important concern. The War Crimes Bill was not introduced by this Government because it was in any sense a manifesto commitment or anything of that kind. It followed a clear indication in another place as to the will of that Chamber with regard to the introduction of legislation. When that legislation was then introduced it secured a massive majority. From the voting records at that Second Reading, it is quite impossible to determine in any sense a party political divide on the matter. Furthermore, in that Bill no attempt was made to disapply Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, appreciates, specific reference was made to it at one time by the Shadow Home Secretary. Against that background I should be extremely concerned to deal with matters relating to war crimes in a Bill such as this.
Section 32 of the 1988 Act was introduced in general terms, although quite clearly it originated from the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill. At the time it went through this Chamber, it was dealt with in general terms. In many respects I can speak briefly on this matter. The noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls dealt with it very succinctly and accurately indeed. I still consider that it would be bizarre to have this provision excluded for Scotland while the provision remained in place for England. Of course there are differences in our evidential law; nevertheless, this is a matter of such importance that such a move would be quite extraordinary.
I am bound to say that, given the very clear involvement of the trial judge at the centre of this provision, I am a little surprised that there is such distrust of a member of the Scottish judiciary as to the way in which he would be likely to approach this matter and, were there to be major difficulties in the adducing of this evidence, that he would not restrict it.
To consider the separate terms, first he has to allow the arrangements of the television link to be set up. He also has to be satisfied as to the arrangements for giving evidence. If there were any attempt to put pressure on the witness, it would be quite clear that the judge could act. The law is the law of Scotland as it obtains at the moment; it is certainly not the law of the foreign country.
I am in a further difficulty at this point. As is made clear in the Hetherington-Chalmers Report at paragraph 1.7, the report consists of two parts. The first part has been published and the second has not been published, but the Committee will appreciate that I have been privy to its contents. I shall try to answer some of the points that have been raised and in particular those difficulties indicated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutchinson, as an advocate. He is not the only advocate in this Chamber, but I understand what he is driving at. If there were to be difficulties as to identification, for example, I have little doubt but that the trial judge would

957
immediately seize upon them and exclude the evidence altogether or refuse to allow the link to be set up. With respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, I think that under our law in Scotland it would be perfectly possible for it to be mad; clear in making the original application to the court whether or not identification was at the centre of the evidence to be taken.
I could say much more about this matter but, for reasons that I have already indicated in opening, I am anxious to avoid giving any indication of the type of evidence which might usefully be obtained from a foreign state in the event of the introduction of a war crimes prosecution. I hope that one thing is clear. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, may have said, I have never sought to disguise the fact—I repeated it in my opening remarks—that I should like to have this provision if there is to be a war crimes prosecution. Beyond that, I want this provision—Amendment No. 292—for the law of Scotland. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his understanding of why I want it.
I am a little weary of being told that we do not prosecute white collar fraud sufficiently when a very useful evidential tool at my disposal might be whipped away should Amendment No. 292 be rejected by this Committee. Most important of all, it seems to me that the sensible way to approach this issue is to consider the War Crimes Bill and give it a Second Reading. As the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls indicated—and I respectfuly agree with him—if the provision relating to television links is to be disapplied, let it be disapplied in that Bill and in the rest of the United Kingdom as well.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Can the noble and learned Lord assure the Committee that if an amendment to do what he suggests is put into the War Crimes Bill, that would be in order, in view of the Long Title of the War Crimes Bill? I understand that the Government intended to table an amendment in connection with licensing and that certain difficulties arose. It seems to me, in view of the Long Title of this Bill, that there might be difficulties about that being in order.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have already indicated that I consider that that is the appropriate place to do it. I certainly do not advocate that anyone should do that, but I believe that that is the appropriate place to do it in relation to both jurisdictions. That is why I think it is inappropriate to deal with it at this stage.
A noble Lord: Can you do it?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As I understand matters, yes, or I should not have suggested it to the Committee. It would have been utterly dishonourable of me to have done otherwise. I hope that the noble Lord would not expect me to suggest an inappropriate way of dealing with the matter. I would not have dealt with it in any other way unless I thought that it was something that should be done.
958
This has been quite an extraordinarily complicated debate and it is unusual that such a point should have occurred during the course of a debate on a law reform (miscellaneous provisions) Bill. I should like to urge the Committee to agree to Amendment No. 293. If Amendment No. 293ZA is pressed to a Division, I shall object to it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I first thank all noble Lords, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, who have spoken in this debate? The key to the reason why this amendment ought to be supported is the refusal or inability of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate to meet the request for an undertaking which was just asked for by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton. So far as I understand—
Lord Mishcon: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, as I did previously, but he will be very keen to see that nobody is misled in the Committee and that any accusation made against an honourable Member of his own Front Bench is made seriously and properly. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, as I understood him, said that it would be perfectly appropriate, as he saw it, for an amendment to be moved to the War Crimes Bill saying that this evidentiary procedure should not be invoked or be able to be used in the event of war crimes. That was made perfectly clear to the Committee, certainly to me.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: First, I made no accusation against anybody. Secondly, I understood that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate said that he was unable to meet the request for the undertaking. If my hearing misled me, I shall be so informed and I shall immediately apologise for having misheard. But I make no accusation. I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, could imagine that I would make an accusation, even against anyone of his own Front Bench let alone on my own. I do not indulge in accusations.
As I understood, and Hansard will speak for itself, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, made a request as to how this matter might be dealt with on the Second Reading of the War Crimes Bill. As I understood the position, that request could not be met. In those circumstances, Amendment No. 293ZA is clearly to be supported and it puts paid to the elegant speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—perhaps that is why he intervened, but it does if my understanding is correct—because Amendment No. 293ZA keeps the arena of debate wide open and avoids the pre-emption which is inherent in Government Amendment No. 292.
The justification is quite simply that of the noble and learned, Lord, Lord Wilberforce, that justice cannot be done if Amendment No. 292 is used in war crimes—a justification simply put that attracted the support of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and other noble Lords.
According to the Written Answer—and my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate cannot suppose otherwise because it is the Government's Written Answer on 8th March in Hansard —the

959
intended purpose of Amendment No. 292 is as an aid to conviction in war crimes trials and on that basis it is right that one should exclude this purpose. On that basis, I hope your Lordships think it right that I should take the opinion of the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): The Committee has been debating Amendment No. 293ZA, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 292. For the sake of clarity, I shall read out the amendment which we have been debating. It reads:
("( ) The provisions of subsections (1) and (2) above shall not apply to any trial involving alleged war crimes committed in German-held territory during the Second World War.").
6.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 293ZA), as an amendment to Amendment No. 292, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 137; Not-Contents, 62.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Greenway, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Gridley, L.

Aldington, L.

Grimond, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Allerton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Alport, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Halsbury, E.

Astor, V.

Hampton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Blackstone, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Blake, L.

Harrowby, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Havers, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Hayter, L.

Brightman, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hives, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Butterworth, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Caccia, L.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller.]

Joseph, L.

Killearn, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kimball, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Kitchener, E.

Colwyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Listowel, E.

Craigavon, V.

Lockwood, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Longford, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

David, B.

Lurgan, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lyell, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Mersey, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Monson, L.

Donegall, M.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Morton of Shuna, L. [Teller.]

Elles, B.

Mottistone, L.

Erne, E.

Munster, E.

Falkland, V.

Nicol, B.

Foot, L.

Norfolk, D.

Fortescue, E.

Ogmore, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orkney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Oxfuird, V.

960

Perth, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Sherfield, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Simon of Glaisdale. L.

Somers, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Soper, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Rea, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Rees, L.

Swinfen, L.

Renton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Renwick, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Rochester, L.

Tordoff, L.

Roskill, L.

Tryon, L.

Russell, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Whaddon, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Salisbury, M.

Wilberforce, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Seear, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Seebohm, L.

Selborne, E.

Winstanley. L.

Selkirk, E.

Winterbottom, L.

Shannon, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Balfour, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Barnett, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Beloff, L.

McNair, L.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Blatch, B.

Mishcon, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mountevans, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Carnarvon, E.

Nathan, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Newall, L.

Carter, L.

Pender, L.

Cawley, L.

Phillips, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Prior, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Quinton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Reay, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Serota, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sharpies, B.

Erroll, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Stedman, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Galpern, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hacking, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Tranmire, L.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hughes, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment to the amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.54 p.m.
[Amendment No. 293A not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 292, as amended by Amendment No. 293ZA, agreed to.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) moved Amendment No. 293B:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Homeless due to risk of violence
In subsection (3) of section 24 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (definition of homelessness), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
"(BB) it is probable that occupation of it will lead to—

(i) violence; or

961

(ii) threats of violence which are likely to be carried out, from some other person who previously resided with that person, whether in that accommodation or elsewhere, or".").

The noble Lord said: I shall be speaking also to Amendment No. 304AB, which is consequential upon Amendment No. 293B. I gather that the amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 297D, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar.
The amendment in my name, together with its consequential amendment, is designed to achieve broadly the same effect as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar. Fortuitously, since the noble Lord tabled his amendment, we have had some time to develop a version which should fully meet the concerns that he was addressing.
The concern with which the amendments are intended to deal is that a person who is at risk of violence from someone who does not live in the same house, for example from their ex-spouse, would not normally be able to be classified as homeless by the local authority. Two years ago when this Chamber first debated the then Housing (Scotland) Bill a similar amendment was discussed. At that time I indicated that the Government had some sympathy with the aim of the amendment but would like to consider the matter further. On doing so we found broad support for a measure along these lines. It is fortunate that the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill which deals with several matters relating to matrimonial law offers us the opportunity to address this issue.
The amendment will allow someone at risk of violence to be treated as homeless if the violence is threatened by someone else who has lived with the person concerned at some time. In some ways it goes wider than the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, in that it does not specify those other people who might offer violence. However, in another way the amendment I propose is narrower since the persons threatening violence must have lived with the person at risk. I believe that the government amendment draws the line in the right place. I also understand that the Scottish Homeless Group which has played a large part in pursuing this matter is happy with the approach in the government amendment. I therefore commend the amendment and the consequential amendment, Amendment No. 304AB, to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the noble Lord for his amendment. I take his word that it covers all the points that were raised in Amendment No. 279D. Because it is a complicated and rather important amendment, perhaps he will accept that, although my noble friend and I do not move that amendment, we shall wish to take advice at Report stage. I am happy that he has tried to accommodate us.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 293C:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Admission and detention of mental patients Detention under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984
962
.—(1) After section 26 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Interim detention
26A.—(1) This section applies where—

(a) a patient is detained in a hospital under section 26 of this Act;

(b) a change in the condition of the patient makes it necessary in the interests of his own health or safety or with a view to the protection of other persons that the patient continue to be detained after the expiry of the period of 28 days referred to in subsection (3) of that section; and

(c) no application for admission has been submitted to the sheriff in respect of the patient and it is not reasonably practicable to submit such an application before the expiry of that period.

(2) Where this section applies, a relevant medical practitioner may lodge with the sheriff clerk for a sheriff of the sheriffdom within which the hospital is situated a report on the condition of the patient complying with the following provisions of this section and such report shall, when so lodged, be sufficient authority for the continued detention of the patient in the hospital where he is until the expiry of a period of three days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and court holidays) from the date when the report was lodged.
(3) In this section "relevant medical practitioner" means a medical practitioner who—

(a) is approved for the purposes of section 20(1)(b) of this Act; and

(b) has personally examined the patient.

(4) A report referred to in subsection (2) of this section shall not be lodged unless, where practicable, the consent of the nearest relative of the patient or of a mental health officer has been obtained.
(5) A report referred to in subsection (2) of this section shall include—

(a) a statement by the relevant medical practitioner that in his opinion—

(i) the patient is suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to be detained in a hospital for at least a limited period; and

(ii) the patient ought to be so detained in the interests of his own health or safety or with a view to the protection of other persons;

(b) a statement that such a consent as is mentioned in subsection (4) of this section has been obtained or, as the case may be, a statement of the reasons for the failure to obtain that consent; and

(c) a statement as to whether the relevant medical practitioner is related to the patient and of any pecuniary interest that the relevant medical practitioner may have in the admission of the patient to hospital.

(6) Where a patient is detained in a hospital under this section, the relevant medical practitioner shall forthwith so inform—

(a) the Mental Welfare Commission;

(b) where practicable, the nearest relative of the patient (except where the nearest relative has consented under subsection (4) of this section); and

(c) the local authority (except where a mental health officer appointed by that authority has consented under subsection (4) of this section),

and shall inform the patient of his right of appeal under subsection (7) of this section and of the period within which it may be exercised.
(7) A patient who is detained in hospital under this section may, within the period referred to in subsection (2) of this section, appeal to the sheriff to order his discharge and the provisions of section 33(2) and (4) of this Act shall apply in relation to such an appeal.
(8) Where a patient is detained in hospital under this section the authority for his detention under section 26 of this Act shall cease.
(9) Subject to section 21 (3B) and (3C) of this Act, a patient who has been detained in a hospital under this section shall

963
not be further detained under this section nor detained under section 24 or 26 of this Act immediately after the expiry of the period of detention under this section."
(2) In section 21 of that Act (approval by sheriff of applications for admission)—
(a) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(3A) Within three days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and court holidays) of an application for admission being submitted, the sheriff shall—

(a) approve the application; or

(b) where he decides to hold a hearing before determining the application, hold such hearing.

(3B) An application for admission in respect of a patient who is detained in hospital under section 26 or 26A of this Act shall, when submitted to the sheriff, be sufficient authority for the continued detention of the patient under that section until the expiry of a period of three days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and court holidays) from the date when the application was submitted.
(3C) Where a hearing in relation to an application for admission in respect of a patient who is detained in hospital under section 26 or 26A of this Act is, for whatever reason, adjourned, the authority for the detention of the patient under that section by virtue of subsection (3B) of this section shall continue until the application for admission is finally determined."; and
(b) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(6) For the purposes of this section, an application is submitted to the sheriff when it is lodged with his sheriff clerk."
(3) In section 26(7) of this Act (short term detention), at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to section 21(3B) and (3C) of this Act,".
(4) In section 28(4) of that Act (return and readmission of patients absent without leave: hospital), for the words "24(3), 25(2) or 26(3)" there shall be substituted "21(3B) (subject, where applicable, to section 21(3C)), 24(3), 25(2), 26(3) or 26A(2)".
(5) In section 33 of that Act (discharge of patients: hospital)—

(a) in each of subsections (2) and (4), after the word "26," there shall be inserted "26A,"; and

(b) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(7) Where an order for discharge is made in respect of a patient in relation to whom an application for admission has been submitted but has not been finally determined, the managers of the hospital shall notify the sheriff to whom the application has been submitted of the making of the order for discharge."
(6) In section 35 of that Act (appeals to the sheriff: hospital), in each of subsections (2) and (3), after the word "sections" there shall be inserted "or under section 26A of this Act".
(7) In section 59 of that Act (Interpretation of Part V), at the end there shall be added the following subsection—
"(4) In this Part of this Act, "court holidays" means any day which is a court holiday by virtue of section 10(2) of the Bail Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: It might be useful in moving the amendment if I also speak to Amendment No. 294 and Amendment No. 304AC, which is consequential. I do not need to elaborate on Amendment No. 294 as the intention in the new clause that the Government put forward as Amendment No. 293C is to meet exactly the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, first put forward in this matter.
Perhaps I may briefly explain the intention and effect of the Government's proposed new clause, which is designed to correct a lacuna in the Mental
964
Health (Scotland) Act 1984 highlighted in an appeal heard in this House in 1988. Sections 24 and 26 of that Act provide for the detention of mentally disordered persons in case of emergency for three days and 28 days respectively. In cases where it is considered necessary to detain a patient beyond the 28 days allowed in Section 26, an application to the sheriff for admission to hospital has to be submitted under the provisions of Sections 18 and 21 of the Act.
That procedure works satisfactorily in the vast majority of cases but very occasionally—and we are only speaking of one or two cases each year at the most—a patient detained under Section 26 may initially make good progress and then suddenly and unexpectedly deteriorate towards the end of the 28-day period. In such cases there may be either insufficient time to complete a full Section 18 application for admission or, where there is time to lodge such an application, insufficient time for a sheriff to consider the application before the authority to detain expires. In either case, the medical practitioner has no choice but to discharge the patient although it may well not be in the best interests of either the patient or the public to do so.
The new clause is designed to overcome those problems where there is insufficient time to complete a full Section 18 application for admission. Then, subject to a number of safeguards, the medical practitioner may lodge a report on the patient's condition with the sheriffs clerk to enable the patient to be detained for up to a further three days to allow a full application to be submitted.
Where a Section 18 application has been lodged but there has been insufficient time for a sheriff to hear it before the expiry of the 28-day period, the new clause provides that detention can be extended for up to a further three days to enable a hearing to take place. As an important new safeguard for patients, we have provided that the sheriff must hold an initial hearing of all Section 18 applications within three days of their being lodged.
As I indicated, this amendment is designed to improve upon the drafting of the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. However, in moving it I should acknowledge his very valuable contribution in bringing the matter before the Committee. It was originally prompted by a suggestion from the Law Society of Scotland. It was also mentioned by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for moving this amendment and for what he said about my Amendment No. 294. To call it my amendment is perhaps rather presumptuous because it was drafted by the Law Society. However, I must take responsibility for it and I am glad to do so.
This provision is very important although it affects only a few people. It is a missing link which must be put right. I am glad that something that the Law Society and I were able to do has enabled the Government to insert this miscellaneous provision

965
into this miscellaneous provisions Bill. I welcome the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 294 and 295 not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 296:
After Clause 44. insert the following new clause:
("Appointment of acting nearest relative
In section 56 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, in subsection (3) there shall be added at the end "(d) that the nearest relative is unsuitable to act as such" ").
The noble and learned Lord said: Section 56 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act provides that the sheriff may direct that the function of the nearest relative shall be carried out by somebody else and provides three conditions for that to be done. The three conditions are: first, that there is no nearest relative; secondly, that the nearest relative is himself incapable because of illness or mental disorder; and, thirdly, that the nearest relative is unwilling or considers it undesirable to act.
This amendment proposes a fourth condition; namely, that the nearest relative is unsuitable to act. I am sure that Members of the Committee will readily see that there may be somebody who is not mentally ill but is still acting in a manner which everybody considers to be not in the best interests of the patient. Therefore, it would be appropriate that he should not fulfil the function of nearest relative. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I fully accept that there may be circumstances in which a nearest relative may be unsuitable to act as such. For example, it may be that in the past the nearest relative has been implicated in the abuse of a patient. It would then be clearly inappropriate for such a person to exercise the nearest relative functions. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and to the Law Society of Scotland for bringing this matter to my attention and I accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna amoved Amendment No. 297:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Reservation of minerals
.—(1) A party to any contract for the purchase or lease of heritable property shall not be entitled to resile from such contract by reason only that the title to such heritable property contains a reservation of minerals unless either—

(a) the contract otherwise provides, or

(b) the owner of the minerals is entitled to enter the surface of the heritable property.

(2) Any provision in any deed which enables the owner of minerals to work them without liability to pay compensation for damage caused to the surface of the ground or the buildings thereon shall be construed as if any such provision contained an obligation on the part of the owner of the minerals to pay compensation to the owner of the surface and buildings thereon for any such damage caused by any working of minerals carried out after the commencement of this Act.
(3) The provisions of subsection (I) above shall apply to any contract concluded after the commencement of this Act and the provisions of subsection (2) shall apply to any provision in any deed whenever granted.
966
(4) The compensation payable under subsection (2) above shall be assessed by a single Arbiter appointed, failing agreement, under the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 1894.
(5) The provisions of this section of this Act shall not apply to any minerals or mineral rights vested in the British Coal Corporation constituted under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946."
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is suggested by the Law Society and is designed to meet a difficulty which is relatively common and inappropriate. It arises in two situations: first, where somebody buys a suburban house and then wishes to get out of the transaction and does so because there is no reservation of minerals. That person bought the house to live in and not in order to mine in the land. However, because there is no reservation of minerals he is able to get out of the transaction.
The other difficulty arises where there is in the superior a right to work minerals without a right to compensation. That renders the occupier's right to sell his land virtually impossible and it becomes unmarketable. This clause seeks to provide presumptions which apply unless the contract otherwise provides. This is an important area. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The purpose of this amendment is to specify circumstances in which it would and would not be acceptable to resile from a contract to purchase heritable property when a title was found to contain a reservation of minerals. The amendment also implies into deeds a compensation clause for the owner of the surface where there is a right to work minerals.
As the noble and learned Lord indicated, conveyancing problems have arisen where minerals may be reserved to their owner but no provision is made to compensate the person who owns land or property on the surface above. This new clause would substantially strengthen the position of the surface owner or lessor but he in turn would no longer enjoy a general right to resile from a contract for purchase or lease in the event of a reservation of minerals being identified after a contract had been agreed.
Where I think the clause falls short is in dealing with the rights of the mineral owner for any loss of rights he may suffer. It is a fundamental principle of Scottish law that rights are not merely confiscated without compensation. It may be a fundamental principle of legal systems to which we are subject that that right should not be confiscated without compensation.
In pointing out that difficulty I do not wish to indicate that I have no sympathy with the problems which exist. However, I believe that the matter could be dealt with more comprehensively as part of the review of property law which the Scottish Law Commission is currently undertaking. With that explanation, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: In the confident hope that some time before the end of the century the Law Society will come up with something which may enable amendments to be made, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 297A not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 297B:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Intentional homelessness: matrimonial rights
The following subsection is inserted after section 26(2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987—
"(2A) It shall not be competent for a housing authority to hold a person to be intentionally homeless solely on the grounds that he or she does not intend to seek to exercise his or her rights under the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981, as expressed in section 3(1), section 4, section 13 and section 18".").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 297C. The purpose of these two amendments is to try to close what has become a loophole in existing legislation for the rehousing of an abused woman. The introduction of the matrimonial homes Act aimed to give women suffering from marital violence additional protection if they wish to remain in the matrimonial home through, for example, exclusion orders. It was never intended to be used as an alternative to rehousing under the homelessness legislation if the latter is what the woman chose, taking into account all relevant factors including the safety of herself and her children. That was made quite clear during the passage of the matrimonial homes Bill through Parliament. In subsequent guidance the Secretary of State made it quite clear that it was not meant to apply in the way that it is now sometimes interpreted.
On 30th June 1981 it was stated in Hansard that the Secretary of State considered,
"that a decision by a spouse not to exercise their legal rights against the other spouse should not be regarded as an indication of intentional homelessness".
That was also stated in the Scottish Development Department Circular No. 21/1982. The Scottish code of guidance on the homelessness legislation and the Scottish Development Department circular makes it quite clear how local authorities should respond to abused women seeking rehousing. Nevertheless the recently published Scottish Home and Health Department research on the operation of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 confirms that a significant number of Scottish local authorities continue to ignore this and women in many parts of the country may be classified as intentionally homeless or as not homeless at all if they choose not to exercise their rights under the matrimonial homes Act.
We believe that legislation is required to ensure uniform practice and that abused women are not forced to endure continued risk of violence. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I believe that it was the original intention that Amendment No. 298 should be included in this grouping. It may perhaps be in accordance with practice that I speak to that amendment now rather than later.
Amendment No. 298 tries to amalgamate into one what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has tabled
968
in two amendments. That is perhaps the only merit of my amendment as opposed to his. There is no difference between us as to purpose.
The difficulty arose after a decision of the Court of Session. As we are in a state where apparently we are supposed to confess our sins, I say that it was not my decision but on behalf of the Court of Session I am penitent. The decision arose in the case of MacAlinden v. Bearsden and Milngavie District Council. The trial judge said that the person was not homeless because she had failed to operate Section 18 of the matrimonial property Act and was therefore intentionally homeless.
The amendment seeks to avoid that problem, of which the Secretary of State is aware and with which he has dealt, but which unfortunately local authorities duck because they have to meet the cost. The attempt here is to make the position more clear. I hope that even if our amendments are not properly drafted, at least the principle will be acceptable to the Government.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I feel as though I were back in 1988; the only difference is that the noble and learned Lord has gone to the Cross-Benches and is now a judge. However, we have all been here before.
The amendments seek to prevent local authorities, in determining whether an applicant is homeless, from taking into account whether he or she has exercised, or intends to exercise, his or her rights under the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. However, I remain of the view which I expressed in 1988 that the 1981 Act provisions should not be bypassed, since they offer a straightforward remedy for those who no longer wish to share the occupancy of their home with their spouse or partner, and have good reason for taking that decision. It seems to me to be entirely right that in most cases an attempt should be made to use the 1981 Act to resolve these kinds of domestic problem.
I agree entirely that, in some circumstances, an applicant under the homelessness legislation will not be able to make use of the 1981 Act rights. There will also be some cases where for an applicant to seek to make use of the rights might increase the risk of violence or harassment taking place. I accept therefore that there will be some cases when a local authority should assess an applicant as unintentionally homeless, even though he or she has not taken all the steps open under the 1981 Act. However, I believe it would be wrong to seek—as the amendments do in essence—to prevent by statute a local authority from taking into account an applicant's failure to make use of those rights. It should be up to the local authority to consider that together with all other matters when carrying out its duty under the homelessness legislation to enquire whether an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. We should not limit the authority's discretion in the way the amendment proposes.
I do, however, recognise the concern expressed by your Lordships that some local authorities may not make allowance for those cases where it is impossible or inappropriate for an applicant to make use of his or her 1981 Act rights. That is a matter which we

969
will bear in mind in our review of the code of guidance on the homelessness legislation which is currently under way and which we hope to publish certainly in the course of this year, probably in the summer or early autumn, with a view to clarifying and tightening the advice we give to authorities.
In view of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister for his reply and perhaps I may correct some statements which I made. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was in the same trap of referring to spouses as if they were women only, whereas a spouse is either party to the marriage.
I accept that a local authority must have certain rights in the matter and that there could be abuse. Weighted against the abuse that could be caused to a spouse, I would rather lean on the side of the homeless spouse. But I will look carefully at the Minister's reply and am grateful for the trouble he has taken. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 297C and 297D not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 297E:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Exclusion orders
Section 4(3)(a) of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 is omitted.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to prevent the unnecessary confusion which is recognised by the judiciary to complicate conditions for the granting of an exclusion order. Scottish Home and Health Department research points to the possible incompatibility between Section 4(2) and Section 4(3)(a), demonstrating the confusion which can arise regarding the circumstances in which an exclusion order may be granted.
The removal of Section 4(3)(a) would mean that, after the court had successfully applied the test in Section 4(2) that an exclusion order was necessary for the protection of the applicant, the only factor which would make it unreasonable to grant the exclusion order would be where the matrimonial home referred to was tied to the man's occupation or livelihood. As the legislation stands it is possible to apply subsequent tests of reasonableness or balance of hardship which can conflict with the already determined necessity for protection for the woman.
Those are the basic reasons behind the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am aware that a case for abolishing subsection (3)(a) has been made from time to time. It was a recommendation of a research study undertaken by the University of Strathclyde and published in December 1988. The suggestion has been considered afresh by the Scottish Law Commission in its Discussion Paper No. 85, which
970
was published on 29th March, and the commission came down resolutely for retention of the provision, which it sees as essential to prevent the mandatory requirement in subsection (2) of the Act from operating unreasonably. The commission catalogues at paragraph 6.34 of its paper a number of absurdities that could arise if the subsection were repealed. I shall quote only one: a court would have to grant exclusion orders against both spouses if each applied for an order and proved that his or her health would be injured by the conduct of the other if both remained in the home.
I am sure that with that, and other examples which are contained in the submission from the Scottish Law Commission—a copy of which I shall be happy to provide—the noble Lord might feel well advised to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: With that advice and the promise of more information I have little option but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 297F:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Priority need for accommodation: extension to 16 and 17 year olds.
In section 25(1)(c) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, after "physical disability" there shall be inserted "or because he is 16 or 17 years old".").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to ensure that in Scotland young people of 16 or 17 years of age are considered vulnerable following the homeless persons legislation contained in Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. The effect is that local authorities would have a statutory obligation to house 16 and 17 year-olds who are homeless.
The legal rights of 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland differ from those in England and Wales, especially where young people have been in local authority care. In Scotland social work departments do not have that statutory duty. Young persons of 16 or 17 years of age have the right to make decisions for themselves. In England, the social services department has a statutory duty to care for young people whereas in Scotland there is no such duty.
The Government recognised this situation in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1986 when 16 to 17 year-olds in Scotland were given, for the first time, the right to apply, and be considered, for local authority housing. The social security reforms of September 1988 removed the right to income support from 16 to 17 year-olds throughout the United Kingdom. Partly as a result of that, together with a general rise in youth homelessness, the supporting specialist emergency stop-over accommodation in Scotland has been heavily over-subscribed and the chances of young people finding suitable permanent accommodation have diminished.
Recent research carried out by a postgraduate student at Heriot-Watt University showed that only 11 out of Scotland's 56 authorities have even a policy of considering 16 to 17 year-olds automatically as vulnerable under the provisions of Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act. A wide variety of

971
organisations, including National Children's Homes, Barnado's and Shelter, contributed to the homeless persons legislation. The Scottish DSS figures show that one-third of all United Kingdom applications by 16 and 17 year-olds for income support under the severe handicap provisions are from Scotland. There are extremely disturbing reports of an increase in prostitution among young people who are selling their bodies for a place to stay. The Minister will be aware that that problem has been raised many times in this Chamber—the cardboard cities, and so on. I hope that he will give us some encouragement and that there is a possibility of at least keeping some of these young people, who may otherwise move away, in Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We are, of course, well aware of concern about 16 and 17 year-olds who become homeless. I do not want to get into too much detail about the steps the Government have taken relating to that group, but I should point out that every 16 or 17 year-old who is neither in full-time education nor in employment is guaranteed a YTS place. That should mean that they all have a right to a certain income. On top of that, 16 and 17 year-olds are entitled to housing benefit to help meet their housing costs. Following concern expressed last year that some young people were falling through the net, the Government made it possible for 16 and 17 year-olds to qualify for income support in certain circumstances.
I recognise that despite these developments some 16 and 17 year-olds will still become homeless and could be at risk of exploitation. In those circumstances I strongly urge local authorities to use their discretion actively to assist those young people to find appropriate accommodation. However, I do not think it is either necessary or desirable to include 16 or 17 year-olds in the category of those with a priority need. Still less do I think it desirable to include families including a 16 or 17 year-old in that category. That would enormously widen the category and would serve, I suggest, to blur the priorities which local authorities might set rather than to clarify them.
However, I can give a crumb of comfort to the noble Lord. As I said earlier, we are currently considering a revision of the code of guidance on the operation of the homelessness legislation. I can assure the Committee that we shall be considering carefully the guidance given in the code to local authorities about young people to ensure that they are dealt with fairly and appropriately. I believe that that is the best way forward. On the basis of the changes we made last year for income support to be available in certain circumstances together with the assurance I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am most grateful to the Minister. He said that he personally urged local authorities in this respect and I wondered whether there was not more that the Government could do. He has assisted me by saying that the Government will issue a new code of guidance to local authorities.
972
I accept that local authorities have a very big job to do and must have some discretion in this matter. We do not know the history of everyone who is sleeping rough and looking for accommodation, but I hope that the code of guidance will help take some young people off the streets into better accommodation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 297G: After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of Rent Officers to keep registers. In section 70(2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
"(cc) Rent Officers shall keep and make publicly available a register, in such manner as is prescribed by the Secretary of State, detailing determinations made by them in exercise of functions conferred on them by this section.".").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to require rent officers to provide a register, which is to be available for public inspection, detailing market rents determined by them for the purposes of housing benefit and rent allowance subsidy.
Section 70 of the Housing (Scotland) Act gives the Secretary of State power to require rent officers to carry out functions in connection with housing benefit and rent allowance subsidy. Orders detailing the role of rent officers in this respect have now come into operation. In essence, they require rent officers to determine the market rent for deregulated tenancies', that is. most new tenancies coming into being after 2nd January 1989, in Scotland specifically, where a claim has been made for housing benefit.
The housing benefit regulations prohibit local authorities from paying housing benefit in full where rents are considered to be over-expensive. In looking at this question they can have regard to the market rent figure determined by the rent officer. However, the situation is complicated by the fact that while rent officers determine market rents, that rent does not become the contractual rent payable to the landlord. In other words, whatever the rent officer considers to be a market rent, the tenant, whether or not relying on housing benefit, is duty bound to pay whatever he originally agreed to pay even where that is above the market rent.
In certain parts of some cities that situation can be considerably exploited. The current position is that many low income tenants, when entering into a contract with a landlord, do not know—indeed, they have no way of knowing—what is a reasonable market rent for the area and type of accommodation. Thus, if they have to rely on housing benefit payments to assist in meeting the rent they have no way of knowing whether they will be able to meet their obligation to the landlord.
The Minister will be aware that in my previous incarnation I had great difficulty because in part of the area I represented rents tended to be high and well above the assistance available from the DHSS. I came across that situation many times and it could be tragic. I should like to have the Minister's views;

973
perhaps he can give me as much assistance as he has on previous amendments. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I am always grateful to the noble Lord. I shall give him as much help as I possibly can in this matter, which I find a little more difficult than others. The amendment seeks to require the rent registration service to maintain a public register of the determinations rent officers make in their function of determining market rents for tenancies referred to them by local authorities in connection with payments of housing benefit.
Under the arrangements the responsibility for determining the amount of housing benefit paid remains fully with the local authority. The determinations made by the rent officer are there to help the local authority make its decision. It would therefore be wrong in our opinion to make public, as the amendment seeks to do, specific information which is being provided on a kind of agency basis to the local authorities. It seems to me it is for local authorities to decide what information to publish about the matters they have taken into account in assessing housing benefit. There is nothing to prevent them doing that. However, I should perhaps explain that in about two-thirds of the cases referred to their, rent officers can more or less immediately accept the rent being charged as being within market levels. That is not to say that these rents are always at the maximum market level. In many cases they are significantly below. Any register of these rents would therefore not provide an indication of the market level of rents in an area which would be of real use.
On these grounds I do not wish to support the noble Lord's amendment. But I would make a further point. Rents, particularly in certain parts of the private rented sector, can fluctuate fairly widely and frequently. Therefore the value of any historical register of only that section of the private rented sector which accommodates people receiving housing benefit would be extremely limited. It could in fact mislead in some circumstances.
I know that the noble Lord has much more experience than I have. But as far as I am aware enormous problems have not been raised since the Act was passed. For the reasons I have given I hope that he will see that there are difficulties in bringing in rent registration and a register of the kind that he would wish.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I think I knew the argument that the Minister would put forward before he rose. I wanted some way in which people who were looking for accommodation would know what reasonable rents were in the area. The rent officers and the local authorities, with their much greater powers, can find out what rents are in an area. I know of many people who have secured accommodation and spent money on it only to discover later that they were unable to have the full rent from the DHSS. They were paying rather more, and enough to make life difficult. However, they were not paying sufficient to decide to look for
974
another place. I am disappointed that we cannot get even an anonymous register. Perhaps that is an idea for local authorities. They might begin by issuing a broadsheet, which would be helpful.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: There are ways of obtaining information from many sources similar to the way in which the rent officer obtains information, including advertisements and so on. There is nothing to prevent a local authority publishing whatever it wishes in this connection, as the noble Lord said.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the noble Lord for that information. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 297H:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Classification of homelessness: whether occupation of accommodation is reasonable. In section 24 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (definition of homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(2A) A person shall not be treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy.
(2B) Regard may be had in determining whether it would be reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation, to the general circumstances prevailing in relation to housing in the district of the local housing authority to whom he has applied for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation."").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to allow local authorities to consider whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances for a person who has accommodation or who is threatened with homelessness to be classed as homeless. The inclusion of this new clause in Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 would bring Scottish legislation for the homeless into line with the English and Welsh legislation. A similar clause was added to the Housing Act 1985 by the Housing and Planning Act 1986. This amendment came as a result of the famous Pulhofer judgment which I believe we discussed at considerable length some years ago.
In considering whether a person became homeless intentionally, the current Scottish legislation demands that the question of whether it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy the accommodation can be considered. However, the test of intentionality is generally seen as a secondary test in that the first thing that an applicant must prove is that he is homeless or threatened with homelessness.
In other words, persons living in accommodation which it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy must first make themselves homeless before they can apply for assistance. Thereafter, the local authority to which they apply must consider whether it would have been reasonable for them to continue to live in their previous accommodation.
That is very harsh on people who often have no option but to give up their accommodation with no idea of whether the local authority will be under an obligation to rehouse them. It would appear much more sensible to bring the Scottish legislation into line with that applying to England and Wales. In this way the relevant local authority can make a decision on whether an individual's accommodation is so inadequate for his needs as to merit him being considered homeless. That would avoid the necessity of a person first leaving the current accommodation before the question of reasonableness can be considered by the local authority.
I believe the question of reasonableness in one decision was so appalling that local authorities did not abide by it. In the Pulhofer case the decision was so wide open that many local authorities ignored it. I would like the case of the homeless to be considered further so that they will be given better consideration by local authorities, whether they are homeless or in totally inadequate accommodation. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I was genuinely very interested to hear how the noble Lord presented this amendment. I am aware that a similar provision to that set out in the amendment exists in the parallel English legislation. However, Amendment No. 293B, which has been accepted, deals with cases where someone is threatened with violence to their home by someone resident elsewhere. That is a more specific provision than that proposed by this amendment. But I am aware that this amendment potentially affects a wider range of cases than people threatened with violence. Having heard what the noble Lord has said, I should like to consider further how far an amendment along these lines would still be desirable.
I believe that the noble Lord has a good point. I give an undertaking to come back to this matter at a later stage. I wish to consider very carefully what he has said and to look at the various cases that may be affected. The Government's wish would be to bring Scottish legislation into line in this area.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Davidson: I suggest that this would be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn. I suggest that we return to the Committee stage at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Entertainments (Increased Penalties) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order 1990
7.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 28th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order, which proscribes the Irish People's Liberation Organisation, was made by my right honourable friend on 28th March, came into effect on 29th March and is subject to approval within 40 days.
The Irish People's Liberation Organisation is perhaps one of the less well known terrorist organisations outside Northern Ireland. Unlike other terrorist organisations its activities have been confined solely to Northern Ireland and, compared with the Provisional IRA, for example, it is comparatively small and has accounted for only a relatively small portion of terrorist attacks. But it is no less deadly or ruthless for that and it has been responsible for some of the most cruel and callous incidents since 1987 when it came into being as an off-shoot of the Irish National Liberation Army, itself a proscribed organisation.
Much though I find it distasteful to do so, I think I must of necessity remind the House of why the Government take such a serious view of this organisation. It came to prominence in November 1987 when it was responsible for the murder of Mr. George Seawright, a former DUP councillor and a former Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It was also responsible for a particularly nasty shooting attack in the bar in the Craven Street Orange Cross Social Club in Belfast in February last year when customers were sprayed with bullets and one man died. In November 1989 it was also responsible for the murder of Mr. Robert Burns and only six weeks ago it murdered Mr. Billy McClure in front of his wife.
It was against the background of these events, which showed beyond any doubt that the IPLO is an organisation which has no compunction about killing, that my right honourable friend made the order which we are considering today. Indeed, since the order came into effect the organisation has continued to be active. As the House will know, members of the organisation were intercepted recently by the security forces in the garden of a

977
police reservist's home, on what was later described publicly as "active service". One of their number was killed; weapons were recovered from the scene.
It is abundantly clear that any organisation which has such a total disregard for human life can have no place in a civilised society. It must, and will, be subject to the full rigour of the law. As a result of this order it is an offence to be a member of the IPLO, where activities take place after the moment of prescription. It is also an offence to solicit or invite financial or other support for the organisation or knowingly to make or receive any financial contributions for it. It is also an offence to solicit or invite any person to become a member of the organisation or to assist in the holding of a meeting to support or further its activities. By the same token, as the broadcasting notice issued by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary prohibits the direct broadcasting of any representative of a proscribed organisation and certain other specified organisations the IPLO is now so prohibited.
This order is therefore a clear and unequivocal statement to the IPLO and to all who regard the use of violence, of whatever intensity, as the only way to bring about change in Northern Ireland that such methods are wholly unacceptable. Moreover, they are futile. The future of Northern Ireland lies not in the hands of those whose aim is to destroy life and make people's existence a misery but with those who are seeking to bring people together and to create better prospects for themselves, their families and future generations. The Government are working unremittingly to these ends. We regard the order as a fully justified response to the activities of the IPLO. I therefore commend it unreservedly to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 28th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee) .—{Lord Skelmersdale.]
7.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for explaining the order and for giving the House some information about the IPLO. He also reminded us of the statutory consequences of the act of proscription. A heavy penalty is imposed on a person who belongs or professes to belong to the organisation; on a person soliciting support, financial or otherwise, for the organisation; or on a person who carries out its directions. As I understand it, the order adds to the list of the organisations proscribed under the 1978 Act. There are now eight such organisations.
I fully support the order on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, but it is right that I should mention that some fair-minded people have always expressed and continue to express reservations about the general principle of proscription. They believe that it is an inadequate means of dealing with the problem. They would seek—I emphasise the word "seek"—to place even greater stress on bringing to justice those who actively conspire to use violence in pursuit of political ends. They fear that the organisation might be driven underground and they doubt whether proscription achieves a great deal in practical terms,
978
pointing out that the IRA and the six other organisations were proscribed in 1978. The IRA is still flourishing.
Again it is argued that proscription might even attract some measure of sympathy for the organisation that is proscribed unless the power is exercised with great care and after weighing up all the factors. On the other hand, proscription properly exercised, after weighing up all the factors, is a clear public expression of condemnation of the use of violence for political ends. Moreover—and this is possibly more important—it may act as a deterrent to members or potential members and to supporters or potential supporters of a proscribed organisation. The deterrent will obviously work through in a way which cannot be measured with any accuracy.
We approve the order. Its introduction gives us an opportunity once again to join the Government to condemn violence in the Province. In the proper discharge of my duty I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions. I am grateful for the information he has given about the IPLO. Can he go a little further and tell the House how many members the organisation has? Are the Government able to give an estimate of its membership? We wish to know, if the information is available, how many of its known members or former members have been found guilty of scheduled offences. With those two questions, we support the order.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his attitude to and reception of the order. In answering his general point I would say in return that by creating offences one stops public demonstrations and marches on behalf of organisations which use these despicable methods to achieve their objectives. Rather than giving them publicity, one removes from them by proscription the possibility of publicity.
In my opening speech I described this matter as distasteful. So it is. I am therefore especially grateful to the noble Lord, who spoke so lucidly and thoughtfully on this question. It is often difficult for us to appreciate the fact that there are people who are prepared to murder and maim other human beings simply because their views are different. The Irish People's Liberation Organisation consists of such people.
I welcome the noble Lord's condemnation of the organisation. I should much prefer it—as, indeed, would he—if the order before us this evening were not necessary. However, this Government will not be deflected from the fight against terrorism. Today's order is part of that battle, which we shall surely win by the tripartite advances of the security forces, improved economic and social conditions and efforts to achieve political progress.
In answer to the noble Lord's questions I am able to tell him that, as I said in my opening speech, the Irish People's Liberation Organisation is a terrorist organisation which broke away from the Irish National Liberation Army in early 1987. INLA is already a proscribed organisation. I am afraid that by the very nature of terrorism it is impossible to estimate the membership of any particular

979
organisation. I do not think that the noble Lord will be very surprised at that response.
In conclusion, I believe that I have amply justified my right honourable friend's criteria in proscribing this despicable organisation. Therefore, I ask noble Lords to give their approval to this Motion. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.52 to 8.35 p. m.]

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 298 not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 299:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Orders for financial provision. The Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 shall be amended as follows—

(a) in section 8(1)(a) after the word "for" there shall be inserted "either or both";

(b) in section 14(2) at end there shall be inserted—

"( ) an order requiring either party to the marriage to execute any document required to give effect to an order for financial provision and on the failure of any party to execute any such document to require the Clerk of Court to execute such document." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall mention also Amendments Nos. 302UB, 302ZB and 303A. The first part of the amendment that is in my name is covered by Amendment No. 302UB. It has the same effect, and no doubt the drafters of it are much better at drafting then I shall ever be. All one can say is that they have managed to say the same thing in rather more words than I used in my amendment, but otherwise it achieves the same effect. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for taking up the amendment and putting it into what the draftsmen consider to be the proper words. I thank him for that.
Paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 299 is not covered. If the court, for example, says that a husband is to transfer to a wife, or a wife is to transfer to a husband, shares in a certain company and the party ordered to make the transfer refuses to sign the transfer certificate, there are obvious difficulties. It is an attempt to avoid those difficulties that it is proposed to insert this amendment to Section 14 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act. I hope that the noble and learned Lord is prepared to reconsider that matter, because it sometimes causes problems if someone obstinately refuses to execute a transfer, or whatever, in fulfilment of the order of
980
the court. Something such as this amendment is necessary and would be effective. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: In speaking to this amendment I should like to refer also to Amendments Nos. 302UB, 302ZB and 303A, which are in my name. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, relates to two separate matters in the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. The first part of his amendment clarifies an important point in Section 8(1)(a) of the 1985 Act which has caused difficulty in the courts. The amendment provides that in making orders by way of financial provision for the applicant, the court may in appropriate circumstances make a property transfer order and award a capital sum. The Government accept the principle of this part of the noble and learned Lord's amendment and I trust he will accept that government Amendment No. 302UB makes provision for this. Amendment No. 302ZB is consequential. Government Amendment No. 303A seeks to ensure that new provisions are implemented as soon as possible.
Paragraph (b) of the noble Lord's amendment relates to a different part of the 1985 Act which is concerned with the making of incidental orders. The noble and learned Lord's amendment seeks to add a further category of incidental order to those listed at Section 14(2). This would be a power for the court to require either party to the marriage to execute a document required to give effect to an order for financial provision and on the failure of any party to execute such a document to require the clerk of court to execute the document.
It is not that I disagree with the noble and learned Lord; it is that I do not believe that the courts require the additional power, having regard to the range of powers already available. Section 5A of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907 applies where,
"(a) an action relating to heritable property is before the sheriff; or (b) it appears to the sheriff that an Order under this section is necessary to implement a decree of the sheriff relating to heritable property".
The section gives the sheriff power to order the clerk of court to execute the deed which then has effect as if executed by the person who should have executed it. It is not however the only applicable provision. Sections 8(2)(c) and 14(2)(k) of the 1985 Act read together give the court dealing with an application for financial provision on divorce a sweeping power to make,
"any ancillary Order which is expedient to give effect to any Order made under Section 8(2) of the Act".
This provision applies whether the action is in the Court of Session or the sheriff court. It does not provide expressly that a disposition executed by the clerk of court on behalf of the recalcitrant spouse has effect as if granted by the spouse but that has never been thought necessary in the case of dispositions executed in this way by virtue of the Court of Session's common law powers.
To sum up, the 1985 Act gives the court powers in this area which, in the case of the sheriff court, supplements the power now available under Section 5A and in the Court of Session supplements the power available at common law.

981
I am aware that there has been some academic controversy in Scotland with regard to the latter point. I hope that with the assurance and the explanation I have given I have convinced the noble and learned Lord that the Government accept the principle of paragraph (a) of the amendment and that the matters to which paragraph (b) relate appear to be covered by other provisions. I trust that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Yet again I thank the noble and learned Lord for accepting at least the principle that I have put forward. That is greatly appreciated. I shall certainly read what he said about paragraph (b) of my amendment. I do not promise that I shall not—if a double negative is permissible—return to the matter. I shall read what has been said and I may return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 299A:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause: ("Determination of market rent.. The following section is inserted after section 70 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988—
"70A. Where a rent officer has made a determination of a market rent in exercise of functions conferred by section 70 of this Act, that determination shall have effect as if it were a determination of rent by a rent assessment committee under section 25 (for assured tenancies) or section 35 (for short assured tenancies) except that the determination shall have effect from the date of reference to the rent officer.".).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this proposed amendment to the Housing Act 1988 is to give low income tenants—that is, only those eligible for housing benefit—a method of reducing their obligation to pay rent which is significantly higher than the market rent which the landlord might reasonably be expected to obtain under the tenancy. If the amendment were accepted, the landlord would continue to be entitled to receive the market rent for the tenancy.
The proposal is made by Shelter in Scotland which has vast experience of working with young people in property matters. According to its findings, the market in houses for young people is drying up. According to the survey carried out by Edinburgh District Council's department of environmental health, 40 per cent. of landlords previously providing accommodation for predominantly young, single people have left the market since the new powers of the rent officer to restrict the level at which the housing benefit is paid was introduced.
At the other end of the scale landlords have left the market because they are not receiving what they would like from young people because of the restricted rent. They appear to have switched their emphasis in response to the setting of the market at the rent officer's determination. Instead of housing young, single people as the private rented market has traditionally done, landlords are refusing to let to this group and are instead letting to families and other categories of people. Landlords know that
982
these people will receive benefits to cover the entire rent. That is because the housing benefit regulations prohibit the local authority from restricting benefit where the claimant falls within "vulnerable categories" unless they can show that cheaper accommodation is available.
In such instances local authorities must pay the contractual rent. Although the lose subsidy list is above the rent officer's determination, there is evidence according to Shelter of landlords abusing the system and taking advantage of the market specifically created by benefit regulations. Such distortions of the market can only be remedied if the reasonable market rent determined by the rent officer becomes the contractual rent. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I believe that this amendment aims to introduce a form of rent control but only for those tenancies which are let to people claiming housing benefit. Far from helping those people to obtain and retain accommodation, the imposition of rent control would be likely to lead to a total drying up of the supply of rented housing for benefit claimants. That in turn would lead to increased overcrowding and homelessness. I am sure that is not what the noble Lord desires.
One of the purposes of the Government's reforms of the private rented sector and the involvement of the rent officer in determining market rents for housing benefit subsidy purposes was to try to get away from the division of the private rented sector into a "paying" and a "benefit" sector. By seeking to ensure that landlords could command broadly the same rent, whether it was paid from a tenant's own pocket or through housing benefit, the intention was to remove any financial incentive a landlord might have had to favour one kind of tenant over another. There can be little doubt that under previous arrangements some landlords extracted excessive amounts of money from the housing benefit system in return for providing very poor quality accommodation.
The introduction of a statutory control over the rents charged to benefit claimants would create a perception of different treatment for benefit claimants as opposed to other tenants. This would undoubtedly lead landlords to discriminate against benefit claimants, producing, as I have said, precisely the opposite effect to the one which I suspect the proposers of the amendment intended.
I was interested to hear what the noble Lord said about difficulties in Edinburgh. I believe that this has been drawn to the department's attention. I should be grateful, if the noble Lord has evidence of such difficulties in any particular area, if he would let me know so that I can pass the details to the department. However, I do not believe that the amendment is the way to resolve the problem.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation of a delicate area of public life dealing with young people and trying to provide them with accommodation at reasonable rents. We all know that in the past there was excessive exploitation of that sector of the community. This is not a political issue; it is a matter

983
of finding the right formula to give young people a fair deal in the rising property markets.
I and those who propose the amendment will take note of the noble Lord's invitation. I am sure they will be in touch with him either directly or through me when I shall pass the information on. I am pleased to know that the Government are keeping the matter under review. Under the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 299B:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Determination of market rent. The following paragraph is added at the end of section 24(3) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987—
"(e) by virtue of the colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin of him or a member of his family it is probable that occupation of it will lead to violence from some other person".").
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 which is proposed on behalf of the Scottish Homeless Group. It is designed to enable people subject to racial attacks and harassment to apply to local authorities as being homeless and thus requiring to be rehoused.
This is not an issue in many local authority areas. But where harassment and attacks occur, the evidence suggests that they are increasing. It is important that there should be mechanisms by which people and their families can seek effective help from the local authorities to escape such violent and threatening situations. As in the similar case of women who have been subjected to violence, such a measure would help to prevent local authorities from allocating houses to people in areas where it is known that there is a high level of racial incidents.
The Scottish Homeless Group has given the example of an Asian pensioner who was offered a flat by a district council in an area which was renowned for racial harassment problems. The woman made several visits to the new flat before taking up occupancy. On each occasion she was subjected to threats and harassment, including being spat at and verbal taunts. As a result of those incidents not unnaturally she did not feel able to take the occupancy of the flat and went back to live in overcrowded conditions with her family. As a consequence the local authority officer classified her as being intentionally homeless, an unfortunate consequence in this delicate area of public life. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I recognise the concern that underlies the amendment. We must all be concerned when citizens suffer harassment or violence because of their race, and the Government give their full support to effective measures to prevent harassment and to deal with those who perpetrate such unacceptable acts.
However, I am not convinced that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is the right way to deal with the undoubted problems that
984
arise. No one would seek to deny that racial harassment occurs in Scotland. I believe that the first remedy that should be pursued when racial harassment occurs is through the criminal law. The police should be informed, and the perpetrators should be charged where appropriate.
I entirely agree that it may be appropriate in some cases to offer rehousing to a victim of racial harassment. However, I do not believe that the way to achieve that is to classify such victims as homeless. Instead, I would expect local authorities to look favourably on requests for transfers in such cases. Indeed, I know that many local authorities have dealt sensitively with such situations.
I do not believe that the noble Lord should press the amendment in view of the other remedies available which are, I believe, more effective in countering the unacceptable activities of a racially intolerant minority.
This again falls into the category of those issues which we are looking at in the revised code of practice. In dealing with those who are harassed and those who are the harassers it may be that we have to look for a contractual remedy in terms of the houses they occupy. This is not a party issue but we do not believe that the amendment is the way to stop something which we want to stamp out.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation of the Government's position. One of the major difficulties is that fear lies at the root of the problem. It is not always easy for someone who has been picked upon because of his colour to go to the police without further consequences should a person be convicted as a result of his doing so. It seems a never-ending problem to which we should all like to see a solution.
It has been worthwhile putting the amendment before the Committee in order to hear what the Minister had to say. No doubt his reply will be noted with interest by the local authorities which have to deal with this very thorny problem. I am also pleased to note that the issue will be under review in the revised code of practice. In view of the explanation that has been given I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 299C:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clauses:
"Residence right for personal carer.
In Schedule 1A of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 there shall be inserted a new paragraph 3A:
"3A.—(1) Where paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 above do not apply but a person was residing with him in the dwelling house and providing personal care:

(a) continously for the period commencing six months before the date of coming into force of section 46 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 and ending on the tenant's death (where the person was so residing on the said date); or

(b) at the time of and for the period of two years immediately before the tenant's death, then, after the tenant's death,

that person or if there is more than one such person, such one of them as may be decided by agreement, or in default of agreement by the sheriff, shall

985
be entitled to a statutory assured tenancy of the dwelling house by succession.
(2) In this paragraph "personal care" includes the provision of appropriate help with physical and social needs." ").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if Amendments Nos. 299C and 299D are taken together. The sponsor of the amendments is the Scottish Council for the Single Homeless. The amendments are designed to give carers who are not members of a tenant's family the right to succeed to the tenancy on the death of the original tenant. It would further extend that right to carers when one succession had already taken place, namely where a carer has been looking after two parents and one of them has died and there is subsequently a second succession.
The justification for the amendments is that community care is largely undertaken by unpaid informal carers. Very often the carer is the spouse, partner or another member of the family. There are also a considerable proportion of carers who are very good friends or companions of the person in need of care. The National Health Service and Community Care Bill and the associated White Paper Caring for People recognise the enormous sacrifice that those carers make. Many leave secure accommodation to live with a friend who needs support or care.
The Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 introduced new forms of tenancy agreements including assured and short assured tenancies where the right of security on the tenant's death was recognised as important for a spouse or co-habitee or for another member of the family who had lived in the house for up to two years. At that time it was argued that those rights should be extended to carers who are not related to the tenant. The amendments, although they appear complex, are designed to ensure that that will happen. They will give people who are not relatives the encouragement to continue taking care of people who need attention. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I am concerned by the amendment. I recognise what has been said in its favour and I sympathise. However, the problem is that a private landlord might give a farmworker a house at a very low rent over some considerable time. As the tenant becomes older he or she may require care and attention. Speaking for my own part, I should not like to have a house tied up long after the person to whom I had let it had died while the person who had taken care of the tenant continued the tenancy.
I believe that the provision written into the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, which is where Schedule 1A comes from, was extremely well worded. However, I should not like to see it extended as proposed by these two amendments.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: We have heard both sides of the argument. Having taken the original measure through your Lordships' House I am well aware of the debates which took place at that time and how I had to tread a tightrope.
I share the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord regarding the work done by carers who look after
986
people living in the community. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.
Most carers are, of course, related to the people they look after. Close relatives living in the house generally have a right to succeed to a tenancy when the regulated tenant dies. Therefore, the only people to whom the proposed complex new provisions would apply in practice would be unrelated carers, as the noble Lord said. Incidentally, I am interested to hear that he said that a considerable proportion are non-family carers. That is not my impression nor that of my department. I simply cannot believe that there are more than a handful of such people currently caring for regulated tenants who have no living-in relative. Neither have any cases been brought to my department's attention in which the lack of a statutory right of succession for such a carer has led to difficulty. I do not see any point in cluttering up the law with provisions which have effect only in a very limited area, if at all.
I must also point out to the Committee that the proposed amendments include particular provisions which it is hard to understand. For example the proposed paragraph 3A(l)(a) inserted by Amendment No. 299C appears to reproduce a transitional provision necessary when the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 was enacted, but of no practical effect now.
Although I repeat my appreciation of the work done by carers, I believe that the amendments are unnecessary. I have noted what my noble friend Lord Balfour said in this regard. It is one thing to draw a line so that the maximum number of tenancies can be arranged and the maximum amount of housing used, but there is another side to the argument which my noble friend has put to the Committee so well. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
9 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may speak as president of the carers' national association. I do not have the figures as I was not aware that this subject was coming up, but the Minister may underrate the extent to which unrelated people do the caring. It is not at all uncommon for two women who are friends to live together and do the caring one for the other, but there is another important group. So many women, for one reason or another, outlive their husbands. You have only to look at the figures to see how many widows there are in the older age groups. We tend to go on and on in my sex.
They do not necessarily have sons or daughters living near in modern society, and someone who is not related may well move in and make it possible for them to stay on in their own home. I ask the noble Lord to think about the issue again. There may be a case for a time-limit. It is one thing if someone has moved in within the past six months, but someone who gave up her own home and moved in five or six years ago, if not more, is surely in a special position. The amendment may not meet the point, but there is a case here.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I should like more evidence that there is a problem here. I take the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, seriously, and I understand the position. In those cases, the person who moves in usually has somewhere where she has lived. I should have thought that, in view of the law, she would be careful to realise what her rights in respect of the house into which she moves would be should the person whom she goes to help eventually die. I am aware of the humane point that one must consider those situations.
I am also aware of the difficulties of extending the bracket of people whom one might call close relatives as defined in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. There has been no difficulty until now in the implementation of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, but—this is another point which may help the noble Baroness—it is always possible for the carer who may be left to arrange to take over the tenancy. We are talking about an assured tenancy right. Therefore, the difference between what a person might get as a result of the amendment being accepted and what the noble Baroness is seeking is not all that great.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the Minister for that explanation and for the other contributions made to the debate. If I used the words "considerable number", that was a fault on my part. It is recognised that there is a problem with some people and I should not like the Minister to think that Scotland is cluttered up with people waiting for the amendment to go through the Committee.
I noted with interest what the noble Lord said. One of the problems with individuals may be that, by the time it comes to make the decision to try to have the tenancy assigned, it is sometimes too late. People tend to leave those things too late, particularly if they are more concerned with the care of the person than with their own future. I am obliged for the explanation given and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 299D not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 299DA:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Abolition of domestic warrant sales.
Sections 16 to 45 of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 are substituted by the following sections—
"Abolition of domestic warrant sales.
16.—(1) Any enactment or rule of law permitting the poinding of and sale by warrant of domestic goods shall no longer have effect.
(2) The foregoing provision shall come into force on the date of passing of this Act.
Repeals.
17.—(1) The enactments specified in Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in that Schedule.
(2) The enactments specified in Schedule 2 to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule." ").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 299DB which is consequential upon it.
The amendment seeks to abolish the use of warrant sales of domestic goods in Scotland and to remove what is seen by some people as the social evil of warrant sales in the exercise of diligence to recover money, often from people who have no money to speak of and few possessions. Basically, the amendment is proposed so that, particularly in relation to the recovery of unpaid poll tax or community charge—call it what you like—the local authority should not be forced into the use of the measure as a means of recovery.
Warrant sales and the stigma attached to them and the whole degrading process were considerably watered down in the passing of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. There was long discussion about how far that should go. Reading the debates, it looks as if the government of the day were close to doing away with warrant sales, but they came round and the then Lord Advocate stated that warrant sales must be seen as the final stage in what is often a protracted process of debt recovery. The proper measure of the efficiency of the diligence is not its shield in the relatively few sales which are held, but the extent to which the potential threat of warrant sale serves to elicit payment in the vast majority of cases in which settlement is reached without recourse to sale.
That is certainly not what is happening in the public domain with regard to recovery of arrears of poll tax. It is a pity that, when considering the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, the Government did not have the courage to take the final step and remove that blot from the landscape.
When one applies the provisions of Section 16 and Schedule 5, there is little left which can be recovered and attempts to recover arrears of any substance will, 99 times out of 100, be a non-viable exercise as a means of recovery of that debt. I shall not go through the list of all the various exclusions from poindable goods in the Act, but it is extensive and leaves little out. What are left are things such as record players. I know of one person who refuses to pay his poll tax, although he can well afford to pay it. When the sheriff officer walked in, he went to his video or record set, which was worth about £1,000, slapped a price of £157 on it and walked out of the house. The arrears to be recovered were about £400.
There is a distinction in that area between people who will not pay and can pay and people who cannot pay. They are being persuaded on a political basis not to meet the poll tax or community charge bill. However, moving away from the poll tax issue for a moment, the whole procedure is frightening to the individual who is doing his best to survive and is socially oppressive as it strikes at vulnerable people who live in fear of the legal process at its best and warrant sales as an example of that process at its worst.
Warrant sales, if executed, achieve little in the way of financial return and, by removing the remaining articles through the sale, merely create another gap and problems for the individuals concerned who

989
may even resort to crime to fill in the gap in the house as a result of the removal of poindable items.
The amendment is one of principle and not of detail. The principle is either acceptable to the Government or it is not.
It is important to distinguish between poll tax arrears and an ordinary debt. The view has been expressed that the small trader would be in difficulty in recovering, if he can, at least a proportion of a debt. However, one must distinguish the trading debt which is not paid at the end of the day. That is a voluntary commercial transaction between two consenting parties. The seller makes a decision to grant credit to the buyer and thereby creates a debt. He takes the risk of non-recovery but the risk is voluntarily undertaken. No one volunteers to pay a poll tax, or indeed any other tax, if he can help it.
In Scotland there are thousands of people who have had the poll tax imposed upon them. It is a debt unilaterally created against their resources. It is a major problem for people. It is also unfortunate that warrant sales are used because they have politicised the whole issue of the tax and its recovery. One can read in the newspapers that a warrant sale is about to be held by a local authority in an honest endeavour to apply the law, and the next moment there is rent-a-mob at the door and the sheriff officer is sent away with his tail between his legs, having achieved nothing. A cult is developing. People are being encouraged to be martyrs to the system when a better way could be found.
I noticed this week in the newspaper that one authority has apparently given up the ghost. It has £4 million of arrears. It has sensibly decided to conciliate; they will discuss it with people who have not paid and bring them into the scheme. Unfortunately—it is one of the reasons why this amendment has been tabled—local authorities do not have a right to give relief on the community charge on grounds of hardship. The local authorities cannot exercise discretion. A view has been taken that everyone has to pay something. Many local authorities have been advised at a high level of legal advice that they have no alternative but to enter into this non-viable exercise, not in tens or twenties but in thousands. I understand that in Strathclyde not long ago there were 250,000 warrants issued. The councillors who have to make those decisions are being put in an impossible position. They are also acting out of fear that if they do not go through this ridiculous process of exercising warrant sales, they may be surcharged under Sections 102 and 104 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
So there are real difficulties not only for the individuals concerned but also for the authorities. It may be an idea to abolish that aspect of debt recovery, certainly in relation to the recovery of the community charge, and move toward peace in the community rather than have the acrimony and distress which for one reason or another have been caused all round. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I feel that there are one or two other matters to be taken into consideration. I know that the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 is long and complicated. However, I am thinking of the case
990
where a person refuses to do something. For instance, he might be well-off but refuse to pay his rent; or he might be instructed under the planning regulations to remove a structure that he has built and refuse to do so. As a last resort the local authority can carry out the work and charge him. But if we virtually scrap the whole of Part II of the Debtors (Scotland) Act—which would be the effect of leaving out Sections 16 to 45—I believe that the local authority might be in a very much worse position to claim any money against a person who may be relatively well-off but simply refuses to pay or starts to do something which is totally against the public interest.
It is in such cases that I feel that this amendment may result in the situation being very much more to the detriment of the local authority rather than necessarily in cases relating to the community charge.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: This amendment poses a problem for us. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, was not quite sure where he stood with regard to people who for political reasons refuse to pay. I perfectly understood his point about the very poor who may be left only with the necessary household goods for survival. It is a primitive form of debt collection. But we are all agreed in the sensible political parties in Scotland, such as the Liberal Democrats and sections of the Labour Party, that the illegality which has been advocated by the SNP must be wrong. Therefore I suppose that warrant sales could have some point in a case like that, although there might be better methods of collecting the money.
So we are in this dilemma. We consider it a primitive form of debt collection. We consider that it should not be used, and it is used with discretion against the very poor. But if people are breaking the law, it poses a problem which has to be dealt with in some way. I am sorry to be so wet about it, but that is the situation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I agree with the noble Lord that this is a very delicate and difficult matter. I remember so well when we were discussing the Debtors (Scotland) Act and looking at how many household objects would remain to the person if poinding were carried out to the full. I agree with the noble Lord that it is primitive, but what one must bear in mind is how it feels to the person next door who has paid up. I fell that primitive though it is, at the moment it is very difficult to think of how one replaces this way of proceeding. I have met it personally a few times and I should very much like to find another way.
I understand that debt collection in England can end up with imprisonment, which I think it cannot in Scotland, and ours is a very much preferable way. The noble Lords, Lord Macaulay and Lord Mackie, were quite right to talk about this in relation to people being advised for other people's political reasons not to pay. But the onus there is on the people who are doing the advising. Since they are doing that, I do not think one should necessarily remove a sanction because of the people who are living next door and who have paid. I know some

991
of those, as I am sure does the noble Lord, who see justice in it. I am extremely glad that the matter has been raised, because it is important.
At the moment simply to repeal that part of our debt collection law would be seen as very unjust by quite a lot of law-abiding people who perhaps have difficulty in paying up. So I should not like to see the amendment accepted by the Government, but I see the point of why it has been raised.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: In dealing with this amendment we are going over well-trodden ground which to some of us in this House and in another place caused a great deal of concern, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy indicated. But I hope that I may deal with the matter briefly in this way.
We started with the detailed work by the independent Scottish Law Commission in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It reported with recommendations for reform in 1985. On receipt of that report there was further public consultation undertaken by the Government and the result was that the Bill was promoted by my predecessor, my noble and learned friend Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, in this House. That eventually resulted in the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987 which came into operation in 1988.
There were substantial reforms, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has graciously acknowledged, in the 1987 Act and those were designed to remove what were the most resented aspects of the procedures of poindings and warrant sales. The 1987 reforms were not simply restricted to domestic debt cases. Among the major reforms was the ending of the public advertisement of sales giving details of the debtor's name and address. Those of us who live in Scotland know that there was for many years a long campaign against that arrangement in Scotland. Also sales can now only take place in the debtor's home if he and all the other occupiers consent in writing. There is furthermore a very substantial list of goods exempt from poinding, which includes all the goods reasonably required by the debtor or a member of his household.
The noble Lord said that the purpose of this amendment was one of principle, not detail. But if this amendment were carried, the abolition of warrant sales of all domestic goods might have a rather curious effect. If, for example, someone had a warehouse full of washing machines and had lots of debts to all sorts of people, if this amendment were carried it would not be possible to poind or sell those washing machines, although they were not in the homes of any individuals.
It is not often that I disagree with my noble friend Lady Carnegy but she described the system as primitive and I have to respond that in every sophisticated legal system in the world there is ultimately an arrangement for enforcement against moveable goods where there are outstanding debts.
As the Scottish Law Commission itself reported:
"On the contrary, enforcement against moveable goods is permitted in every country of whose practice we are aware.
992
Indeed, in England and Wales, execution against goods, including household goods in debtors' dwellings, is by far the most commonly used method of enforcing judgment debts".
During the course of a Bill in another place recently, Mr. Eric Heffer—who is not known as a great supporter of the present Government—indicated that broadly the same system operates in England and Wales. I therefore think that we should be careful in suggesting that we have in Scotland an arrangement which is in any sense unique.
In one respect it has a feature that is probably superior to that of England and Wales, to which the noble Lord has adverted, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy: there is now no right of civil imprisonment in the event of non-payment of a debt. The warrant sale procedure is intended to be the ultimate sanction. It is only one of a range of remedies available to creditors to recover their debts. The Scottish Law Commission concluded, and the Government agreed, that abolishing warrant sales was not right.
There is a completely different aspect which I regret is sometimes not fully appreciated in all its significance. One of the adverse effects of the abolition of warrant sales would not be to deprive someone like the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, of his right to credit if he needs it. To cut off this ultimate sanction for payment of debts would restrict the availability of credit to the poorest members of society. What concerns me—and I am sure that it would concern the noble Lord, with his knowledge of the courts—is that the tallymen of the West of Scotland engage in the provision of credit at quite extortionate rates. It is a matter that is utterly reprehensible and ought to be avoided at all possible costs. In those circumstances I feel very strongly that it is right that we should ensure that credit is available to the worst off in our society without them having to resort to the tallyman.
There are a number of safeguards for debtors in the 1987 Act. The example that the noble Lord gave would have been covered by the provisions in Section 23 of the 1987 Act because the debtor now has opportunities to apply to the court to have his goods released or to have the sale called off, for example on the ground that it would be unduly harsh for the sale to go ahead.
I believe that the noble Lord has brought the issue up as a safety valve at a difficult time with the payment of the community charge. I also consider it extremely responsible of him to indicate his distaste for those who advocate that the law should not be observed, however much the tax might be disliked. I entirely share what I understand to be his sentiment that it is disgraceful that a rent-a-mob is going around trying to cause difficulty where efforts are being made to enforce debts that are due.
This has been a useful debate and there have been contributions to indicate the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. Nonetheless, I hope that, now we have run round the course again as we did in 1987 and have once more considered the matter, it will be appreciated that it is in the best interests not only of those who

993
are well off but of those who are worst off that the arrangements in place in the 1987 Act should be maintained.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, and for the other contributions made in the short debate on this important matter. I am not entirely convinced by the argument presented on behalf of the Government. However, the observations made have been extremely interesting in relation to the Scottish problem.
Where people have money and will not pay, there are other means of extracting the money from them. Two well known people in Scotland have already had that thrust upon them by having their bank account frozen. Unfortunately, people at the poor end of the scale do not have bank accounts. They exist from day to day hoping that tomorrow will bring something better. Those unfortunate people are being sucked into a political "yahoo" brigade, thinking that they are doing themselves a favour. In fact all that they are doing is adding debt upon debt and making their problems even worse.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, made reference to the Scottish Nationalist Party's role in this matter. I have not seen a poor Scottish Nationalist advocating this and the people who advocate it appear to have enough money to pay the bill if they wished to do so.
The whole matter is of great social importance. The example given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate about the hangar full of washing machines could be said to be argumentum absurdam. It may not be a domestic debt. One could certainly argue about that. It would be difficult to say that 200 washing machines could be regarded as reasonable on a domestic basis.
This issue will never go away. I recall chairing a consumer council committee which dealt with that aspect of due diligence. The two sides of the argument never met and we abandoned it in despair. There were various acrimonious exchanges between the sheriff officers side, who wanted warrant sales as a last resort, and the more academically inclined, who wanted them abandoned. It was interesting to hear the Government's explanation and I am indebted to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 299DB not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 299DC:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Facts not disputed at trial
After section 26 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 there shall be inserted the following section—
"26A.—(1) In any proceedings on indictment at the instance of Her Majesty's Advocate the prosecutor may serve with the indictment a "statement of facts not in dispute" and such statement shall be in the form prescribed by an Act of Adjournal under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 and shall be signed by the Lord Advocate or one of his deputies, or (in the Sheriff Court) by a Procurator Fiscal, and such statement may contain one or more simple but separate
994
and discrete assertions as to fact, including, without prejudice to the foregoing generality, assertions that on any specified occasion—

(a) an accused or any other person whose name appears on the list of witnesses lodged with the Clerk of the Court before which the trial is to take place was in a specified place;

(b) an accused or any other such person was engaged in a specified activity, including, without prejudice to the foregoing generality, travelling in or on a vehicle as a passenger or driver thereof;

(c) an accused or any other such person had possession of any specific article;

(d) an accused or any other such person suffered specified injuries, with any specified consequences;

(e) any person named suffered fatal injuries caused in a specified manner;

(f) the accused or any person deceased made a statement in specified terms;

(g) the accused or any other named person was in a specified physical condition, including, without prejudice to the foregoing generality, a condition of intoxication or sobriety of illness or consciousness or injury.

(2) When such a statement has been served on all the accused persons named on the indictment any accused person so named may, not later than 21 days after the service of the indictment upon him, by written notice in a form prescribed by Act of Adjournal (a "rejection notice") intimate that he does not wish the statement or any part of it to be used as prescribed by subsections (3) and (4) thereof, and thereafter nothing in this section will authorise the use at the trial for any purpose whatsoever of any part of the statement which the accused has in the rejection notice intimated that he does not wish to be used; and the fact of the service of statement or the notice in relation to any such part shall not be referred to in any way at the trial in the presence of the jury.
(3) In relation to any matter contained in a statement duly served as specified in subsection (1) hereof and not mentioned in any rejection notice as mentioned in subsection (2) hereof, it shall not be necessary for the accused or the prosecutor to prove such matter, which shall be deemed to have been fully proved, without prejudice to the right of any party to lead evidence in relation to such matter.
(4) Any statement or part thereof containing any matter deemed, by virtue of this section, to have been fully proved shall be read over to the jury at a time determined by agreement between the prosecutor and the accused or their representatives or failing agreement, at a time determined by the trial Judge.'.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is lengthy but the issue is fairly straightforward. For a long time there has been a problem regarding evidence which is uncontroversial but which requires the attendance of witnesses at court. It causes a great deal of complaint from witnesses who are unnecessarily brought to court. Through this amendment my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey and I have attempted to provide a system whereby something may be done to reduce the number of witnesses who must appear at court on undisputed matters.
I am fully aware that the Scottish Law Commission is looking at this whole problem on a wider scale and at the use of witness statements and so on as a possible method. However, it appears to my noble and learned friend and I that this proposal is an interim measure which could help. I am aware that the noble and learned Lord has heard on occasions from the Police Federation and others about the difficulties caused by witnesses having to attend court and having to wait for a long time. It is a major problem. If accepted, this amendment could do something to diminish the problem while we are waiting for the necessarily prolonged review by the Scottish Law Commission. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: There is, I think, general agreement that a great deal of time can be spent in criminal trials leading evidence which is uncontroversial and which is unlikely to be challenged. It is clearly, therefore, in the public interest that further ways should be found, consistent with fairness to the accused, in which routine and uncontroversial evidence can be put to the court in a manner which does not unnecessarily take up the time of the court. There already are procedures which do so such as joint minutes of admission agreed between prosecution and defence and statutory certificates with regard to routine evidence. The present amendment is an example of how these procedures can be further extended, to some extent perhaps drawing on the provision with regard to statements relating to drug trafficking contained in Section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987.
However, I am as aware as the noble and learned Lord that the Scottish Law Commission is currently considering a number of matters and in particular the use of affidavit evidence in criminal proceedings. Its discussion paper No. 77 put forward various provisional proposals for consideration.
I wish to consider further the procedure proposed in the amendment along with the considered recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission when these are received. The noble and learned Lord suggested that it could be introduced as an interim measure. That is the only point on which I take issue with him. He and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, have advanced an extremely useful proposition; whether it will be followed in every detail I know not but I certainly would not wish to dismiss the proposals out of hand. I do not think that the amendment should be dealt with on an interim basis, however. I prefer to look at it in the context of the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission.
With that indication to the noble and learned Lord, I hope that he will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: That problem has been with us for at least 20 years. It will obviously be with us for some time to come. At this stage I do not intend to press the amendment, but in withdrawing it I do not make any promise either on my own behalf or on behalf of my noble and learned friend that we shall not return to it at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 299DD:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Homeless "travellers"
The Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 shall be amended as follows—

(a) In section 28(2) after the words "think fit", there shall be inserted the words "but not if the person is defined as homeless under section 24(3)(c) and is a traveller".

996

(b) In section 33(2)(a) after the words "was made" there shall be inserted the words "and that person is defined as homeless under section 24(3)(c) and is a traveller".

(c) In section 43 there shall be inserted in its appropriate place " "traveller" has the meaning assigned to it by the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment was suggested by the Save the Children Fund and concerns travellers. Its purpose is to exclude travellers from the need to establish a local connection if they are defined as or threatened with homelessness under Part II, Section 24 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.
A traveller is defined as homeless when he or she has accommodation but there is no place where he is permitted either to place it or reside in it under Section 24 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. The traveller may have a vehicle, a caravan or a trailer, but no standing ground on which to place it. However, though a traveller may fulfil that definition, he or she is still required to have a local connection with the area.
Given the nomadic lifestyle of travellers and the lack of official site provision that is often a quite impossible task. There are currently around 3,000 travellers in Scotland, making up around 750 families. The pitch targets recommended by the Secretary of State's advisory committee on Scotland's travelling people is that district and island councils should provide 982 official sites. In April 1990 only 23 district and island councils had met their pitch target, providing 271 official sites. Those figures were stated in Hansard in another place on 5th April 1990, cols. 823 and 827.
Where there are no official sites, travellers are forced to stay on unofficial sites which lack basic facilities. Consequently their stay is short and they find it difficult to establish a local connection. Examples of that occur in the regions of Strathclyde and Fife. Only one of the three district councils in Fife and only nine of the 19 district councils in Strathclyde have met their pitch targets. I am glad to say that Glasgow, and in particular the area from which I come—West End Partick—has done very well in the provision of sites for travellers.
The Save the Children Fund project workers, working with travellers in these areas, have identified the difficulty of travellers proving a local connection. Where district councils do not provide official sites or where pitch targets have not been met, local authorities are required by law to operate a policy of toleration and non-harassment of travelling people. The toleration policy applies to the physical occupation of land. Again, from Save the Children Fund work with travelling people, it has been found that despite the toleration policy local authorities still force travellers to move from unofficial sites. One example of that, I am sad to say, occured in Dundee in March this year.
If a traveller has applied for housing and is forced to move on, the application is automatically withdrawn. Consequently, travellers' access to accommodation is restricted both through the waiting list channels and the homelessness route. It is a problem that I am sure the Minister is very well aware of, particularly in his area where there are probably a fair number of travellers.
There is no easy solution, but I hope the Minister will show sympathy. Sympathy and understanding are most important to travelling people. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I thank the noble Lord for bringing this matter to the attention of the Committee. I was somewhat surprised but interested to learn that it was the Save the Children Fund that identified this problem. Increasingly, travelling families are staying on the growing network of permanent sites throughout Scotland. I noted the figures mentioned by the noble Lord. Of course, those figures exclude the provision of sites provided privately which I understand offer another 300 to 350 pitches. In addition, I am advised that over 100 extra pitches are in the pipeline with others at the early stage of planning.
In general, moving around the country for at least part of the year is the way of life for travellers. I did not think that we had a problem in this connection. However, if a travelling family becomes homeless, presumably because they lose their caravan as a result of some kind of serious accident, it seems to me highly unlikely that the family will wish to be housed by a local authority under the homelessness legislation. Instead, I would expect the family to be keener to make its own arrangements. Indeed, as the Committee will be aware, Scotland's travellers have a very strong sense of family. Any traveller who finds himself homeless will therefore quickly find his relatives helping him and his family to find somewhere to live.
Therefore, it seems to me that there are few occasions when travellers apply to local authorities under the homelessness legislation. Indeed, I am not aware of any case of a local authority in Scotland refusing to help a traveller who has applied as homeless on the ground that he has a local connection elsewhere. On the other hand, I am aware that several authorities in various parts of Scotland have housed travelling people in council houses when they have wished to settle permanently.
I was interested in what the noble Lord said about Dundee and travellers being moved on. I gather that in Dundee, by negotiation, travellers moved from a sensitive location to a less sensitive location. That may be the case to which the noble Lord referred.
As this matter has been raised at a fairly late stage in our proceedings—I have only recently seen the amendment—I am prepared to consider whether there is a real problem which needs to be addressed. At this; stage I am not convinced that there is, but I should like to take back this matter and consider it. If we think that there is a major problem we shall come back to it at a later stage.
I should like to say to the noble Lord that sympathy undoubtedly is extended from both Front Benches to these people. We shall have to see what the situation really is and whether it is as serious as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Is not the main problem in providing sites for the homeless to park their caravans, which are often very good ones, the amount of time that it takes to overcome the
998
objections of the local people who are all for them being housed but not in their back-yards?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I believe that the noble Lord refers to what is normally called the "NIMBY" aspects of the case. I would not suggest for one moment that he is wrong.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I sympathise with the Minister. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, is wearing his farmer's hat and chewing straw. I am sure that he recognises that the travelling people have been a boon to farmers in parts of Scotland for over 100 years. They may be thorns as well but they are also a boon.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I am wholly in sympathy with the travelling people. I was merely pointing out the difficulty that arises, but not because of the farmers, who are very sympathetic people.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: We learn something every day. This is not an easy problem. These people have been used to generations of nomadic living. As an aside, every time I am in the area I take my friends to the Dunoon road at the road end of Hell's Glen to show them the heart of Argyll, where traditionally travelling people were married. I see the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, nodding.
I have discussed these matters with the late Michael Noble, who owned that part of the country. I have great sympathy with the travelling people, but because they are so different from many of us in so many ways problems arise. I am grateful that the Minister is going to consider this matter sympathetically. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 299DE:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Amendments to Judicial Pensions Act 1959
.—(1) In section 2(1) of the Judicial Pensions Act 1959, for "75" there shall be substituted "70".
(2) After section 2(1) of the 1959 Act there shall be inserted—
"(2) Such a person as is mentioned in subsection (1) above shall not hold office in a full time capacity for a period of more than 15 years."
(3) After section 11 of the 1959 Act there shall be inserted—
"Assessment of pensions of holders of offices listed in Schedule 1.
The pensions of persons appointed to the offices listed in the first Schedule to this Act after service in the lower judiciary or other pensionable employment, shall be assessed on the basis of the aggregation of service based on that person's final salary."").
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly short amendment which is of some importance. It deals with the position of Scotland's senior judges in terms of the Judicial Pensions Act 1959. At the moment a senior judge in the Court of Session does not have to retire until the age of 75. Many judges have stayed on until that age and even beyond and they have carried out their duties perfectly well.
However, as in every other walk of life, there are variations. I say that saving the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. Some retain their vitality and sharpness well past that date but others are less fortunate. The technique of the raised voice and the dropped book has been used on more than one occasion in court. This is not an attempt to give the judiciary a sell-by date, to use a commercial term, or to give them a judicial shelf-life.
The amendment is tabled in order to assist judges. To have someone sitting as a judge to the age of 75 is out of keeping with the modern trend, which is to appoint younger people to judicial office. People are now being appointed who are in their early fifties. By that time they will already have been in demanding legal practice for about 25 years and to serve another 15 years is quite enough. To serve another 25 years in another demanding area of the law is not necessarily in the public interest or that of the individual.
It may be that some judges feel that they have to stay on until the age of 75 because that is what is permitted. They may feel a sense of public duty. If the age limit were lowered to 70, that would give them a lower retirement date. One would hope that that would be preliminary to putting judges on a par with everyone else by having a retirement age of 65. That is the purpose behind subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause.
Subsection (3) is, I suspect, not an amendment to the correct Act. It is quite difficult to trace judicial pensions. I took the opportunity of tabling it under the Judicial Pensions Act 1959, which seemed to be the appropriate legislation. It is a probing amendment concerning the salaries and pensions of judges and it seeks information. The reason behind the amendment is that, because the base of judicial appointments has been widened, people are being appointed to senior appointments in the Court of Session from other areas. People such as sheriff principals and others have held pensionable employment in those areas.
The present position is obscure. There is a possibility that some people are being deprived of the benefit of the pension which they accumulated in a previous job. A judge today should be in the same position as everyone else and should be able to take his pension with him when he moves. A person going from the lower judiciary to the higher judiciary should have an aggregation of all the pension rights that he has accumulated over the years. I understand that that is not the position at the moment. No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will explain what the position is if I am wrong or give an undertaking to investigate the matter and write to me in due course. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I hesitate to say anything on this subject. On the question of judicial pensions I am rather restrained—certainly on the retirement age. The noble Lord appeared to suggest that I am approaching the present retirement age. I have
1000
certainly felt elderly during the proceedings on the Bill and that time is pressing on, but I assure the Committee that I am not quite there yet. There is a lot to be said perhaps for those holding high judicial office not doing so for more than 15 years. Whether 70, 75 or any other age is the correct retirement age is another question.
A serious point arises in subsection (3) of the amendment. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate undertook to consider sheriffs' pensions in the general review of pensions. I hope that he will take this amendment away. As I understand the position—I may well be wrong—the present statuory instrument dealing with the matter has the suggestion which only a government-inspired statutory instrument could have—the first employment will pay a larger salary than the second employment. That is not what normally happens. It would be more appropriate to have something on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, in subsection (3). I hope that the noble and learned Lord will say that this matter will also be looked at in the general review of pension requirements.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: It is dangerous for a simple peasant like me to interfere in such august matters. I have no doubt that I shall be put firmly in my place by my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. I do not want to personalise this matter but I shall give two examples. First, if the provision had been in existence, the recently retired Lord President would have had to retire two years earlier; secondly, the new Lord President, whose age I am bound to say I have not looked up but who is very young, relatively speaking, in the tradition of the Scottish Bench, would be compelled to retire at a comparatively junior age.
I do not know whether 15 years on the Bench is such a length of time that one begins to lose the brilliance of one's judgments. All I can say is that at the age now, which I feel is advancing fast, of 74 I am just about as bright as I was 20 years ago and I should have thought that that might apply. I do not want to be frivolous but I am against arbitrary limits. Some people are right on the spot at 75. Others, I agree, are not so good a little before then. With those unhelpful comments, I shall now retire.
The Earl of Selkirk: I should like to ask my noble friend whether the age limit applies merely to Scotland or whether it also applies to Great Britain. To my knowledge this subject has never been discussed before in the Chamber. Of course I may be wrong in that assumption, but I do not intend to hold a debate on the matter. I entirely agree with what my noble friend said. I think that 70 is absurdly young. If a man is not sensible at 70, he never will be.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The changes contained in the proposed new clause to the existing provisions relating to the retirement age of the senior judiciary are, as my noble friends Lord Selkirk and Lord Stodart indicated, of considerable substance. The i potential effects of the proposed changes on the

1001
holders, present and future, of the most senior judicial posts in the United Kingdom are very wide indeed.
The new clause would not be restricted solely to Scotland. Such changes could have profound implications on the future administration of justice not only in Scotland but also throughout the United Kingdom. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that without the most careful analysis of the implications of the proposed changes, and the most extensive consultations, it would be quite inappropriate for the Committee to accept such provisions. We dealt earlier with a measure regarding war crimes. However, this in its own way has arguably more profound implications for the judiciary in the United Kingdom than that measure had in its own context. I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
In regard to the second matter, I hope that I can be more helpful and reassuring. The final subsection relates to the way in which a person's entitlement is to be calculated following on the periods of service initially in the lower judiciary, or other pensionable employment, and ultimately in the senior judiciary.
I am very much aware that the existing provisions are both extremely complex and also unsatisfactory in certain respects. The present clause is directed only to those whose final appointment is at the most senior level. I must say I am aware that similar problems exist for those at more junior levels in the judiciary. As Members of the Committee are aware, and indeed as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, indicated he was, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor announced in February this year that a radical review would be undertaken of judicial pension schemes on a United Kingdom basis. I am glad to be able to confirm that the particular problems relating to the aggregation of service will be addressed in that review. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I hope that the Minister will pay no attention to the advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Stodart. He said that some people can go on I or ever and that you cannot make judgments in that respect. The trouble is that the people he is leaving to judge the matter are the judges. That is an impossible situation. If you leave it to a panel to decide which judges should continue after the age of 70 or 75 you are in trouble. I think that an arbitrary limit of some kind should remain in force.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his co-operation in the matter of pensions. There may be people who at present are adversely affected by the present legislation and I wonder whether some consideration might be given to applying the rules retrospectively within a certain number of years. I do no: suggest a period of 20 years, but perhaps account could be taken of the movement from lower offices to higher offices. I put that suggestion forward as an idea.
1002
I may be sticking my neck out for chopping because, having made these observations in what I hope was a helpful manner, I still have to return to Scotland and appear before the judges who may have taken the trouble to read what I said. Therefore I should like to put on record the fact that I am not for one moment suggesting that when a person reaches the age of 70 or 75 he can be regarded as having lost his judicial marbles, to use a colloquialism. From our own experience we have seen judges go past that age and perform their duties excellently. However, it is important to bear in mind that no one is indispensable in this life. I agree that the former Lord President would have had to retire perhaps two years earlier. But is there is something wrong with that principle?
The amendment is designed to bring the judiciary into line with the rest of the country. The noble and learned Lord said that for judges to retire at 70 would cause great problems, but he did not tell us what they would be. All one has to do is to appoint more younger judges, and there is plenty of material available in Scotland for that.
The other difficulty about staying in that type of employment for more than 15 years is that it may impede the changes needed as time passes, depending upon the strength and personality of the person in charge. Having a 15-year maximum, especially at the administrative end of the business, would make room for change if change were needed. Having heard the interesting, short discussion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and shall return to face the wrath in Scotland.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 299DF:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
"After section 35 of the Judicial Factors Act 1849 there shall be inserted the following section—
"35A.—(1) Subject to subsection (5) below, where an individual grants a factory and commission or power of attorney which includes a declaration of intention to which this section applies, the factory and commission or power of attorney shall not be revoked only by reason of any subsequent mental incapacity.
(2) This section applies to a declaration of intention which is in the prescribed form and includes a statement that the granter intends the factory and commission or power of attorney to continue despite any subsequent mental incapacity of his, provided that—

(a) the factory and commission or power of attorney has been subscribed by the granter and attested by two witnesses before a notary public and has been registered in the Books of Council and Session or in the books of the appropriate sheriff court of the sheriffdom in which the granter habitually resides;

(b) the notary public has made a statement in the prescribed form that the granter has read or has had read to him prescribed information explaining the effect of the declaration; and

(c) the granter has sworn or affirmed before the notary public that the declaration was made freely and without coercion of any kind.

(3) In subsection (1) and (2) above "mental incapacity" means, in relation to a granter, that he is incapable of managing his property and affairs by reason of mental disorder.

1003
(4) "Mental disorder" has, the same meaning as in section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.
(5) A factory and commission or power of attorney which includes a declaration of intention to which this section applies shall be revoked by the appointment of a curator bonis or tutor-dative and may be revoked on application to the court by any person having an interest.
(6) In this section—

(a) "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

(b) "the court" means the Court of Session or the sheriff." ".

The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment relates to a different issue. By the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985, England has provided a mechanism by which a relative or other trusted person can be given the power to deal with the interests of a person who becomes what I shall call frail mentally. I am not referring to judges over 70 or 75 at that point! In Scotland the position is different in that a power of attorney, as I understand the position, is deemed to lapse if the person granting it becomes incapable of managing his or her own affairs. In that situation Scots law requires that a curator bonis be appointed. There are two main reasons why that is an objectionable procedure. First, it is highly expensive and no one recommends that a curator be appointed unless the estate is of £15,000 or more. The second and possibly more important point is that the curator's duty, as defined by the Accountant of Courts Supervision, is that he should regard the preservation of funds as his main interest.
Those of us who have had parents or other elderly relatives who become frail mentally, if I may put it that way, know full well that what we are interested in, and what I am sure most Members of the Committee and most of the population are interested in, is that the frail person should have his or her interests regarded as paramount rather than the interests of preserving the estate, which is, if I may say so, a rather 18th century approach.
The amendment is put forward so that one can have a power of attorney granted by someone who foresees that he or she may later suffer from mental incapacity. Those of us who have had a relative who begins to suffer from senile dementia know full well that such a person knows that that difficulty is coming and wants to provide for it. Although I am fully aware that the Law Commission is looking at the whole problem, I suggest that the amendment provides a minor, interim measure which could do a vast amount of good and could help many cases where children especially want something to be done for their parents but cannot do anything because of the state of the law. In this respect the English law is far better than the Scottish law.
The Enduring Powers of Attorney Act was brought in by this Government. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will see the force of bringing in a similar provision for Scotland. It is to do that that my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey and I have tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment. In many cases the next of kin has been granted power of attorney, he has consulted the family and has done the best he can. The system of using power of attorney works very well indeed. If a person does, for want of a better word, go "bonkers", the powers come under the extremely strict rules of no less a person than the accountant of the Court of Session.
I wish to give one simple example where one might wish to dispose of property. Perhaps the Committee will forgive me for quoting a case that happened to myself. There was a hill on which there was a quarry that gave my wife quite a good income. Eventually the quarry packed up and I realised that the property could easily change from an asset into a liability. It took quite an elaborate procedure ending with an interview with the accountant at the court to persuade the person concerned that it was in the best interests of everybody that the property should be sold. It was a long drawn out and complicated affair. If somebody had had power of attorney I am sure that they could have consulted the family. Matters could have been settled just like that and the affair would have been much simpler. I strongly support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As has been indicated, in England and Wales a protection similar to that proposed by this amendment is provided by the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985. I think that there will undoubtedly be general agreement in the Committee that we should make appropriate legislative provision for those who are unfortunately unable to manage their own affairs.
It was following concern expressed by the Law Society of Scotland that the Scottish Law Commission agreed to look at the matter of mentally disabled adults. The commission is now considering this as part of its Fourth Programme of Law Reform. Perhaps I may say that, as regards its inclusion in that programme, from a personal viewpoint I welcome the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has addressed a particular difficulty that arises. Nevertheless I am bound to say that I think there are broader issues that need to be addressed. As the noble and learned Lord said, much of our law stems from the traditions and the interests of the 18th century rather than of the last decade of the present century.
Having said that, I consider that a better approach would be to await the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission. With that suggestion to the Committee, I undertake to refer the amendment specifically to the Scottish Law Commission for its consideration. With that indication, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I shall certainly withdraw the amendment tonight, but we need to consider that there are thousands of people who will suffer

1005
within the next two or three years from senile dementia. We shall not have an opportunity to reform the law in this radical way that the Law Commission is examining for four, five, six or seven years. It is important that we should do something now as an interim measure.
In withdrawing the amendment I strongly urge the
1006
noble and learned Lord to consider the matter before the Report stage. It may well be that I shall return to the subject then purely on the basis of an interim measure that would give some relief until a more radical measure can be brought in. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 299E:
Page 48, line 5, leave out ("except articles 8, 9, 35 and 36,").
The noble and learned Lord said: As the Committee will be aware, the Bill's provisions about the model law take account of the recommendations made to me by the Scottish Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law chaired by Lord Dervaird. In particular, in terms of Clause 45(4) as drafted, where parties to an arbitration agreement wish to adopt the model law for their arbitration, the model law as set out in Schedule 4 to the Bill will apply, but with certain exceptions. These are that Articles 8, 9, 35 and 36 are not to apply. Parties therefore would not be able to rely on the four excepted articles. Article 9, for example, makes express provision for a party to an arbitration to apply to the court for interim measures such as an interim interdict.
The Scottish advisory committee is now of the view, contrary to its earlier recommendation, that when parties agree to adopt the model law for their arbitration the terms of the model law precisely as set out in Schedule 4 should apply in the same way as the model law would apply to an international commercial arbitration.
1 have accepted the committee's revised recommendation. The present amendment implements that recommendation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 299EA:
Before Schedule 4. insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE 3A APPLICATIONS FOR CHILDREN'S CERTIFICATES
1. Applications may be made to a licensing board in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule for a children's certificate within the meaning of section 34A of this Act.
2. The holder of a public house licence or hotel licence in respect of any premises or the applicant for a new public house or hotel licence or for the renewal of such a licence may make an application for a children's certificate in respect of those premises, and any such application shall be in such form as may be prescribed, shall be completed and signed by the applicant or his agent and shall be lodged with the clerk of the licensing board within whose area the premises are situated not later than five weeks before the first day of the meeting of the board at which the application is to be considered.
3. A copy of every application made under this Schedule shall be sent by the applicant to the chief constable, and if the chief constable desires to object to the grant of a children's certificate he shall, not later than seven days before the meeting of the licensing board at which the application is to be considered—

(a) lodge with the clerk of the board a written notice of his objection specifying the grounds of his objection to the grant of the certificate; and

(b) intimate such objection and grounds to the applicant,

and the chief constable shall be entitled to appear at the meeting of the licensing board which considers the application and make objection to the grant of the certificate.
4. A licensing board shall not, within two years of its refusal of an application made under paragraph 2 above in respect of
1008
any premises, entertain another such application in respect of those premises unless it has made a direction to the contrary in respect of that refusal.
5. An application for a new public house licence or hotel licence or for the renewal of such a licence under section 10 of the principal Act shall state whether the applicant is making an application for a children's certificate.
6. The grant of an application for a children's certificate shall come into effect on the making of the grant or, in the case of such an application made with an application for a new public house or hotel licence, on the day on which such licence comes into effect.
7. The grant of an application for a children's certificate made at the time of an application for the renewal of a licence shall come into effect on the renewal of the licence to which the application relates.
8. If an application for a children's certificate is made at the same time as an application for the renewal of a licence, any existing grant of such an application for a children's certificate shall continue to have effect until the first mentioned application is granted or, as the case may be, refused by the board.
9. The grant of an application for a children's certificate shall cease to have effect when the licence to which it relates ceases to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment is one of a group of amendments which are consequential on the new clauses on children's certificates which I moved on 2nd April as Amendments Nos. 281F and 281G and which the Committee agreed should be inserted in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [UNCITRAL]:
Earl of Balfour Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 299EB:
Page 61, line 20, after ("question") insert ("that it has jurisdiction").
The noble Earl said: I should like to go briefly through the three sentences which make up Article 16(3) of Schedule 4. An arbitral tribunal may rule on a plea that the tribunal is exceeding the scope of its authority, either as a preliminary question or in an award on the merits. If the tribunal rules on such a plea as a preliminary question—and I propose the addition of the words "that it has jurisdiction"—then any party may request the court to decide the matter, which decision shall be subject to no appeal.
While such a request is pending before the court the arbitral tribunal may continue the arbitral proceedings and make an award. If the words "that it has jurisdiction" are not inserted into the Bill I argue that there is some doubt as to what the preliminary question is.
Furthermore, the Scottish advisory committee added the words in line 20 "on such a plea" but left out the words "that it has jurisdiction". As I read Article 16(3), there is some doubt as to whether the preliminary question is that the tribunal has jurisdiction or the power to make an award on the merits. My amendment removes that doubt. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The Scottish advisory committee noted particularly that an aim of the model law was to prevent the use of the courts as a

1009
source of tactical delay in international commercial arbitrations. The committee's report states:
"To that end the Model Law severely limits the right of recourse to the courts. Broadly, while an arbitration is a going arbitration, resort to the courts is not permissible except to obtain assistance in such matters as the obtaining of evidence".
My noble friend Lord Balfour has scrutinised this part of the Bill with greater care than anyone else. I am flattered that he should have taken the trouble to do so. It is a measure which I consider is an important one to introduce into the law of Scotland.
However, I invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment for two reasons. First, it is an unnecessary departure from the model law, which the Scottish advisory committee indicated was undesirable in principle. Secondly, it is undesirable in that it would halt an arbitration where the tribunal has ruled on a preliminary plea that it does not have jurisdiction. Accordingly, the effect of the amendment would be substantially to detract from the benefits of the model law as a relatively uniform international code.
The committee carefully considered each of the articles of the model law, taking account of views expressed in a public consultation. The committee was, in general, content with the principle of Article 16, although it was concerned as to the grounds of appeal and the time available for appeal.
I have listened with interest to the arguments put forward in favour of the amendment. However, I do not consider it appropriate for me to depart from the advisory committee's recommendations both that the model law should be followed, unless there was good reason for not doing so, and that Article 16(3) should be adopted for Scotland with only the changes suggested by the committee.
My noble friend had the courtesy to write to me and let me know in advance that he was concerned about this point. I put his letter to the advisory committee, but it has not departed from its view. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for raising the matter at this stage.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving me that explanation. I had not appreciated that the court could decide that it either has or has not jurisdiction. I thought that the choice was only one way. In view of that explanation, the amendment would not be helpful. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 299F had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 299G:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Avoidance of civil liability by non-contractual notice.—(1) The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 shall be amended in accordance with this section.
1010
(2) In section 15(1) (scope of Part II), the words "applies only to contracts," shall cease to have effect.
(3) In section 16 (liability for breach of duty)—
(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (1A) below,";

(ii) after the word "contract" in the first place where it occurs there shall be inserted ", or a provision of a notice given to persons generally or to particular persons,";

(iii) after the word "term" in the second place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or provision"; and

(iv) at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, if it is not fair and reasonable to allow reliance on the provision";

(b) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) Nothing in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above shall be taken as implying that a provision of a notice has effect in circumstances where, apart from that paragraph, it would not have effect."; and
(c) in subsection (3)—

(i) after the word "contract" there shall be inserted "or a provision of a notice"; and

(ii) after the word "term" in the second place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or provision".

(4) In section 24 (the "reasonableness" test)—
(a) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) In determining for the purposes of this Part of this Act whether it is fair and reasonable to allow reliance on a provision of a notice (not being a notice having contractual effect), regard shall be had to all the circumstances obtaining when the liability arose or (but for the provision) would have arisen.";
(b) in subsection (3)—

(i) after the word "contract" in the first place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or a provision of a notice";

(ii) after the word "contract" in the second place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or whether it is fair and reasonable to allow reliance on the provision",

(iii) after the word "above" there shall be inserted "in the case of a term in a contract"; and

(iv) in paragraph (a), after the word "term" there shall be inserted "or provision"; and

(c) in subsection (4), after the word "contract" there shall be inserted "or that it is fair and reasonable to allow reliance on a provision of a notice".
(5) in section 25 (interpretation of Part II)—

(a) in subsection (1), after the definition of "hire-purchase agreement" there shall be inserted— " "notice" includes an announcement, whether or not in writing, and any other communication or pretended communication;"; and

(b) subsections (3)(d) and (4) shall cease to have effect.

(6) This section shall have effect only in relation to liability for any loss or damage which is suffered on or after the date appointed for its coming into force.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving the new clause in my name I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 300A, which is the new clause tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and which my new clause is intended to replace.
The purpose of both our new clauses is to extend the Scottish provisions in Part II of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 to apply to non-contractual notices in the same way as the English provisions in Part I of that Act apply to such notices.
At the time of the passage of what became the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, the view was taken that it was doubtful whether a person could, under

1011
Scots law, validly exclude his liability for breach of duty merely by means of a notice which did not form part of some contract. This was the reason why the Scottish provisions in that Act, unlike the English provisions, applied only to contracts and to notices having contractual effect. However, recent Scottish cases have held that non-contractual notices disclaiming liability can, in certain circumstances, be given effect to in Scots law. In those circumstances, there is no longer any reason why the Scottish provisions in Part II of that Act should not be extended to cover non-contractual notices in the same way as the English provisions in Part I.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and to the Scottish Consumer Council for bringing this matter to my attention. As I explained to the noble Lord, the Government entirely accept the principle behind his useful amendment, but there were certain respects in which, as always, it was considered that the drafting might be improved. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the new clause tabled in my name achieves precisely the same purpose as his clause, but is perhaps better drafted. With that in mind, I hope that he will consider not moving his amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Obviously, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate deserves great praise for seeing the virtues in the amendment. The Scottish Consumer Council, which put it to me, has written to me saying that, not surprisingly, the drafting of the noble and learned Lord's clause is much better than the council's drafting. It is pleased about that. I am extraordinarily pleased in view of the case that it quoted to me. A man could not sue a surveyor who had given a clean bill of health for a house which was thereafter found to be full of dry rot. I should have thought that that was the very first thing that a surveyor should look for. Now that the matter has been put right by this clause, it only remains for me to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for tabling this much superior clause.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I too should like to express appreciation to my noble and learned friend. I think that he has done very well in tabling this amendment. The Consumer Council told a tale which should not be possible and I hope that it will now be precluded.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 300:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause: ("Composition of Sheriff Court Rules Council.—(1) The Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 33, after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) The Lord President of the Court of Session shall also appoint three persons who shall be other than—

(i) sheriffs principal;

(ii) sheriffs;

(iii) members of the Faculty of Advocates;

(iv) solicitors; or

(v) sheriff clerks.

1012
(1B) In appointing any member who falls within subsection (1A) the Lord President shall do so after consultation with the Secretary of State, and having regard to the desirability of appointing persons who have experience in, or knowledge of—

(a) consumer affairs;

(b) civil or criminal proceedings and the work of the courts; or

(c) social conditions." ").

The noble Lord said: In the light of Amendment No. 302GA tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate which meets Amendment No. 300 in a slightly broader and perhaps better form, I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 300 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 300A not moved.]
Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Amendment of Enactments]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 300B:
Page 67, line 43, at end insert:
("1A. In subsection (2) of section 5 (restriction on power of licensing board to delegate functions) at the end there shall be added the following paragraph—
"(1) making a decision on an application for the grant of a children's certificate under section 34A of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 300BA not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 300C:
Page 67, line 48, at end insert:
("( ) In paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of that section, for the words ", designations and addresses" there shall be substituted the words "and designations.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Paragraphs 3 and 14 of Schedule 5 to the Bill remove the requirement for licensing boards to publish the addresses of applicants for licences. These amendments remove this same requirement from two further provisions in the 1976 Act; namely, Section 12(2)(b) in respect of applications made other than by individual natural persons, and Schedule 4, paragraph 4(a) in respect of applications for Sunday opening. I regret that these were not included in the introductory print of the Bill. It might also be useful if at the same time I indicate that in moving Amendment No. 300C I speak also to Amendment No. 302E. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 300CA:
Page 68, line 4, at end insert: ("3A, In section 13(2) (consideration of applications)—

(a) after "licence" there shall be inserted "or for a regular extension of permitted hours or an application under section 32(1A) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990"; and

(b) after "through" there shall be inserted "his own or his agent's".").

The noble Lord said: This is one of a group of amendments. They are all in the schedule and are consequential upon other amendments. Until we

1013
have a chance to discuss this issue with the other people concerned and perhaps come back on Report, I do not intend to move this amendment. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we look at Amendments Nos. 300CA, 300CB, 300CC, 300CD, 300CE, 300CF, 300CG, 300D, 300DA, 301, 301A, 301B and 301C together and I do not move them.
[Amendment No. 300CA not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 300CB to 302AC not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No 302B:
Page 69. line 10, at end insert:
("11A. In each of subsections (1) and (2) of section 69 (prohibition on children being in certain licensed premises) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to section 34A of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302C:
Page 69, line 10, at end insert:
("11B. In section 70(children in premises in respect of which a refreshment licence is held) for the number "21" there shall be substituted the number "18".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 302D not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302E:
Page 69, line 27, at end insert:
(" In paragraph 4(a) of Schedule 4 (applications for Sunday opening), for the words ", designation and address" there shall be substituted the words "and designation".")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302F:
Page 70, line 22, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(1)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302G:
Page 70, line 31, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(1)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302GA
Page 71, line 39, at end insert:
('The Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (c. 58) 21A.—(1) For subsection (1) of section 33 (Sheriff Court Rules Council) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(1) There shall be established a body (to be known as the Sheriff Court Rules Council, and hereafter in this section and section 34 called "the Council") which shall have the functions conferred on it by section 34, and which shall consist of—

(a) two sheriffs principal, three sheriffs, one advocate, five solicitors and two whole-time sheriff clerks, all appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session, after consultation with such persons as appear to him to be appropriate;

(b) two persons appointed by the Lord President after consultation with the Secretary of State, being persons appearing to the Lord President to have—

1014

(i) a knowledge of the working procedures and practices of the civil courts;

(ii) a knowledge of consumer affairs; and

(iii) an awareness of the interests of litigants in the civil courts; and

(c) one person appointed by the Secretary of State, being a person appearing to the Secretary of State to be qualified for such appointment."

(2) In subsection (3) of that section, for the words "consultation with such persons as may appear to him appropriate" there shall be substituted the words "such consultation as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or, as the case may be, (b) of subsection (1) above".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment in large measure reflects an amendment put down by the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Macaulay. However, I have altered that amendment while accepting the general principle behind the noble Lords' proposal. We need to consider what lay participation is appropriate in the formulation of procedural rules which apply to civil proceedings in the sheriff courts.
The amendment which I have put forward is different from the noble Lords' amendment in two respects. First, I consider that two rather than three additional members is sufficient. Secondly, it should be borne in mind that a substantial part of the rules council's time is taken up with what might be called the nuts and bolts of procedures which govern sheriff court civil proceedings.
These are technical matters which require professional legal expertise and a close knowledge of how the sheriff courts operate. I therefore consider that it should be necessary for lay members on the rules council to have some knowledge of sheriff civil court procedures and practices to enable them to contribute sufficiently to the work of the rules council.
The amendment that I have brought forward specifies the qualifications that a lay member should have. Unlike the amendment put forward by the noble Lords, the Government's amendment would not specifically exclude the possibility of a lay member appointee being a person who also has formal legal qualifications. This helpfully widens the class of persons who might be considered for appointment. It is a useful amendment and I compliment the noble Lords on bringing it to the attention of the Committee. I have adjusted it in detail, but the principle is there. I hope that it will be widely welcomed by those who are concerned about these matters in Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his gracious words about myself and my noble friend Lord Carmichael. May I express our gratitude to the noble and learned Lord in reverse for the consideration he has given to this very important amendment in an important area of the development of the law. He has taken on board the spirit of the amendment and improved it. We are grateful to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302H:
Page 72, line 2, leave out ("247") and insert ("250").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302J:
Page 72, line 31, at end insert:
("The Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976 (c.39)
22A. In subsection (l)(b) of section 7 (power of court to award aliment) of the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976, for the words "(a), (b) or (c)" there shall be substituted the words "(a) or (b)".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is consequential on the provision at Clause 43(1)(a) which abolishes the concept of divorce for desertion after a period of two years' separation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302K:
Page 73, line 11, at end insert ("; and where, by virtue of an order under section 53(2)(ba), 53A(2)(ba) or 55(1)(ba), a solicitor's right of audience in any of those courts is suspended or revoked, the Council shall forthwith inform the persons mentioned in this subsection of that fact.").
The noble and learned Lord said: These amendments refine the disciplinary powers already proposed for the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal and the Court of Session when dealing with solicitors who have acquired rights of audience in the supreme courts under Clause 20, but whom the tribunal or court considers to have behaved in such a fashion that those rights should be suspended or revoked. The power to revoke rights is added to by an insertion into the Solicitors' (Scotland) Act 1980. These amendments will be exercisable whether the tribunal or court has found the solicitor guilty of professional misconduct or where the tribunal has found inadequate professional services. While I would not expect to see these disciplinary sanctions exercised frequently, if ever, I think it is important that they should be available. The Committee has already agreed to an amendment to provide for suspension of a solicitor's rights of audience pending determination of a complaint.
Amendment No. 302K is largely consequential on the insertion of this new disciplinary power, and requires the council to inform the clerks to the supreme courts where the tribunal decides to suspend or revoke a solicitor's right of audience before those courts. I hope that the Committee will agree that it is a reasonable addition to the list of disciplinary sanctions available to the tribunal and will allow cases to be dealt with in an appropriate way where the solicitor's transgression relates exclusively to his exercise of rights of audience in the supreme courts.
I speak also to Amendment No. 302Q, which raises the maximum limit for fines at the hands of the tribunal to £10,000. That brings the limit into line with the maximum figure for a fine imposed by the board on a conveyancing practitioner, a confirmation practitioner, or a qualified conveyancer. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree, as the Law Society does, that the two maxima should be comparable. It will be for the
1016
tribunal to determine a suitable fine in all cases. I speak also to Amendment No. 302R. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 302L:
Page 73, leave out lines 14 to 17.
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment leaves out lines 14 to 17 on page 73. At the moment it is illegal for an unqualified person or an employed unqualified person to draw any writ other than a will, a share transfer, a power of attorney and a document in re mercatoria. These have to be done by or on behalf of solicitors. The effect of these four lines in the Bill is to decriminalise the undertaking of such things.
The amendment is put forward on behalf of the Law Society. I suggest that it is wrong that that wide range of matters should now be able to be undertaken by anybody, whether qualified, unqualified, or whatever. It would be very dangerous if anybody were able to do such things. We have become accustomed in Scotland for them to be done only by qualified persons.
The effect of the amendment is to make sure that the drawing of writs relating to moveable property and the drawing of any reserved writ by an unqualified person would not occur, but that it would always be under the supervision of a solicitor, the client of whom would have the protection of all the solicitors' restrictions under the guarantee fund. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, would have two effects. It would retain the offence provisions applying to the preparation of writs relating to moveable estate and to an employee acting on behalf of his company to draw or prepare a writ relating to court proceedings.
I shall deal with the two effects separately. As regards the first, I see no justification to retain a lawyers' monopoly over writs relating to moveable estate. There is no clear evidence that the monopoly is in practice exercised. Moreover the preparation of the writs in question, some of which may, I acknowledge, be complex, is not normally of concern to private individuals.
We are dealing here with documents prepared by businesses or in connection with business arrangements where, I would argue, any risks involved in using someone who is not a solicitor can be evaluated as a normal commercial expense and the choice of adviser made accordingly. By giving up this monopoly we are not surrendering any useful consumer protection.
The Committee has already approved the extensive provisions about regulating those who in future will be permitted to provide conveyancing services relating to heritable estate. I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, will appreciate that a comparable need for consumer safeguards does not arise in relation to moveable estate.

1017
As regards writs relating to certain court proceedings, I am aware that many small businesses and companies wish, for example, to litigate to recover outstanding debts without employing a solicitor I think it is right and proper that they should be able to do so. Many such actions are undefended and raise no issues which require the use of a solicitor. The provisions in the Bill which seek to amend the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 will enable an employee who is not a solicitor to represent his employers in a summary cause or small claims case in the sheriff court, including completion of the necessary court papers.
The amendments to the 1980 Act are limited to two categories of unqualified person: first, an employee of a corporate party (including a company direction) who prepares a summons or writ; and, secondly, a person who is permitted by sheriff court procedural rules to represent a party in a summary cause. This might be an employee acting on behalf of his employer or an adviser from the citizens advice bureau.
The Committee will be aware that "lay representation" is presently permitted in summary cause proceedings and also in proceedings under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. I would, therefore, not wish to limit the relaxation of the offence provision to summary cause procedure, as this would have the effect that an employee could not make an application on behalf of his company under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will now not feel inclined to press his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: At this hour I do not wish to press the amendment. However, I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is entirely wrong. It is increasingly clear that the distinction between moveable and heritable property is becoming of less and less importance. Moveable property—for example, intellectual property, aircraft, ships and rights in machinery, vessels and aircraft and income from moveables such as animals—is becoming very complicated to deal with. It is vitally important that only qualified people should deal with such matters. At this stage, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment but I assure the Committee that it is very likely that I shall return to this matter at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302M:
Page 73, line 25, at end insert ("or by a solicitor").
The noble and learned Lord said: I am pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, has associated himself with this amendment, the purpose of which is to enable solicitors to employ qualified conveyancers, should they consider that to be a viable and attractive course. As subsection (2A) of the 1980 Act is presently drafted, it would remain an offence for a qualified conveyancer employed by a solicitor to draw or prepare any writ relating to
1018
heritable estate, which is the nub of the conveyancing transaction. This amendment removes a potential anomaly. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I rise not only to support the amendment, but also to apologise to the Committee at this stage because I have to be in court tomorrow and must leave. It is no discourtesy to the Committee, but I have duties to perform and I must be at Euston at a certain time. I apologise for that, but I support the amendment and others which I hope will be moved on my behalf.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 302N had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302P:
Page 73, leave out lines 37 to 44.
The noble and learned Lord said: I am again pleased to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, supports my Amendment No. 302P. It removes part of Schedule 5 which is now redundant. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No 302Q:
Page 74, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
(" "(ba) order that any right of audience held by the solicitor by virtue of section 25A be suspended or revoked;"
(aa) in subsection (2)(c), for the words "£4,000" there shall be substituted the words "£10,000";
(ab) after subsection (3A) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3B) The power conferred by subsection (2)(ba) may be exercised by the Tribunal either independently of, or in conjunction with, any other power conferred by that subsection."; and")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302R:
Page 74, line 4, leave out from ("that") to end of line 5 and insert—("any right of audience held by the solicitor by virtue of section 25A be suspended or revoked.".
(9A) In section 53A (inadequate professional services: powers of Tribunal), after subsection (2)(b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—"(ba) to order that any right of audience held by the solicitor by virtue of section 25A be suspended or revoked;".").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302S:
Page 74, line 9, leave out ("acquired") and insert ("held").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 302S it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendment No. 302T. These are drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302T:
Page 74, line 11 after ("(interpretation)") insert—
("(a) after the definition of "the court" there shall be inserted—
" "the Director" means the Director General of Fair Trading;"
and (b)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302U:
Page 74, line 15, at end insert—
("(12) In Schedule 4 (constitution, procedure and powers of Tribunal)—
(a) in paragraph 1—

(i) in sub-paragraph (a), at the end there shall be inserted the words "appointed by the Lord President;"

(ii) in sub-paragraph (b), for the word "4" there shall be substituted the word "8";

(iii) at the end of sub-paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the words "appointed by the Lord President after consultation with the Secretary of State."; and

(iv) the words "appointed by the Lord President", where they appear at the end of that paragraph, shall cease to have effect;

(b) in paragraph 2—

(i) after the words "Lord President" there shall be inserted the words "after consultation with the Secretary of State"; and

(ii) for the words "so re-appointed" there shall be substituted the words "re-appointed by the Lord President";

(c) in paragraph 3, after the words "as the case may be," there shall be inserted the words "after consultation with the Secretary of State,";
(d) in paragraph 14, for the words from "may be published" to the end there shall be substituted the words "shall, subject to paragraph 14A, be published in full";
(e) after paragraph 14 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"14A. In carrying out their duty under paragraph 14, the Tribunal may refrain from publishing any names, places or other facts the publication of which would, in their opinion, damage, or be likely to damage, the interests of persons other than the solicitor against whom the complaint has been made or his partners or family, but where they so refrain they shall publish their reasons for so doing."; (f) in paragraph 17—

(i) the words from "also" to "before the order" shall cease to have effect;

(ii) after the words "and shall" there shall be inserted the words ", without prejudice to paragraph 14,"; and

(iii) the words from "and in such other manner" to the end shall cease to have effect; and (g) after paragraph 18 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"18A. Without prejudice to paragraph 18, the Council shall ensure that a copy of every decision published under paragraph 14 is open for inspection at the office of the Society during office hours by any person without payment of any fee.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: It might be convenient, when moving Amendment No. 302U, if I speak also to Amendment No. 302Z. Amendment No. 302U makes a number of changes to the composition and procedures of the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal. In inviting the Committee to approve the amendment I wish to indicate that I intend to reconsider one aspect of it, which is the requirement of the tribunal to give
1020
named publicity where there is no finding of professional misconduct or of inadequate professional services. Once I have given the matter further thought I will return with a proposal which will apply both to that tribunal and to the conveyancing board, for which the Committee has already approved an amendment to require named publicity in all cases.
With regard to the rest of the amendment I commend a number of changes which have been agreed with the Lord President. I am confident that the Committee will welcome the increase in the number of lay members on the tribunal from four to eight. That should make it easier for the tribunal to arrange sittings and reduce the burden on individual members. The ratio of professional to lay members on any individual sitting of the tribunal remains, however, unaffected. A role is also provided for the Secretary of State in the appointment of lay members of the tribunal in that in future the Lord President will be required to consult him on such appointments. The purpose is simply to help the Lord President to make the lay appointments from a wider pool of candidates than he may readily be able to identify at present.
I believe that there is general support for greater openness in the way in which the tribunal publishes its decisions. Subject to the undertaking I have just given, the tribunal will in future be required to publish all its decisions in full. However, the tribunal is also given a discretion to withhold information regarding those names and facts which, if published, would be detrimental to the interests of a party other than the solicitor concerned or those associated with him.
Amendment No. 302Z simply provides for a consequential repeal in the 1980 Act. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: It is perhaps my fault but I am not certain what undertaking has been given by the noble and learned Lord. He concluded by saying that the tribunal will be required to publish all its decisions but the noble and learned Lord also referred earlier to findings of not guilty. To save time it would assist if he could say precisely what he is taking away to consider.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I indicated at the outset that I want to reconsider one aspect of the amendment I moved, the requirement for the tribunal to give named publicity where there is no finding—or a finding of innocence, so to speak—of professional misconduct or of inadequate professional services.
I went on to indicate that the tribunal will in future be required to publish all its decisions in full. In making that statement, however, I said that it was subject to the undertaking I had given earlier. I believe that that meets the point which, as the noble Lord will be aware, is of particular concern to the Law Society of Scotland.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: With that undertaking I shall not take up the time of the Committee by saying anything about that aspect. I shall wait to see what transpires.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302UA:
Page 74, line 15, at end insert—
("The Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 (c. 59)
23A.—(1) In section 6(3)(e) of the Matrimonial Homes (Family) Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 (occupancy rights after dealing with third parties)—

(a) the words ", at or before the time of the dealing," shall cease to have effect; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (1)—

(i) after the word "not" there shall be inserted "or were not at the time of dealing"; and

(ii) after the word "has" there shall be inserted "or had".

In section 8 of that Act (interests of heritable creditors)—

(a) in subsection (2), the words "before granting of the loan" shall cease to have effect; and

(b) in subsection (2A)—

(i) the words "at or before the granting of the security" shall cease to have effect;

(ii) after the word "not" in paragraph (a) there shall be inserted "or were not at the time of the granting of the security"; and

(iii) after the word "has" in paragraph (a) there shall be inserted "or had".").

The noble and learned Lord said: In the groupings as originally set out, this amendment should have been spoken to with Amendment No. 290. That amendment was withdrawn by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, and I had no opportunity to deal with this amendment. It might therefore be of assistance to the Committee to say that the amendment to Section 6 of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act will provide welcome relief to sellers who are unable to sell their property and prospective purchasers as well as the Keeper of the Registers for Scotland. However, it would seem advisable in amending Section 6 of the 1981 Act to make a similar amendment to Section 8 of the Act which relates to the interests of heritable creditors and which, I understand, causes even more problems where a creditor wishing to sell the property discovers that he does not have the necessary affidavit. My amendment therefore makes the necessary change to Section 8.
In moving Amendment No. 302UA I speak also to Amendment No. 302ZA which is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302UB:
Page 74, line 15, at end insert—
("The Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 (c. 37)
2313. In section 8(1) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 (orders for financial provision on divorce etc)—

(a) in paragraph (a), the words "or the transfer of property" sha11 cease to have effect; and

(b) at the end of paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(aa) an order for the transfer of property to him by the other party to the marriage;".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 302V:
Page 74, line 15, at end insert—
("(12) In Schedule 1 (The Law Society of Scotland) after paragraph 11 there shall be inserted—
1022
("Exemption from liability for damages
11A. Neither the Society nor any of its officers or servants shall be liable in damages for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of its functions unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith.").
The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Shuna I move this amendment which deals with the position of employees of the Law Society in respect of liability and damages. The amendment puts them on the same basis as the staff of the new board created by the Bill. I understand that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate finds the amendment acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Yes, and in view of the full and persuasive arguments advanced by the noble Lord I am delighted to accept this amendment. It can only be reasonable for the Law Society to enjoy the same degree of protection in the discharging of its statutory functions under the 1980 Act as the board will enjoy under the terms of this Bill. While I am not aware of any cases which point to a pressing need for an exemption from liability for damages for the society, I can clearly see how one may arise. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, for tabling the amendment and to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay for moving it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: It seems to me that, quite simply, if the society acts in bad faith it can be liable but if it is incompetent it is not liable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302W:
Page 74, leave out lines 17 to 19 and insert—
("24.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 6 (definitions) of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986, for the words "if and so far as may be necessary", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "where appropriate".
(1A) In subsection (2) of section 13 (meaning of "civil legal aid") of the Act, for the words "(so far as is necessary)" there shall be substituted the words ",where appropriate,".
(1B) In subsection (3) of section 14 (availability of civil legal aid) of that Act, at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsections (4) to (6) below,".
(1C) After the said subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(4) Where—

(a) the Board has refused an application for civil legal aid by a person who has applied for such aid for the purpose of raising an action against the Board; and

(b) the applicant has applied to the Board for a review of his application,

the Board shall, unless they decide to grant the application forthwith, refer the application, together with all relevant precognitions, statements and other papers, including any observations they wish to make on the application, to the sheriff for Lothian and Borders at Edinburgh.
(5) Subject to section 15 of this Act, and to subsection (2) above, where the sheriff decides—

(a) that the applicant has a probabilis causa litigandi; and

(b) that it is reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case that he should receive legal aid,

he shall so inform the Board, and the Board shall make civil legal aid available to the applicant.
(6) A decision made by the sheriff under subsection (5) above shall be final."

1023
(1D) In subsection (4) of section 21 (scope and nature of criminal legal aid) of that Act, for the words "(so far as is necessary)" there shall be substituted the words ", where appropriate,".
(1E) In subsection (8) of section 29 (legal aid in certain proceedings relating to children) of that Act, for the words "(so far as is necessary)" there shall be substituted the words ", where appropriate,".
(1F) In subsection (4) of section 30 (legal aid in contempt proceedings) of that Act, for the words "(so far as is necessary)" there shall be substituted the words ", where appropriate,".
(1G) In subsection (1) of section 31 (solicitors and council) of that Act, for the words "if the case requires counsel" there shall be substituted the words "where counsel is to be employed '.")
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 20 provides that solicitors may acquire rights of audience to the supreme courts. It will then not be necessary for counsel to be employed in all supreme court actions, and the definition of legal aid at several points within the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 as,
"representation by solicitor and (where necessary) by Counsel"
will be incorrect. The amendment corrects the definitions of legal aid within the 1986 Act and replaces a previous drafting error.
There are occasions when legal aid is sought in relation to an action against the Scottish Legal Aid Board. In determining whether to grant legal aid in such cases the board, with which rests the sole power to determine applications for civil legal aid, must act as judge in its own cause and so offend against the principle of natural justice.
In these cases the amendment will require the board to refer the case to the sheriff for Lothian and Borders at Edinburgh for determination, unless on reviewing its original refusal the board is minded to make legal aid available. The amendment further provides that the board will send all such precognitions and other documents submitted by the applicant and any observations thereon which the board wishes to make to the sheriff. This will remove an unfortunate lacuna in the administration of legal aid. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: On a point of information, are the words "the sheriff defined as being any sheriff for Lothian and Borders at Edinburgh or is it the sheriff principal for Lothian and Borders that is meant? I assume that any sheriff is what is meant.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The word "sheriff is used rather that the words "sheriff principal". I believe that will mean any sheriff at Edinburgh, but if I am wrong I shall let the noble Lord know.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 302X not moved.]
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302XA:
Page 76, line 11, at end insert—

("1977 c. 50.

The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

In section 15(1), the words "applies only to contracts,".

1024
In section 25, subsections (3)(d) and (4).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 302Y not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 302Z:
Page 76, line 23, at end insert—
("In Schedule 4, in paragraph 1, the words "appointed by the Lord President" following sub-paragraph (b), and in paragraph 17, the words from "also" to "before the order" and the words from "and in such other manner" to the end.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 320ZA:
Page 76, line 24, at end insert—

("1981 c.59

The Homes Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981

Matrimonial (Family)

In section 6(3)(e), the words ", at or before the time of the dealing,".

In section 8, in subsection (2), the words "before the granting of the loan", and in subsection (2A), the words "at or before the granting of the security".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 320ZB:
Page 76, line 27, at end insert—
("1985 c. 37. The Family Law In section 8(l)(a), the (Scotland) Act 1985. words "or the transfer of property".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 303:
Page 49, line 3, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (3A)").
The noble Lord said: I tabled this amendment after listening to the ex-Lord President, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, and three other distinguished judges at Second Reading. Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee that the noble and learned Lord asked:
"Is the combined effect of Clauses 20 and 23 likely to carry the risk of the disintegration of the College of Justice? If it does, it will be a very sad day for Scotland".—[Official Report, 30/1/90; col. 185.]
The form of that question appeared to invite the answer, "Yes, it might destroy the College of Justice". One other Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and two Lords of the Court of Session also made rather serious criticisms of the Bill.
I am not in a position to say whether they are right or wrong. My first impression was that they were possibly going too far. But the law in Scotland is

1025
very much more important than the law in England. We have no Parliament and it is through our law, our Church and our education that we express our nationhood. If there were any danger of the College of Justice being destroyed rather casually by a Bill which is said to be one of miscellaneous provisions, the House would bear a heavy responsibility, especially as many of its provisions have come under severe criticism and the Bill does not appear to follow the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
Normally, to suggest that a portion of a Bill should be delayed would be seen as a wrecking amendment and would rightly be resisted by any government. They would say that the Bill had been discussed by Parliament and that they had a right to make it into law. But in this instance there are special reasons why the normal provisions are not necessarily to be carried out. The first is that no one has really suggested that the Bill is of great urgency. No one indeed has suggested that it would ever have been introduced were there not a similar Bill in England. I have heard no criticism, not even from Ministers, of the conduct of the law in Scotland anything like as severe as some of the criticisms of the law in England.
Secondly, it so happens that there is a parallel Bill before Parliament. I have always thought that Parliament makes a mistake in not learning from experiments and seeing what the effect of legislation may be before carrying it any further. I do not believe therefore that there would be any great disadvantage, either to the Government or to the people of Scotland, if Part II of Bill were postponed until we see what happens in England to the English Bill.
Scotland has suffered a great deal in my lifetime from losing is principal institutions, or rather the people who man them. We have seen the head offices of Scottish industry go south. It would be a tragedy for Edinburgh, for Scotland as a whole and for the United Kingdom if Scottish law gradually lost its independence and we saw the leading Scottish lawyers all drifting down to London. It would no longer then be developed, just at the moment when we are going into Europe. Scottish law is of particular importance owing to its similarity in some ways to the law of Europe. Therefore there are obvious dangers in immediately bringing into effect Part II. We cannot just ignore what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, has said. Bearing in mind the experience in Scotland of a loss of influence and the gradual drift south of power over our own affairs, it seemed to me reasonable that the Committee should at least consider postponing the introduction of Part II of the Bill.
How long we should postpone it is a matter of discussion. I do not put any special weight on the time I have stated in the amendment. But I should like to think that we might, first, consider the Bill further and, secondly, give some attention to the fate of the English Bill and see whether the effects which some people have predicted come to pass. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: While I recall that the recently retired Lord President of the Court of
1026
Session did indeed indicate that he had some concern that the College of Justice in Edinburgh may be damaged in some way, and although I have the greatest of respect for his views, I do not accept for a moment that Part II of the Bill will bring about its destruction. On the contrary, I hope that by bringing the arrangement in Scotland for rights of audience in court up to date, we shall secure its continuation and future.
The noble Lord made reference to a drift southwards. I must tell him that as things stand at present—that is, before the Bill is on the statute book—there is already rather an alarming drift of qualified lawyers to London. So much so that before this year is out I suspect that the Society of Scottish Lawyers in London will be larger than the Faculty of Advocates. However, that is already happening. By introducing these changes and modernising the procedures, I would argue that we shall ensure that the law of Scotland and its structures will continue rather than suffer damage.
I must also point out to the noble Lord that I recognise the fact that there is something of an inter-relationship between Part II of the Bill and the Bill which was promoted by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. However, I do not accept for one moment, as we consider Part II, that there are necessarily lessons to be learnt from the experience south of the Border as regards the type of changes which have been introduced. I say that because we start from a very different standpoint with far greater rights of audience already extended to solicitors in Scotland than are enjoyed by solicitors on this side of the Border. For that reason I do not think that it would be helpful to delay the introduction of Part II of the Bill.
Finally, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord—that is, if he is not already aware of the fact—that as we dealt with Part II I gave an undertaking to the Committee to the effect that so far as concerns Clause 21 which deals with groups of individuals who are not lawyers at present, there would be no commencement order until it was clear that the extended rights of audience provided by Clause 20 had bedded down satisfactorily. That was principally with a view to ensuring that the Lord President of the Court of Session was not unduly burdened with trying to introduce two separate sets of arrangements. It may not be as extensive a delay as the noble Lord would wish; but in a practical way, I believe that that is a more desirable approach. I understand what lies behind the amendment. However, I should prefer to look to our own experience to see how that develops and to consider how Clause 20 settles down before we introduce Clause 21 rather than adopt the approach he suggests which would mean a delay to see what progress is made south of the Border. With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grimond: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for the courtesy of his reply and for reminding me of the undertaking given as regards Clauses 20 and 21. I agree that those clauses are important. However, I still think that

1027
what I suggested is a very serious possibility, although I rather share his view that the dangers may be exaggerated. Nevertheless, if they were even partially possible, it would be a serious blow to Scotland.
As the noble and learned Lord reminded us, it is interesting to note that the drift southwards is already taking place. To my mind it would be a great pity if that process was accelerated. In view of the undertaking give, and bearing in mind the fact that I may return to the matter at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 303A:
Page 49, line 10, leave out ("paragraph 17") and insert ("paragraphs 17 and 23B").
On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 304 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 304A:
Page 49, line 14, after ("(5)") insert ("Paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 to this Act,")
The noble and learned Lord said: The Committee will be pleased to learn that this amendment is a technical one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 304AA:
Line 11, after ("imprisonment") insert ("to amend Part I of the Cirminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 with respect to registration and enforcement of confiscation orders in relation to the proceeds of drug trafficking;")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 304AB:
Line 14, after ("divorce;") insert ("to amend section 24 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 in relation to homelessness due to risk of violence;").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 293B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 304AC:
Line 14, after ("divorce;") insert ("to amend the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 with respect to admission to and detention in hospital;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 304B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 305:
Line 14, after ("divorce;") insert ("to make further provision as to the giving of evidence in criminal proceedings by persons outside the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 306:
Line 15, after ("disputes;") insert ("to amend Part II of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Redbridge London Borough Council Bill
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at three minutes past eleven o'clock.

  BALTIC REPUBLICS: INCORPORATION INTO SOVIET UNION
  BALTIC REPUBLICS: INCORPORATION INTO SOVIET UNION
  TURKEY: DR. SERGIN AND MR. KUTLU
  TURKEY: DR. SERGIN AND MR. KUTLU
  CHESSINGTON COMPUTER CENTRE
  CHESSINGTON COMPUTER CENTRE
  NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL AND COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION: REORGANISATION
  NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL AND COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION: REORGANISATION
  GREENWICH: DISTRICT NURSES
  GREENWICH: DISTRICT NURSES
  PRISON DOCTORS
  PRISON DOCTORS
  PRISONERS: CHANGES OF CLOTHING
  PRISONERS: CHANGES OF CLOTHING
  LICENSED TEACHERS
  LICENSED TEACHERS
  CITY TECHNOLOGY COLLEGES
  CITY TECHNOLOGY COLLEGES