Sitting of 18 October 1990

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

    REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [15 October],
    That the Lords amendment be now considered.
    Debate further adjourned till Wednesday 24 October at Seven o'clock.

    TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Monday 22 October at Seven o'clock.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 25 October.

    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],
    That the Bill be now considered.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 25 October.

    LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL ( By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 25 October.

    SHARD BRIDGE BILL ( By Order)
    Considered; to be read the Third time.
    Mr. Speaker: As the remaining private Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them together.
    VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
    SOUTHAMPTON RAPID TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 25 October.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL
    Ordered,
    That the Promoters of the British Railways (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of
    1360
    Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    Ordered,
    That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
    Ordered,
    That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
    Ordered,
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL
    Ordered,
    That the Promoters of the London Docklands Railway Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    Ordered,
    That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
    Ordered,
    That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
    Ordered,
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the London Underground Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to date be paid;
    That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

    1361
    That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
    That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
    That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
    That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
    That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Wednesday 24 October at Seven o'clock.

    SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES, AUSTRALIA, AND MENLEY & JAMES, AUSTRALIA BILL [LORDS]
    Ordered,
    That the Promoters of the Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Australia, and Menley & James, Australia Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    Ordered,
    That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
    Ordered,
    That no Petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any Committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matters which arise during the progress of the Bill before the Committee;
    Ordered,
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Bait Breeding
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about bait breeding.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): My Department has been in regular contact with the British Bait Breeders Association and individual bait breeders about a European Community directive on the disposal of animal waste.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister recall writing to me in July and admitting that the then most recent draft of the European Community proposal would, on the face of it, prohibit bait breeding and therefore reduce the opportunity of many anglers to participate in their favourite sport? Has not the overcentralisation of the Common Market reached a ridulous stage when the Eurocrats are not only attempting to dictate the value of sterling but dictating to ordinary anglers what they can or cannot use to catch fish?
    Mr. Curry: I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the proposed directive now provides specifically for bait breeders to continue their activities unaltered. That is proof of the success of the Government's difficult negotiations in Brussels. As the hon. Gentleman said, this proposal will be welcomed by millions of British anglers who enjoy the most popular sport in this country.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Will not the proposed directive pose particular problems for the British knacker industry? Can the Minister confirm that a considerable burden will be imposed on the British livestock industry and the British slaughtering industry if the directive goes through in its present form? Can he tell us precisely what action he intends to take to safeguard fundamental and vital British interests?
    Mr. Curry: The directive was discussed again just two days ago in Luxemburg. As the hon. Gentleman said, the present draft is unsatisfactory in relation to knackers. It would require the trade to cease in 1995. We have said that that is unsatisfactory and have succeeded in getting the document referred for further discussion. We will do our best to get a provision for that trade to continue. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about the importance of the trade, but I do not wish to mislead him by suggesting that it will be an easy battle. The system is unique to the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and it will be extremely difficult to achieve its continuation, but we are determined to fight that battle to the best of our ability.

    Pesticides
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of pesticides on agricultural land.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): The use of pesticides on land is tightly controlled under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept that that glib statement is nowhere near good enough? Will he take a leaf out of the Minister's book and rely on scientific evidence, and take into careful consideration the British Medical Association's paper and its harsh criticism of the Ministry? Will he abandon his cheap jibes and admit that there is nothing wrong with natural food? Will he admit that what is required is a lessening of pesticides, especially in affected water catchment areas, and thorough consultation with everyone interested in the matter?
    Mr. Maclean: There is nothing wrong with any food if it is treated properly. That applies both to natural food and to food that has been treated with pesticides. If the hon. Gentleman bothers to read the report on pesticide residues that we published a couple of weeks ago, he will see that we are among the best in Europe in having the lowest pesticide residues. On the BMA report, the House should be told—if the hon. Gentleman knows—why some of the few scientists on the committee dissociated themselves from part of the report or resigned from the committee. I note that some other members were representatives of or spokesmen for Friends of the Earth and one was one of Mr. Ron Todd's men.
    Mr. Jopling: Is my hon. Friend aware that if he wants to restrict the use of pesticides on farm land, one of the quickest ways would be to make an urgent and substantial increase in environmentally sensitive areas, where the use of pesticides is restricted? At the same time, he would be doing something to help the most urgent and dramatic crisis that is hitting our upland areas, about which I hope that he will do something very soon.
    Mr. Maclean: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for having the nous and good sense to introduce environmentally sensitive areas when he did. They are an outstanding achievement and we are committed to reviewing their success in the future. However, I must point out to my right hon. Friend that pesticide use in this country has declined since this Government came to power. We are proud of that achievement, and also of the fact that we stress optimum and best use of pesticides—not maximum use.
    Mr. Hague: Does my hon. Friend agree that this country has some of the most stringent and intensive tests of pesticides and releases more data about them than most other countries do? Is not it in the best interests both of agriculture and of the environment to emphasise the need for the continued development of new pesticides which can be more selectively and effectively targeted?
    Mr. Maclean: I was surprised to see that the BMA report, which I have here, calls for more information and less secrecy. Has no one told the BMA that we swept away the last vestiges of secrecy surrounding pesticide data when my right hon. Friend the Minister made his announcement a few months ago? The report also calls for regulation. Has no one told the BMA that regulation is now under some of the toughest statutory controls in the world, which were introduced in 1985?
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister reconsider his rather intemperate reference to Friends of the Earth? Does he not accept that organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, while not adding to the comfort of the Government, have exposed many serious problems in the British environment?
    Mr. Maclean: I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I have a great deal of respect for the work of Friends of the Earth. I was merely making the point that we should not get the impression that the BMA report was produced by top academic experts. The committee contained people who were not medically qualified, but who were spokesmen for Friends of the Earth. That is perfectly legitimate, but let us not pretend that all those who produced the report were academic experts.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that there is considerable public anxiety about pesticides, and that the anxiety is heightened by the BMA report? The Minister's complacent answer this afternoon did not help matters. Will he confirm that 41 per cent. of the pesticides currently in use were approved before 1966, and that even with the Government's speeded-up programme it will take a further 15 years to review those pesticides? Will he further confirm that it is currently taking an average of four years to get approvals for new pesticides and that firms such as ICI and Shell have had only one or zero approvals since they made their applications in 1986?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot complain about the time that it takes to review pesticides and simultaneously complain that because we and the companies making the pesticides are so thorough it takes a long time to develop a new pesticide. If there is the slightest question mark over any pesticide, it is automatically brought forward instantly for review. We are prioritising the review of all pesticides so that those in the top category will be reviewed speedily.

    Meat Pies
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many meat pies have been eaten since 28 June.
    Mr. Maclean: The information requested by the hon. Gentleman is not available.
    Mr. Banks: That is a great pity. Is the Minister aware that a constituent of mine, who is a regular eater of that great British institution the lukewarm meat pie, has become very concerned because, having eaten a number of them recently, the world has been dropping out of his bottom. He wants me to ask the Minister what checks are carried out to ensure that the unfit meat, of which there is a great deal circulating in London and elsewhere, or meat from BSE-infected cattle, is not going into meat pies. My constituent is worried and I do not want to see my constituents dying off—I cannot afford it.
    Mr. Maclean: I am sorry that I was not able to provide the hon. Gentleman with a good line because his wit has been failing of late. However, I can assure him that all meat, as confirmed by the chief medical officer, whether it is in meat pies, sausages or sirloin steak, is perfectly safe to eat, and his constituents have nothing to fear from BSE. We deplore the fact that some unscrupulous or crooked

    1365
    people may be putting unfit meat from knackers' yards into the meat trade. That is despicable and we will take all possible action to crack down on it. However, that is primarily a job for the local authority enforcement officers who are in charge of the legislation. The hon. Gentleman should contact his local authority to ensure that they are spending a fair share of the extra £30 million that we are providing for enforcement.
    Mr. Boscawen: Does my hon. Friend realise that a serious issue lies behind that question, and that is the weakening of confidence in the quality of British meat production? People should at all times try to enhance public confidence in the British livestock industry and the safety of its products, or the situation may become disastrous.
    Mr. Maclean: I agree entirely. Many hon. Members will remember that disgraceful night when all were in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Minister when he returned from Brussels—except those on the Labour Front Bench, who were condemned by all parties in the House for trying to resurrect a BSE scare and to hype up a situation to scare the British people. That was despicable then and if they are still at it, it is despicable now.

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the role of veterinarians in promoting animal welfare.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): The promotion of animal welfare is central to the duties of all vets and they take an oath to that effect.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is it not a fact that under the Government the number of vets employed by the Ministry has dropped by about 27 per cent? Is not it also true that, because of BSE, veterinary staff have had to be diverted from welfare visits? When will the Government take the issue of animal welfare seriously and recruit sufficient vets to do the job properly?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must first accept that all vets, whether employed by my Department or anywhere else, must, by their vow, put animal welfare high on the list of their activities. Secondly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that two veterinary colleges that had been suggested independently for closure, were saved after the matter was reviewed. Thirdly, I hope that he will point out that I have been the progenitor of a major campaign for a code of animal welfare for the EC. The Government are the first to have sought for the EC the same high standards, or higher, as we have in Britain. Britain leads the EC in animal welfare and the Government are determined to ensure that we care about all animals in the EC, not just those in Britain.
    Mr. Gale: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the concerns expressed by many vets about the conditions in which live animals are transported for slaughter, sometimes throughout the European Community. Will he reassure the House and members of the British Veterinary Association who work in that area that the Government will not settle for any watered-down European Commission directive that will weaken the standards that we are seeking to set?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want me to interfere with the judicial review that is taking place at the moment. In general, however, with regard to our present and future policy, we want to ensure that there are high standards for the transport of live animals in every country of the European Community so that animals receive the kind of respect that they should and are properly watered, rested and have lairages of the kind that we would expect in this country; that should apply not only in the northern countries but throughout the European Community.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that not only has there been a 27 per cent. cut in the number of vets in his Department, but there is an increasing shortage of vets and environmental health officers throughout the country just when food safety legislation and increasing moves towards European harmonisation mean that there should be more of them? When will the Government ensure that there are enough vets to meet those demands so that animal welfare does not suffer?
    Mr. Gummer: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Opposition Front Bench. In dealing with this matter, in which he has a great personal interest, the hon. Gentleman will probably find that the Government have accepted the main recommendation of the Page committee to remove the ceiling on intakes at veterinary schools. The Universities Funding Council is considering bids for increased student places put forward by the six schools. We are therefore doing precisely what the hon. Gentleman would want us to do, even though some independent advice in the past suggested that we should not do that. We have decided that we need more vets and we shall continue in that view.
    We are also consulting on the possible extension of the role of veterinary nurses and laypersons to relieve some of the burdens on qualified veterinary surgeons. I hope also that the hon. Gentleman would agree with our view in the European Community that it does not help if we spread to vets repetitive and basic jobs which could be performed by other people, thus relieving vets for the jobs that they should be doing.
    With regard to the hon. Gentleman's concern about environmental health officers, I hope that he will notice the extra £30 million of resources to local authorities for that purpose.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the major bars to increasing the number of animals exported on the hook rather than on the hoof is the lack of abattoirs that are up to European Community standards? Are there any plans to provide additional support from national or European funds to bring the abattoirs up to that standard?
    Mr. Gummer: If that were so, my hon. Friend would have a case. However, there is a demand for live animals rather than animals exported on the hook. So long as the animals are properly exported, in proper conditions and with proper protections, that must be possible within the Community.

    Research Spending
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much he expects to spend in the current year on agriculture and food research at current prices.
    Mr. Gummer: My Department plans to spend £100 million on research and development in the areas of agriculture and food in this current year.
    Mr. Strang: Does the Minister acknowledge the important contribution made by Government-funded agricultural research in the huge increases in self-sufficiency achieved by the industry in the past 20 years? Does he recognise that when it comes to some of the modern health and environmental problems of intensive agriculture, Government-funded research, as opposed to commercially-funded research, is more important then ever? Against that background, is it not time that the Government reversed their policy of cutting agricultural research, as the Minister knows not only that the figure that he announced this afternoon is less in real terms than what the Government spent last year but that the Government have cut spending by 30 per cent. in the past 10 years?
    Mr. Gummer: I agree entirely with the purpose of Government spending in this matter. We are spending the necessary money on the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am not prepared to spend money on matters that should be paid for by those who will get immediate commercial results from it. The industry should pay that. I am paying money for food safety, food protection and the development of less harmful pesticides, for example—the kinds of things that we can use to improve the environment. All those things have a public interest, such as medium and long-term research. That is what I should be spending money on. In those matters I have been able to increase our spending. That seems to be a proper use of Government money.
    Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. Friend spend a small amount of the money that he has allocated for research on behalf of small arable farmers and growers who feel that the five major supermarkets in this country are using their dominant position to repress the prices of horticultural products to the detriment of farmers, with a particular view to referring the results to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for consideration?
    Mr. Gummer: I am not sure whether that would be a proper use of our research money. If my hon. Friend is concerned about particular points, I shall certainly look at them and see whether action is required.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister conduct an urgent inquiry into the widespread use of the flavour enhancer, monosodium glutamate? Clear evidence is now coming forward that it produces severe allergies in people who eat meat pies and processed foods as well as in those who eat in restaurants. Is the Minister aware that the symptoms not only include the condition described earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) but can lead to severe dizziness and loss of memory? This matter is now reaching proportions which must be urgently investigated, and I hope that that will be done.
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that, if there is any concern about this matter, we can ask the committee on toxicity to look at it. I am very ready to take any information that the hon. Gentleman or anyone else has on this matter. The way in which we operate is to take all information and look at it immediately. I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me know.

    British Coal (Waste Dumping)
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will reconsider the practice of issuing licences to British Coal permitting the dumping of waste products on beaches on the north-east coast; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Curry: British Coal has been told that no licence for the dumping of minestone on beaches will be issued after June 1995 unless it can show that there is absolutely no viable alternative.
    Mr. Holt: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will, of course, have read carefully the Government's recent White Paper on the environment, and he will also have studied the paper put out by the Labour party. He will have noticed that, despite its claims to having specific details, the Labour party has nowhere stated how it will deal with the problem in the north-east of England. Will my hon. Friend accept that although the Government appear to have a five-year commitment, my hon. Friend's statement is loose and open-ended and does not commend itself to the people of the north-east of England? We want the Government not merely to state that they might elongate the period but to shorten it to three years, two years, or even one year. The problem can be resolved by British Coal without detriment to the environment and it is time that the Government did something solid about the issue.
    Mr. Curry: That was precisely the purpose of my decision. British Coal has to find an alternative, get it through the planning procedures and then implement it. I want to make sure that local people and local bodies are involved in that process through the planning decision. That takes a certain amount of time. It is better to get the right solution than to force British Coal to act so quickly that it has a plausible claim that it has not been given adequate time to do the job.
    That illustrates precisely that environmental problems are not easy. We have a choice between dumping waste on the beach, in the sea or down a hole, or building a tip, none of which is an easy option—showing, if I may so put it, that green issues are not black and white.
    Mr. Cummings: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) for raising this vexatious problem. Is the Minister aware that four collieries remain in my constituency in Durham and provide about 6,000 much-needed jobs? Is the Minister aware also that those four collieries have contributed substantially to the overall performance of British Coal? If the Minister intends to review licences in future, will he ensure that there is close liaison between himself and the Department of Energy so that no further extra costs fall on British Coal and perhaps jeopardise pits, jobs and communities in the north-east?
    Mr. Curry: I of course recognise that the hon. Gentleman is deeply concerned because of his constituents' interest in the matter. The Department of Energy was associated with my decision. We observe the principle that the polluter pays and British Coal must therefore bear the costs of the exercise. British Coal must also decide the future of those pits on their merits; that is not for my Department. The object is to address a difficult dilemma and to address the issue that has been highlighted as being central, which is the fact that it is no longer desirable or acceptable to put waste on the beaches or out at sea, as I said earlier. I shall certainly keep the hon. Gentleman informed of developments, because I recognise his interest in the matter.

    Free Food
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the further distribution of European Economic Community free food in 1990.
    Mr. Curry: Distributions of butter and beef by more than 400 designated organisations are now getting underway.
    Mr. Cryer: Is the Minister aware that hundreds of pensioners in my constituency, in Bradford generally and elsewhere feel humiliated and angry that they have queued, often for more than an hour at a time, to try to obtain free butter or free meat only to find that because they are not on family credit or income support, they are refused it? As, in a letter to me, the Minister relied on European legislation as being the culprit, will the Government stand up to the Common Market if those are its stringent rules or are the Government hiding under the cloak of EEC legislation? As we have paid more than £14 billion to the Common Market since 1980 is not it time that the Government stood up to the Common Market and allowed people, many of whom fought in the war for this country, to have part of this free handout?
    Mr. Curry: If 3,000 tonnes of beef and 3,000 tonnes of butter were distributed among all pensioners, they would get precious little each. Furthermore, a certain number of pensioners might be sufficiently well off not to need that—some of them might be Members of the House.
    Mr. Latham: Is not there something absolutely asinine about a situation in which farmers are now experiencing extremely difficult conditions, but we apparently have surpluses that can be given away free?
    Mr. Curry: It is true that the sensible approach to the problem is to ensure that we bring our production closer to demand and our costs closer to the marketplace, and that is the policy we have pursued. We have always objected to the scheme because it seems a particularly inefficient way of tackling the problem. If one does not identify the problem correctly, which is to get the pricing structure right, how can one reach the right solution?
    Mr. Mallon: Is the Minister aware of the great disappointment and distress felt in areas of high unemployment such as Northern Ireland because of the restrictive nature of the entitlement to EC free food? Will he assure the House that he will do all in his power to change that, so that those who are technically not on
    1370
    income support or any other benefit do not lose out on the benefit of free EC food to which they should be entitled and of which they are in great need?
    Mr. Curry: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall do our best to ensure that those who are entitled to the free food have access to it. That is why the number of organisations involved has more than tripled this year to more than 400. However, I am not prepared to say that the scheme should be opened more generally to all pensioners, because that would be grotesquely inefficient. It seems plain common sense that the free food should be directed to those who are most in need and we shall seek to maintain that that is the case if we have to maintain the scheme at all, which I profoundly hope that we shall not.
    Mr. Knapman: Have there been any distributions of surplus free food in socialist countries?
    Mr. Curry: I understand that certain countries in the European Community that would describe themselves as Social Democratic have done so. However, the problem in eastern Europe is the queues of people trying to get into the supermarkets, not the queues of people trying to get out.

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives he has taken to improve animal welfare throughout the European Community.
    Mr. Gummer: I am pressing for the adoption of comprehensive Community rules setting high welfare standards for animals on farms, during transport and at slaughter.
    Mr. Moss: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the positive lead that he is taking on this issue in the European Community. Does he agree with the vast majority of the British public that the conduct of some French farmers of late is entirely unacceptable? Will he take action to ensure that our high standards on animal welfare, particularly on the live transportation of animals, become the benchmark of any future European Community legislation?
    Mr. Gummer: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that I have received further assurances from the French Government about the continuance of cases against people who indulge in those appalling acts. I am sure that he would also want us to raise our standards in those few areas in which we do not reach the highest, and then ensure that the whole of Europe continues to improve its standards, as it ought, as intra-Community trade increases.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister have a word with the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) and the right hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) about what is happening on Islay and the way in which, for commercial reasons, A and C Sporting Services is apparently being allowed to conduct the slaughter of the rare white-fronted Greenland goose? It is a European scandal.
    Mr. Gummer: I am responsible for many things, but the white-fronted Greenland goose is not one of them. I am perfectly happy to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary

    1371
    of State for the Environment to look into the matter. In so far as it is my responsibility or that of the Secretary of State for Scotland, I shall see that attention is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's remarks at once.
    Dame Janet Fookes: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that there are adequate numbers of inspectors and adequate enforcement procedures, without which the welfare regulations will not be worth the paper on which they are written?
    Mr. Gummer: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is not possible to have effective welfare regulations unless they are properly enforced. One thing that we seek to do in the European Community is to ensure that countries that claim to meet high standards can show that they are doing so by having proper inspectors and proper enforcement. Indeed, we are having discussions with the Commission about several countries. We shall make sure that at the end of them we are much happier about enforcement of the present rules in those countries. We also want to improve the rules considerably.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it true that the Minister is looking into the possibility of sending a fact-finding tour of Members of Parliament to Greenland in the winter to look after the Greenland goose? Or is it that he cannot find enough people because they are all on fact-finding tours between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn? Why does not he send one there instead?
    Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that a fact-finding tour in Greenland would be helpful on this occasion. I promise the hon. Gentleman that if I send a tour to Greenland, he will have first option for a place on it and it will be at a time of year to suit his convenience and personal bodily comfort.

    Dairy Industry
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the impact of the single European market on the United Kingdom dairy industry.
    Mr. Curry: I have received representations from a wide range of organisations covering issues such as possible changes to the milk marketing arrangements, the future operation of the milk quota system, and the Commission's proposals for Communitywide milk hygiene standards.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply on that point. Could he comment further on the future of the Milk Marketing Board after 1992?
    Mr. Curry: The Milk Marketing Board started the debate about its future because it believes that the present system is unsatisfactory. The Government have never concealed that they believe that a statutory monopoly, which is locked into a negotiating structure with a single buying organisation, no longer serves the best interests of farmers, consumers or the ability of the dairy trade to compete in the wider European market. An increasing number of people echo that. The formula must be sorted out by the Milk Marketing Board itself.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: When the Minister discussed the European single market, what representations were made to him that the agriculture industry is going through the
    1372
    worst recession since the war? Can he confirm or deny that his Government are backing a 30 per cent. cut in the support system for agriculture? If they are, why are they hell bent on destroying the agriculture industry, which has helped consumers so well over the past 50 years?
    Mr. Curry: Because the Government take the clear view that, first, it is in the interests of the welfare of the whole of the Community. Secondly, it is clearly in the interests of the United Kingdom and European farmers that we should take the lead and control the negotiations rather than fail dismally to formulate proposals, as Agriculture Ministers have done recently, as that would allow those who would like to see a much more draconian attack upon our system to prevail in the negotiations. Our position is the only sensible one and the only one which properly defends the interests of our farmers and continental farmers.
    Mr. Marland: As the United Kingdom has such a high standard of milk production and hygiene, can my hon. Friend assure the House that after 1992 all other European countries will be required to come up to our standards?
    Mr. Curry: I can assure my hon. Friend that the proposals before us mean that countries whose current standards are not as good as our own will come up to those standards. The United Kingdom has already achieved the standards that will be demanded under those proposals.

    Scottish Fishing Industry
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet representatives of the catching sector of the Scottish fishery industry; and what assistance he is making available to that sector.
    Mr. Curry: My noble Friend the Minister responsible for Scottish agriculture and fisheries regularly meets the Scottish fishing industry. I shall meet its representatives if they so desire.
    Mr. Salmond: If the Minister arranges such a meeting, will he attempt to explain to the industry's representatives why the Government have cancelled Export Credits Guarantee Department cover, which affects trade with the Soviet Union on the herring and mackerel fleets? Does the Minister agree that the Government look quite absurd when the Prime Minister claims at international conferences that trade with the Soviet Union should be developed while her own Departments are sabotaging the existing trade? When will the Minister start to assist the Scottish fishing industry and stop sabotaging its prospects?
    Mr. Curry: The future of the ECGD is not a matter for my Department. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that what will actually happen is that the Klondiking fleets will no longer appear off British coasts. It is not so much a problem of ECGD cover, but the obsolescence and the necessary radical restructuring of the fleets of eastern Europe after a generation of wholly inefficient socialist governments.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: Is my hon. Friend aware that some discontent has been expressed at the achievements in the activities of the sea fishing industry? Does he believe that if achievements in those activities cannot be realised, it is time to reconsider the levy system?
    Mr. Curry: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the Sea Fish Industry Authority has submitted proposals for an increase in the levy. Before I take any decision on that, I shall review carefully the industry's opinion expressed to me. I shall want to be satisfied that the Sea Fish Industry Authority has a clear idea about what it exists to do and that it is acting efficiently.

    Livestock Exports
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the numbers of livestock being exported live from the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Maclean: The following figures cover exports from the United Kingdom of farm livestock and horses for all purposes during the period January to August 1990 inclusive: cattle 175,975; sheep 295,928; pigs 79,114; goats 107 and horses 3,845.
    Mr. Davies: Will the Minister confirm that under article 36 of the treaty of Rome he is empowered to take steps to stop the export of live animals from this country if he is satisfied that that action is necessary to protect the health and life of those animals? Given the shocking scenes that we have seen of brutal mistreatment of British animals by rioting French farmers, is not it time that he took steps to bring the international trade in live animals to a halt?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that that matter is subject to judicial review today in the High Court. I cannot comment further on it.
    Mr. Moate: Does my hon. Friend expect to see those figures increased one day by the export of live horses for slaughter and consumption on the continent, or is he confident that we have the power to stop those new European regulations coming into effect?
    Mr. Maclean: Like everyone in the House, we sincerely hope not. We have had some extremely tough negotiations on the matter and we have made it plain that we support the minimum values principles, which are very good rules and have stood us in long stead. We shall continue fighting so that British horses are not exported live for slaughter and human consumption on the continent.

    Eastern Europe
    Mr. Burt: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what help his Department has given to farmers in eastern Europe.
    Mr. Gummer: I have undertaken a series of visits to east and central European countries and have taken other initiatives to promote United Kingdom trade co-operation on the transfer of appropriate technology.
    Mr. Burt: I am delighted to learn of the extent of help that we are giving. Bearing in mind the track record of socialist agriculture, does my right hon. Friend agree that the best advice that this country can give is to echo the words of the new Polish Member of Parliament who is the chairman of that country's privatisation committee and who said in this country last week that socialism cannot be improved but must be removed?
    Mr. Gummer: Anybody who thinks that centralised control, direction by the state and the fixing of norms, all
    1374
    of which are policies upheld by the Labour party in this country, do any good had better try to get a square meal in any of the eastern European countries.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 October.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Butterfill: Has my right hon. Friend found time in her busy day today to read the report of the Audit Commission on managing sickness absence in London? If so, does she share my concern that socialist authorities in London are tolerating sickness absence of two and a half times the average in local authorities elsewhere and that that is costing their community charge payers an estimated £27 a head?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I have seen the Audit Commission's report and have noted what my hon. Friend said, that is, that absentee levels in certain local authorities are nearly three times those in private industry and that some of those local authorities are not even aware of what the absentee levels are, let alone able to take any action about it. That is grossly unfair to the charge payer and once more proves that Labour authorities are totally inadequate from the point of view of financial control.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister make it clear to everyone today that she is completely against vouchers for schooling?
    The Prime Minister: We have an introduction of vouchers for training. That is very good because it increases choice. In education we are attempting to increase choice—in city technology colleges, in grant-maintained schools and with open rolls. Of course, local authorities are against choice. They want central controls. They do not want opportunity, and that is why the right hon. Gentleman is against choice and against vouchers anywhere.
    Mr. Kinnock: Even though the right hon. Lady is trying to evade, it is obvious from what she said last week and from what she just said that she is in favour of vouchers for schooling. The Prime Minister is a crank—[Interruption.] Is not it obvious to her that every examination ever undertaken into vouchers, including that done by her noble Friend Lord Joseph, has concluded that vouchers are an expensive, bureaucratic, divisive system entirely irrelevant to the real needs of schooling?
    The Prime Minister: Nonsense—[Interruption.] Nonsense. They are one, and only one, method of what we are already operating; the money follows the pupil. That is a form of giving extra choice and of giving the voucher to the parent for the pupil. Of course the right hon. Gentleman hates it. He wants total central control of education through socialist, Labour authorities that hold money back from locally managed schools. Of course he

    1375
    hates choice. Of course he hates higher standards. Of course he hates opportunity. He is socialist—a crypto-communist. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Kinnock: It is a long time since we had quite such a tantrum from the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time. Everyone knows that the British education system is now more centralised than it has ever been. Everyone also knows that the Prime Minister has spent the past 11 years making a complete mess of education. Why does she not now start concentrating on the things that need to be done to help education, and stop chasing after the things that can only hurt education?
    The Prime Minister: On the contrary, with city technology colleges, grant-maintained schools and locally managed schools we are totally and utterly decentralising power and responsibility away from the local education authorities to the parents. That is what the right hon. Gentleman objects to. In the meantime, let me point out to him that, during the stewardship of the Conservative Government, expenditure per pupil in education has increased from £515 to £1,360—an increase of 41 per cent. According to an OECD report quoted in The Sunday Times last week, when it comes to the percentage of our national income per head spent on education, Britain has a higher percentage than the United States, Japan or Germany.
    Mr. Burt: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Burt: Bearing in mind the previous exchange, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has seen news reports today about a head teacher who describes himself as
    "a former knee-jerk anti-Tory"
    chap, and who now runs a successful grant-maintained school in the north of England that takes its pupils from nearby council estates. Does she believe that the aspirations of those parents and children will be fulfilled by any big idea that threatens to destroy their choice and opportunity in grant-maintained schools?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend, as usual, is absolutely spot on. The money goes directly to the grant-maintained schools—into the classroom and not into the local education authority administration.
    Head teachers of grant-maintained schools find them extremely good. There have been a number of comments about them recently—the head of Bankfield school in Cheshire, for instance, has said:
    "18 months ago I had serious reservations about the applications for grant-maintained status—not now. For me seeing and experiencing has been believing."
    Another in Northampton said—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is answering a question.
    The Prime Minister: Another head teacher, from Hendon, said:
    "We have more time to deal with educational issues as opposed to administration and coping with bureaucracy."
    That is another example of a head teacher satisfied with a grant-maintained school. A third said:
    1376
    "We are finding it easier to recruit staff."
    Of course the right hon. Gentleman does not like that, because it means more staff and less bureaucracy; however, the schools are good.
    Mr. Ashdown: Given the Prime Minister's previous answers, why does she disagree with her own Secretary of State for Education and Science, who said over the weekend that he felt that the introduction of education vouchers would be an unnecessary distraction from the real task—putting right what was wrong with Britain's failing education system?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is sitting next to me, and disagrees totally with the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what he said. Had the right hon. Gentleman listened to what I said earlier, he would have realised that city technology colleges, grant-maintained schools and, to some extent, open enrolment are a form of choice for parents. If we add to that the money following the pupil, it is virtually a voucher system.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of inviting in the head of Twyford high school in Ealing, Hazel Hardy, the head of Lilian Baylis school in Waterloo and Peter Dawson, who used to be the headmaster of Eltham Green school in my constituency and get them to explain how it is that, with the opportunity of attracting pupils to their schools, they have managed to make the schools attractive to ethnic minorities and poor families and to provide the type of education that the Leader of the Opposition received in Wales? More families at the bottom need choice, and with my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Education and Science, we expect to see more of it.
    The Prime Minister: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Choice is for the overwhelming majority of those who go to the public system of education. That is why we are extending it. That is why we have grant-maintained schools, which are independent state schools and that is why we are giving more choice to parents, knowing full well that they will use it to go to the school that offers the highest standards of education. More choice means better standards and more opportunity.
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: Can the Prime Minister give any explanation why the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) remains convinced that it was the Foreign Secretary who suggested that he make the visit to Iraq, although I am aware that the latter has strongly denied that? What is the Prime Minister's own view about the forthcoming trip, bearing it in mind that, we hope, some sick and elderly British hostages will be released—people who should never have been taken hostage in the first place? Indeed, no one should have been taken hostage.
    The Prime Minister: Of course people should never have been taken hostage in the first place. That is why we are all at one in the House in insisting that the United Nations resolutions must be upheld, and insisting that every day that the hostages are held is a fresh offence and

    1377
    act of war. As far as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is concerned, he will make his own best judgments. If he decides to visit Iraq, or any other country, he will of course be given the normal courtesies. Similar facilities were available for those Opposition Members who visited Iraq recently.
    Mr. Marland: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marland: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to study the recent confession by Mr. Herman Ouesley, the chief executive of Labour-controlled Lambeth council, who laments that no final accounts have been prepared in Lambeth since 1985 and that 40,000 community charge bills have not been sent out? He also laments what he describes as "corruption" in the administration system and says that the financial situation is near catastrophic. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that reflects the flavour of a possible future Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I saw the report in the Local Government Chronicle to the effect that Lambeth had not finalised its accounts since about 1985, which is an utter disgrace for any local authority. I think that the chief executive was very critical about it. That is typical of Labour's financial management, typical of the way that their last Government handled the nation's affairs, and typical of the way in which Labour authorities carry on, and it is very adverse to community charge payers and the services that they receive.
    Mr. Galloway: As the Prime Minister knows, there is an election next week in Pakistan. Does she accept that there is now a real fear in Pakistan that, having failed to find a legal case against Benazir Bhutto and, largely thanks to President Bush, having failed to have the elections called off, Miss Bhutto's enemies may have concluded that the only way to stop her becoming Prime Minister again is to kill her? Will the Prime Minister make it clear today that
    1378
    Britain expects next Thursday's election in Pakistan to be free and fair? Will she ask her ambassador in Islamabad to convey to the Pakistani authorities her concern for the life of Benazir Bhutto?
    The Prime Minister: When the high commissioner of Pakistan came to see me yesterday, because his period of accreditation to this country is over, I raised the matter with him. I said that we all expected those elections to be fully free and fair and that we shall watch carefully to see whether they are free and fair. We are aware of all the concerns about them.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recently announced rents-to-mortgages scheme will bring the reality of home ownership to many thousands of families who never believed that that option would be available to them? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that, rather than being an irrelevant scheme, as it has been described by the Labour party, it will be so successful that in the end the Labour party will claim that it was its own idea?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, the original right-to-buy scheme has enabled about 1·5 million council tenants to purchase their homes. There are some who are still unable, under that scheme, to take the plunge but who would like to purchase their homes. In Scotland and Wales, therefore, we have run a pilot scheme on rents to mortgages. A number of people have taken advantage of it. We intend to run a pilot scheme in England for new-town houses to find out whether the scheme would also be welcomed here, with a view, if it succeeds, to extending it much more widely in order to enable another group of people to enjoy the benefits of home ownership, which they would never have got from the Labour party.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Bill and the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill.
Motion to take note of EC document relating to the proposal for a European company statute. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 23 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the exchange rate mechanism, on a Government motion.
Motion on the British Nationality (Hong Kong) (Selection Scheme) Order 1990.
WEDNESDAY 24 OCTOBER—Motions relating to European Standing Committees, European Community legislation and parliamentary questions.
Motion to take note of EC document relating to the extension of EC aid to other countries of central and eastern Europe. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 25 OCTOBER—Progress on consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Broadcasting Bill.
FRIDAY 26 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords].
Completion of consideration of any Lords amendments to the Broadcasting Bill.
MONDAY 29 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Environmental Protection Bill.
[Monday 22 October 1990

Relevant European Community Document

8404/89 European Company statute

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

HC 15-xxxv (1988–89), para 2.

Wednesday 24 October 1990

Relevant European Community Document

7720/90 Aid to Eastern Europe

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

HC 11-xxxi (1989–90), para 5]

Dr. Cunningham: Can the House expect a statement next week from the Foreign Secretary when he returns from his important visit to the middle east? Since that visit involved discussions about the situation in Israel and the Palestinians and also about the grave situation in the Gulf, will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend to come to Parliament as soon as possible to report on his talks?
May we also have an assurance that the Secretary of State for Social Security will make an oral statement next week about the Government's plans for the uprating of benefits? That decision will have important consequences
1380
for millions of British families. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to question the Secretary of State about his proposals.
May I also ask the Leader of the House to reconsider his unusual decision to timetable the consideration of Lords amendments to the Broadcasting Bill on Friday and to make it the second business for that day? It is unacceptable that legislation that is so important and at the same time so controversial should be timetabled for Friday rather than for a normal full sitting day of the House. The legislation raises important questions, which do not necessarily reflect simply party political divisions. I hope that on reconsideration that business can be taken on another day.
Will the Leader of the House urge his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to reconsider her decision to duck out of the debate on Britain's membership of the exchange rate mechanism? The Prime Minister, as First Lord of the Treasury, has primary responsibility for Government economic policy. Is not it strange that, on the most important economic decision of the moment, the Prime Minister is running away from a debate in the House? The right hon. Lady already has the worst record in recent memory of any Prime Minister for attending debates in the House. Why is she running away from this issue? Is it that she is unwilling to face not only Labour party opposition, but searching questions from her own party on her U-turn, or is it that she no longer has any stomach for the fight?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that his colleague, the Opposition Chief Whip, raised with me on Monday the issue of a statement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. As I said then, I shall convey his request to my right hon. Friend on his return to this country.
I note the request that the hon. Gentleman makes about a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The House will be informed in due course, and I shall tell my right hon. Friend that the matter has been raised.
I can understand why the hon. Gentleman raised his third point, but I cannot accept his contention that Friday should not be regarded as a proper parliamentary day. The House will appreciate that it is necessary at this stage to make progress on all these matters. Obviously, I hope that satisfactory arrangements can be agreed through the usual channels as we have already laid them out. Progress along the lines I have suggested will be important and make sense if we are to achieve the equally sensible objective of Parliament being prorogued in the week commencing 29 October.
Finally, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made the announcement about entry into the exchange rate mechanism, as is proper, will prove to be much more than a match for the Leader of the Opposition. If the hon. Gentleman's point is to be taken seriously, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was asked about this in the House on Tuesday and she can be asked about it next Tuesday. It is interesting that no Opposition Member asked about it this afternoon.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what progress he is making on the parliamentary pensions Bill?

1381
I ask that question as one of the trustees of the fund. We have twice had the matter down for debate but nothing concrete has yet transpired.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter in the absence of the chairman of the trustees. As my hon. Friend knows, the current position is that there have been lengthy discussions with the trustees about the package of changes involved in the Ministerial and Other Offices (Pensions and Salaries) Bill and in the regulations associated with it. I have been seeking all along to respond sympathetically to the various concerns expressed in the debate on 17 January this year and subsequently. I have been happy to accommodate the trustees' request for further time to consider the proposals. I shall be meeting the trustees again next week. In consequence of that, I do not now expect to make further progress with the Bill in what remains of this Session, but I shall seek to do so as speedily as possible in the new Session.
Mr. James Wallace: I am sure that the Leader of the House will recall that, during the recess, Mr. David Calcutt came forward with his report on the Colin Wallace case. He observed that Ministry of Defence officials had seen the chairman of the appeal tribunal before which Mr. Wallace was to appear and he believed that that had influenced the outcome of the appeal. Given such serious allegations, surely one would expect that we would have had a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence this week. At the very least, can we expect a statement next week or, better still, a debate on this important issue which simply will not go away?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government have accepted the conclusion and recommendation made by Mr. David Calcutt in his report, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) about the matter on 13 September. A copy of that letter is in the Library of the House.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the deputy Prime Minister will join me in expressing heartfelt sympathy to the family of my constituent, Stephen Craig, who was murdered by the IRA on Tuesday evening, and to the relatives of the other victim, a Roman Catholic, who was murdered the same evening. May we have time to debate the slaughter of the innocents in Northern Ireland as a matter of urgency, because it is high time that that slaughter was brought to an end, in the interests of all people in the Province whatever their religious or political beliefs?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House will agree with the objective stated at the end of that question, but I cannot promise the prospect of an early debate on this important matter. Both murders are the subject of a full police investigation. Several people are helping the police with their inquiries into the murder of the police dog handler, Samuel Todd. I am sure that the House will join me in extending sympathy to the families of both victims of such tragic murders.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider arranging a debate on eastern Europe? I note that next week it can be debated, but should not there be a general debate on eastern Europe, especially as the Conservative party has begun a political programme, including speeches at its conference, trying to suggest that democratic socialism equates with Stalinism? Some of us resent that very much indeed, based on our experience of consistently arguing that there was no socialism in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Socialism means freedom. The suggestions of Conservative Members that the capitalist system is the only free system in the world is not true, and we want to debate that.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to the hon. Gentleman. To some extent, the matter can be touched on in tomorrow's debate on the unification of Germany. In the time that remains before prorogation, I cannot promise him the prospect of a wider debate, but I counsel him, despite the sincerity with which he holds his view, to reflect further on what he has just said. Last week, the British people saw a procession of undoubted leaders of the newly freed countries of Europe coming quite spontaneously to our conference—
Mr. Dennis Canavan: It was a set-up.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything. Those people came to our party conference to express their solidarity with the democracy for which this party stands, and we are entitled to take the credit for it.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the haemophiliacs who were injected with imported blood containing the HIV virus were the victims of a unique accident which is not the stuff of precedent, and as such are not they entitled to generous, once-off, compassionate compensation? If the Government were not persuaded of that by the excellent Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), will he please arrange a full debate on the subject so that Back Benchers have a chance to persuade the Government?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend says, the matter was raised in the House on Tuesday in an Adjournment debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall). I cannot add anything further to what was said then.
Mr. Ron Brown: May we have some time next week to discuss the role of Scottish Homes, a Government quango north of the border, as that body has refused to carry out basic essential repairs to properties in my constituency? Sir James Mellon, the chairman of Scottish Homes, is making all sorts of excuses for not carrying out that basic work on behalf of people who are paying high rents for properties that are about to fall down—and I do not exaggerate. May we have some action, even if it is only a debate next week, on this issue, which is vital to people who are concerned about what is happening to them? We talk about a property-owning democracy, but that is a sham, because the Government own these properties. They should be doing something about them.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the prospect of a debate on that issue. All I can do is bring the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Peter Fry: Will my right hon. and learned Friend think again about the suggestion by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—I am sure that we are all pleased to see the hon. Gentleman in his place—that there should be a debate on eastern Europe? Events in the Gulf have tended to cloud the great volatility that still exists in that part of the continent. Those of us who recently returned from Yugoslavia are aware of the risk of civil war in that country, the results of which would be incalculable. Will my right hon. and learned Friend please think again about having an early debate on eastern Europe?
Sir Geofffrey Howe: I understand why my hon. Friend presses me on that point. I do not underestimate the legitimate and widespread interest in this topic, but I have no possible scope for a debate on it before prorogation. There will be an opportunity to raise that matter on the foreign affairs day of the debate on the Gracious Speech. I shall bear my hon. Friend's point in mind thereafter.
Mr. Peter Shore: I welcome the debate on the ERM. Does the Leader of the House agree that it would be welcome, not only to Back Benchers on both sides of the House but to members of the Cabinet, if he were to announce today that there will be a free vote at the end of the debate?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Whipping is not, of course, a matter for the Leader of the House. It is for the Chief Whips, both of whom are here, to give to the right hon. Gentleman's observation such attention as they think is due.
Mr. Toby Jessel: The excellent report of the working party on noise which was published this afternoon by the Department of the Environment deals with the noise nuisance to large numbers of our constituents from such sources as aircraft, helicopters, trains, lorries, amplified music, late-night parties, dogs and burglar alarms. Can we please discuss that report reasonably soon? I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that the secretary to the working party was my late constituent, Charlie Bayne, who was warmly commended by the chairman in his introduction for the respect in which he was held for his great tenacity and application.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot respond positively at this stage to his request for such a debate, although I gladly join him in expressing my sympathy to Charlie Bayne's family. Charlie Bayne's father was one of Her Majesty's ambassadors during my time at the Foreign Office. I am sure that my colleagues would wish to endorse what was said by the working party about the courage with which he discharged his duty on the secretariat to the working party.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the announcement this week of the motion setting up the Select Committees to scrutinise the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an assurance that, before we rise at the end of this Session, there will be a similar
1384
motion to set up a Select Committee on Northern Ireland, an aspect of government which needs to be scrutinised; or will we have to continue to hasten slowly?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The matter is summed up in the hon. Gentleman's closing words. I admire his tenacity, but he cannot expect that to be matched by celerity on this matter.
Sir Robert McCrindle: When we discuss next Tuesday our entry into the ERM, will the basis of that debate be sufficiently widely drawn so that we may also discuss the simultaneous reduction in interest rates and so that any hon. Members who doubt the wisdom of linking those decisions may express their views?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I should be extremely surprised if it were possible to design a motion on that topic which excluded the important matter that my hon. Friend has in mind.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his reply to the first question of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)? The Foreign Secretary returns from the middle east tomorrow evening. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the trip next week so that some of us can get a statement from the Foreign Secretary on what he said in the different countries to explain the British Government's support for immediate action when Iraq invaded Kuwait, for example, compared with the fact that, 23 years after Israel occupied Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza strip—and especially after the murder of 21 Palestinians last Monday—the United Nations sat for five days and then decided to send three assistants from the Secretary-General's office? Is that a result of double standards or is it because the Palestinians have no oil?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was not asked to arrange a debate on that matter, but I was asked to pass on a request for a statement from my right hon. Friend, and I will do that. I do not begin to underestimate the importance of the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I do not have the impression that my right hon. Friend's journey to the middle east has been notorious for his lack of plain speaking on the matter that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noted that we sat up late last night dealing with a series of private Bills, and that he has announced more private Bill business for next week? Is he aware that, in the time it has taken, for example, to consider the King's Cross Bill, the Toyota motor corporation has sussed out Europe, sussed out more than 20 sites in this country, picked my constituency, purchased 600 acres of land, obtained planning permission, gone through a compulsory purchase order inquiry and let the contract, is building a factory and will be producing the cars before a single brick is laid at King's Cross? How are we to modernise our country and its infrastructure and, most of all, improve our ports, our harbours and our railways if we are to stick to such an outdated system of procedure in this House?
Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Alice Mahon.
Sir Geoffrey Howe rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I was thinking of something else.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's question was intended largely to answer itself and it went a fair way towards doing so. She is right. We shall press ahead with reforms in the private Bill procedure because they are a matter of some importance.
Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Alice Mahon.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not think that the question of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) was worth an answer either.
Given today's unemployment figure, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on unemployment? In my constituency, 2,000 jobs in manufacturing have gone since January. If he grants such a debate, perhaps we could look in detail at the practices of directors such as Michael Ashcroft, who bled Coloroll dry, took £1·2 million in dividends the year before it went bankrupt and paid himself £500,000 in salary. Yet the Government are now trying to blame low-paid textile workers for the mess they are in.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Lady is, of course, entitled to draw attention to the rise in unemployment figures reported today. However, they should be set in the much broader context of the very long-term achievements of the present Government. Employment, for example, is at an all-time high. The United Kingdom still has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the European Community. That is the background against which to judge her point.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give us an early debate on defence issues? The Ministry of Defence currently has the enormous task of building up for the Gulf, and another enormous task of seeing where economies can be made on the defence estate and on all the other costs of defence. The House is interested to achieve the maximum defence dividend, while ensuring that the defence of the realm is preserved. May we have a debate on this subject as soon as possible?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: At this stage, I can promise nothing more than to take note of my hon. Friend's important point.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will the Leader of the House make arrangements for a stairlift or other form of access for wheelchair users to be able to reach meetings in the Grand Committee Room and in the Jubilee Room, and for a loop for hearing-impaired visitors?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly see that those two points are considered as fully as they deserve to be.
Mr. John Greenway: When can we expect a statement from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the breakdown of discussions in Brussels on the future of the agriculture budget in the light of the GATT discussions? Many farmers are already facing serious financial difficulty and it is right that the House should consider that. The threat of any reduction in subsidy is already causing grave concern. World affairs are extremely important, but many people in Britain feel that the House does not spend sufficient time on our own domestic problems.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the importance of the agriculture questions raised by my hon. Friend, in which one has to strike the right balance between the need for
1386
reform on the world stage and the needs of our own, like other national farming communities. I cannot promise a statement on the topic next week, as my right hon. Friend the Minister will be returning tomorrow to continue the discussions in which he has already been engaged for two days this week.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Leader of the House aware of the statement made today by the president of the Scottish National Farmers Union, that the industry now faces its worst crisis since the 1930s and that he expects a spate of bankruptcies in the hill and upland sectors? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the seriousness of the situation and, given the range of problems facing the industry, may we have an urgent debate on the state of agriculture?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am afraid that I cannot offer the prospect of an early debate on that subject, but I do not begin to underrate its importance. For all agricultural communities, the existing state of affairs of widespread national and international intervention by way of subsidy or protection is unsustainable. Her Majesty's Government are playing a leading part in trying to secure progress in the international negotiations that must take place, not least in the EC. We shall continue to do that, and my right hon. Friend will inform the House about his progress as appropriate.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider his earlier disappointing answer about haemophiliacs who are HIV-positive? Is he aware that he will find it increasingly difficult to persuade many of his hon. Friends that the Government are acting in a proper manner in that matter, and the sooner that it is debated in the House and resolved by administrative action and Government decision, rather than by forcing it through the courts, the better.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the point made by my hon. Friend and I do not wish to seem in any sense lacking in sympathy, but the fact is that it has been debated in the House once this week, as I have already observed. I can only undertake to bring his observations to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Ken Eastham: I remind the Leader of the House of the terrible disasters that took place on the North sea oil rigs, particularly the Piper Alpha disaster, when 167 technicians and engineers were burnt to death. Following that, the Government set up an inquiry under Lord Cullen, and we were given to understand that the report would be ready for inspection by the House during June or July. We are still awaiting that report, and there is great unrest on the North sea oil rigs about health and safety. When will the House do something about that to bring this terrible matter to an end? Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate in the House on the report?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot give any direct response today to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall certainly bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time at an early date for a debate on trade unions, particularly since the revelation in the

1387
Evening Standard of the appearance of ghosts—not just one person with the same name and address as another, but up to seven on the same list for a union election? Is not that a disgrace? Is it possible that such ghosts are responsible for the missing money of the National Union of Mineworkers?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that that particular manifestation of ghostliness deserves to be taken extremely seriously, and I shall see whether an opportunity arises for that.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Will the Leader of the House make time available next week for a debate on the financial crisis facing the national health service? Is he aware that it became apparent this morning that the Wakefield health authority has agreed a huge package of cuts and closures which will have a devastating effect on my constituents who are on hospital waiting lists and who are suffering pain and discomfort? I am aware that such deficits are affecting many health authorities throughout Britain. May we have an urgent debate on the matter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise a debate on that. However, it is important to note that the figures for those on waiting lists at March 1990, which will be published in full quite shortly, show a reduction of almost 5 per cent. since September 1989 in the number of those who have been waiting for more than a year. That represents significant progress.
Mr. Roger Moate: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement about the extremely serious situation involving several hundred British drivers and their vehicles which have been stranded for nearly 10 days on the French-Spanish border? Those drivers have suffered great personal difficulties and there will be serious financial consequences. Is not it vital that we hear soon what representations are being made to ensure that the Spanish Government are honouring their obligations under Community rules to allow the free passage of goods and also know whether we are pressing for compensation for those who will suffer financial loss, as the Government did with regard to the lamb war?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will certainly bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: Is the Leader of the House aware of a statement made on Thursday 11 October by the chairman of the Fair Employment Tribunal in Northern Ireland, which has had the effect of nullifying the provisions of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989? In view of the urgency of the matter, and the fact that 199 cases are now at a dead halt, will he provide urgent remedial legislation and time for the House to give effect to the wish of the House, which was that the Act should be implemented and used as quickly as possible?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The point raised by the hon. Gentleman clearly deserves to be studied very closely before I can reach a conclusion about it. I simply undertake to bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange an early debate on the future of the net book agreement which results in book prices being higher and the number of books being sold smaller than would otherwise be the case?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has raised an important and interesting point, which deserves the consideration that I will give to it.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Can we have a statement next week on the multi-fibre arrangement and the Government's attitude to it? As has been stated already, the GATT negotiations are under way and there is a feeling within the textile industry that the Government have a lacklustre attitude towards the renewal of the MFA, which both employers and unions regard as vital for the retention of a buoyant and successful textile industry.
Will the Leader of the House assure us that we can have a statement, if not next week then at least in the near future, because 14,000 jobs in Bradford depend directly on textiles and nearly 500,000 throughout the country depend on textiles and clothing? This is a vital matter if we are to retain a textile industry.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the importance of the textile industry, which was debated on 26 July, and not long ago, I had an opportunity to study a document from the Apparel, Knitting and Textile Alliance, the burden of which underlined the link between the GATT negotiations and the MFA. If all the parties concerned demonstrate the necessary commitment in the final crucial stage of the Uruguay round negotiations, we can achieve the better balance in world trade which we are all looking for upon the basis laid out in the European Commission's negotiating policy.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Apart from a possible statement from the Foreign Secretary about the situation in the middle east, should not we have another fully-fledged debate about the Gulf crisis? Some of us would like to debate things before war breaks out so that we can try in some small way to influence developments. There was a great demand to speak in the House in our earlier Gulf debate and 40 hon. Members who wanted to speak were not called then. It looks odd to people outside this place that we are not debating the Gulf now that Parliament has returned after the recess, particularly as the danger still exists. There will be differing views about how the situation should be handled and it is right that we should be concerned and that the House should be seen to be debating the issue.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. However, we must fit in other matters in the relatively short time before Parliament is prorogued. It is for that purpose that a Government day next week has been devoted to the ERM debate and the Opposition day has been transferred to the next Session. There will be opportunities after the Queen's Speech, not least in the Queen's Speech debate itself, but I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the Leader of the House aware that we still do not have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, despite Standing Order No. 130, which makes it compulsory? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman view the video of yesterday's Scottish Question

1389
Time? It is a perfect illustration of the anger felt on these Benches and in many places in Scotland because we are denied the instrument of investigation at precisely the moment when we require it. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland met the chairman of British Steel on Tuesday and then, at the Dispatch Box yesterday afternoon, offered no detailed statement on the discussions that he had had with the chairman about the future of the Scottish steel industry?
Is the Leader of the House also aware that the British Steel board and chairman are deliberately out to destroy the Scottish steel industry piecemeal and that we are denied by the House the kind of Select Committee that is the one defensive mechanism that we could deploy against them? If he tells me that it is not the Government's responsibility, will he admit the logic of the position that this House of Commons, with its English majority, is denying Scotland the Select Committee the opportunity to defend ourselves in Lanarkshire against the investment that is going to Teesside?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman spoils such case as he has by his overstatement of the matter. It plainly cannot be sustained that British Steel is deliberately out to destroy anything. Moreover, he should note that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday faced, I should judge, about 20 minutes' questioning on the very topic that the hon. Gentleman raises. He was exposed to full and rigorous questioning by the House, and gave a full account of himself.
Mr. Gavin Strang: I reinforce the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that there is a need for a full debate on the Gulf crisis before Prorogation. Surely we owe it to the British people as a whole and to the thousands of British service men in the gulf to keep the matter at the forefront of our deliberations. In view of the press report that the British Government have been privately urging the United States Administration to take an early decision on military action against Iraq, will the Leader of the House take the opportunity this afternoon to affirm that it is still Government policy that mandatory economic sanctions be given a chance to work?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government's policy is to secure full implementation of the resolution that was passed by the United Nations Security Council. I have already acknowledged the case for a debating opportunity as soon as it can be found when the House resumes after Prorogation. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity of not only hearing a statement from the Foreign Secretary next Wednesday but asking him questions when he faces the House for questions in the ordinary way.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Leader of the House at all uncomfortable that those in the other place who have been most angry about the Nature Conservancy Council are those such as Lord Buxton—Conservative peers who know most about it? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman understood also that there has been a recent staff vote in the Nature Conservancy Council in
1390
which an overwhelming majority of members of staff not only in Peterborough but in Scotland and in Wales have come down against the proposals?
Was not the whole matter misconceived in the first place by wanting to please the Scots, when those of us in Scotland who knew and cared most were passionately against the expensive, costly, wasteful and absurd break-up of the Nature Conservancy Council? In the circumstances, should not there be a statement next week, before we get down to amendments, that the Government have given up the idea, at any rate for this year? There would be no shame in doing so. The time that is saved could be used for a proper statement and a debate on the middle east.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman may have some observations to make during our consideration of the Lords amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill on Monday week.
Mr. Max Madden: Did the Leader of the House see The Observer magazine last Sunday, which revealed the increasing number of hon. Members who hold outside financial and commercial interests, with the potential for a conflict of interest where the Chairpersons of key parliamentary Committees hold financial and commercial interests that have a direct bearing on the work of their Committees?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore have any plans to enable the House to decide whether it thinks it right that the hon. Members for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), who are all Chairpersons of parliamentary Committees, should hold extensive financial and commercial interests which have a direct bearing on the work of their Committees? Will the Leader of the House give us an opportunity to decide whether we think that that is right, because I can tell him that many of us think that it is entirely wrong?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That colour supplement made a great deal more than I should have imagined possible out of some relatively modest factual material. The questions that both it and the hon. Gentleman have raised are appropriate for investigation in the first instance not by the House but by the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which has been investigating some of them. That is the first place to which any such complaint should be referred.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Leader of the House give some sympathetic consideration to the holding of a debate on the present circumstances of the United Kingdom's maritime industries? I refer in the main to shipping, shipbuilding, marine engineering and, of course, to the fishing industry. Many thousands of people employed in those industries genuinely believe that they, their industries and their communities face a bleak future. Hon. Members representing Scotland find the Scottish Grand Committee and Scottish Question Time a poor substitute for a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, especially when it comes to giving tough-minded scrutiny to Government policy on these and other industries. I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to accept the need for such a debate in the near future.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot undertake to arrange a debate on that topic in the near future, but I know that that question is of interest not only to Scottish Members but to hon. Members representing other parts of the country—not least because my Parliamentary Private Secretary represents a fishing constituency. I shall certainly bear the matter in mind.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House please arrange an early debate on the continuing, alarming and unacceptable increase in the crime rate, which, unfortunately, has been at its worst in the county of Leicestershire? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the fact that hon. Members of all parties, including particularly his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), have been pressing continually for years for proper policing in accordance with the wishes and requests of successive chief constables? It is not enough to declare a vague promise at the Tory party conference that the number of police will be increased. Hon. Members who represent Leicestershire on both sides of the House demand increased resources now before the crime rate gets even worse in our county.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. and learned Gentleman can be relied upon to overstate the case. He talks about vague promises at the Tory party conference. Everyone is concerned about the level of crime, and the fact is that under this Government there has been a massive increase—
Mr. Janner: A massive increase in crime.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There has been a massive increase in resources, including police officers in service, as a direct result of the Government's policies. Our concern has been expressed by actions rather than by words, at which the hon. and learned Gentleman is an expert.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that the economy has moved into recession, the unemployment figures have risen several months in succession, and bankruptcies and liquidations have trebled in the past year, why does not the
1392
Leader of the House arrange a debate on bankruptcies and the economy? We could not only discuss the massive unemployment that affects my hon. Friends' constituencies; we could also invite Tory Members to talk about the demise of Murdoch's empire, in which shares have fallen in value by two thirds this year, and the winding up of the Tory party's little Blue Rosette company with debts of £100,000, which meant that, at the Bournemouth conference, the Prime Minister's face had to be taken off every single mug?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take note of the characteristically good-natured way in which the hon. Gentleman expresses his interest in the matter. He will surely appreciate that much of what happens to unemployment in the months ahead, as in the years past, depends on the attitude adopted by pay negotiators on both sides of the industry. I hope that he will lend his support to the cause of pay moderation.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Leader of the House recognise that the erosion of farm incomes in the hills and uplands of Scotland is catastrophic? Does he accept that there is an urgent need for a debate while the autumn review is pending, to enable hon. Members to bring their knowledge of the matter to the attention of responsible Ministers before decisions are taken, not only in Brussels but by our domestic Ministries, on the hill livestock compensatory allowance levels?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House when I dealt with that point some time ago. The matter can be dealt with time and again. Of course there is anxiety on both sides of not only the House, but virtually every democratic assembly in the industrialised world about the state of the farming industry. It is caused by the manifest capacity to produce surpluses, which is not mitigated by the existence of massive protection. It is for that reason that the Government have taken and are taking the lead in the necessary worldwide reform of agricultural protection. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has kept the House fully informed of the results of his work and will continue to do so.

Points of Order
4.15 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice and guidance? During Prime Minister's Question Time today, the Prime Minister, in a somewhat hysterical outburst, referred clearly to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as a crypto-communist. Those words were not only clearly overheard, but are in the preliminary draft of the Official Report. Since they were uttered, I have had the opportunity to consult "Erskine May", which on page 381 makes it clear that
"the imputation of false or unavowed motives"
is unparliamentary language. I assume that the rules on unparliamentary language apply even to the Prime Minister. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, can advise me how that totally dishonest and abusive smear of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption.] There would be very different noises on the other side of the House if the position were reversed. We are not prepared to accept one set of rules for the rabble over there and another set for my hon. Friends. Can you advise me, Mr. Speaker, how the Prime Minister can be caused to remove those words from the record and how we can have Hansard put straight?
Mr. Speaker: This is not the moment for points of order but since it has been raised I will deal with it. As far as I am aware, the word "communist" has never been considered unparliamentary. In any case, I am afraid that I did not hear the last part of that sentence—
Dr. Cunningham: It is in the record.
Mr. Speaker: It may be in the record, but there was a great deal of noise. I recollect that when the Leader of the Opposition rose he appeared to be laughing heartily. I did not hear the remark, but such matters should be raised immediately in order that they can be dealt with by the Chair.
Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rest my case on "Erskine May" which says on page 381:
"The imputation of false or unavowed motives"
to a Member is unparliamentary. It is absolutely unacceptable for the Prime Minister to get away with smearing the Leader of the Opposition in this way.
Mr. Speaker: If I had heard the expression, I would have stopped it. I am surprised that the issue was not raised immediately at the time if anyone else heard it. I did not hear the Prime Minister make a personal accusation against the integrity of the Leader of the Opposition in that exchange. I cannot do anything about it now, but I am sure that the matter will be brought to the attention of the Prime Minister and she will make amends.
Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What you are really saying is that on some future occasion we can refer to the Prime Minister as a crypto-fascist and that that will be in order.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that we shall always treat each other with respect. Sadly at Prime Minister's Question Time there is frequently a great deal of noise and it is not possible for us all to hear exactly what is said. I did not hear the expression. If other hon. Members heard it and felt aggrieved about it, I am genuinely surprised that they did not get up to draw it to my attention immediately.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all heard the Leader of the Opposition utter crude and uncouth abuse at the Prime Minister. If the Opposition do not like it being dished out, they should not dish it out in the first place.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just driven back from the by-election at Eastbourne and I heard clearly on the car radio the term "crypto-communist". Therefore, the nation heard it. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that two years ago a complaint was made by a Conservative Member about a reference to fascism made by one of my hon. Friends. On that occasion my hon. Friend was required to withdraw that statement. May we simply ask—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman had been in the House instead of driving in his car, he would have had an opportunity to raise the matter with me at the time. The whole House knows that I deprecate the use of such phrases. I required the term "fascist" to be withdrawn on that occasion because I heard it. Today, unfortunately, I was not driving in my car and I did not hear it.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to reflect upon the matter to see what can be done.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While you are reflecting on the matter you might bear in mind that representations have been made in the past; for instance, when I called Dr. Death a pompous sod, I had to take an early bath. When I said that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) had been lining his pockets because he got an non-executive directorship of British Telecom, I had an early bath. In this quaint little place you have different rules for different people.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not want another one.
Mr. David Trimble: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it on the same matter?
Mr. Trimble: Yes, it is. I just wondered, now that we have the cameras in this place, whether it would be appropriate to have action replays. You could then be sure of exactly what was said.
Mr. Speaker: The cameras are a large part of the trouble really.

Seven-Year-Olds (Testing)
4.20 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): Following discussions with and advice from the School Examinations and Assessment Council, the Secretary of State for Wales and I have today decided on the scope of the tests to be used in the first national assessments of all seven-year-olds in 1991. I am arranging for copies of the specification for drawing up the actual tests themselves to be placed in the Library of the House.
The national tests will concentrate on what is of key concern to parents—reading, writing, arithmetic and basic scientific skills. Because the ability to read is vital to pupils' future development, all seven-year-olds will be tested separately on their ability to read. To help ensure consistency of standards, that test will be based on a range of common texts.
I believe that it is important that at this age the tests concentrate on the basics. That is not only right in itself, but means tests that will be manageable in the classrooms. The tests will take up the equivalent of about a week and a half of classroom time in the first half of the summer term. The message from this summer's pilot tests was that they overloaded the schools. I have decided that next year's tests will be simpler and will concentrate on what really matters. In addition to the external tests, teachers will also carry out their own tests of all seven-year-olds across all aspects of English, maths and science in the national curriculum.
For the first time, we shall have a national system in all schools which will enable parents and teachers to know how their children are progressing in the basics of education. All parents will be able to get clear and objective results and to talk to teachers about their children's progress. For each child, teachers will be able to build upon strengths and tackle weaknesses.
The national curriculum sets clear and demanding national targets for pupils of all ages and abilities in English, mathematics and science. The tests will show how pupils—individually and collectively—are measuring up to those targets. For the first time, we shall have clear, national information about what is happening to standards. The arrangements that I am announcing today for testing seven-year-olds are the key to raising those standards.
Mr. Jack Straw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this afternoon's announcement represents a major and humiliating U-turn—[Interruption.] I appreciate why Conservative Members do not like that news, but it is true. It represents a major and humiliating U-turn by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet against the whole concept of the national curriculum and testing contained in the Education Reform Act 1988.
Is it because the Secretary of State understands the extent of the Government's embarrassment that, as the Order Paper makes clear, his original intention was to slip out this announcement by way of a written answer and that this oral statement had to be wrung from him?
The Secretary of State must know that the Labour party and virtually everyone else told his predecessor, now the chairman of the Conservative party, that the national curriculum was too inflexible and that the complex testing
1396
of seven-year-olds—for which every Conservative Member voted—in English, maths, science, history, geography, technology, music, art and physical education was not only ludicrously impractical but would seriously damage the education of a great many children.
Is not it a sign of the Government's profound arrogance that they refused to listen and instead have subjected teachers and other people's children to three years of experimentation, while of course ensuring that their own children, in private schools, remain immune from the national curriculum and therefore from this chaos? Against that background, is it any wonder that public confidence in the Government's handling of education and in the Secretary of State has never been lower since the last world war?
If, as a junior education Minister said in July, the pilots were too unwieldy, and if, as the Secretary of State has admitted today, they caused an overload to the curriculum, why did Ministers allow them to go ahead, since others told them clearly in advance what the consequences of those pilots would be? How much has this experimentation with other people's children cost the taxpayer? How many million sheets of paper have been wasted? How much has teachers' morale been damaged?
In contrast to the confusion of the Government's position, Labour has always been clear. We have sought tests in basic subjects such as reading, writing, maths and science as an aid to raising standards, to diagnose children's strengths and weaknesses and to help provide information about the performance of schools. We shall judge this afternoon's proposals by those criteria, and for that reason we welcome the separate reading test, which is long overdue.
What will be the cost of these proposals for testing? Who will prepare and evaluate the tests? What will be the link between these tests and the national curriculum? What will be the status of the separate teacher tests in relation to the standard assessment tasks?
There have been a good many suggestions in the newspapers that the tests announced by the right hon. Gentleman today cannot be in place in all schools by the summer of 1991. Can he guarantee that that will not be the case?
At the beginning of his statement, the Secretary of State said that he had received advice from the School Examinations and Assessment Council. Did he accept that advice—and, if not, to what extent did he depart from it? Will he also explain the exact status of the document entitled "Specification for the Development of Standard Assessment Tasks in the Core Subjects"? Is it to be the basis of the proposals for contracts for the new tests? What additional support will schools be given to help children when strengths are noted or weaknesses diagnosed?
The Secretary of State speaks of standards, but he must know that maths standards have fallen and that that has coincided with a decline in the number of properly qualified maths teachers. He must also know that there is evidence that reading standards may have fallen, but the Government abandoned the national monitoring of reading standards in 1988 and cannot say whether they have gone up or down. Furthermore, it is simply untrue for the right hon. Gentleman to say that, for the first time, we shall have clear national information about what is happening to standards, when we were already receiving that information from the Assessment of Performance

1397
Unit, established in 1975—and abolished by the present Government in 1988, with the consequence that the monitoring of reading standards ceased.
Given the continuing confusion and continual changes in regard to the national curriculum, does the Secretary of State agree that he must now publish a comprehensive White Paper on testing in the national curriculum, setting out exactly what the Government expect of schools, pupils and teachers and how these changes are intended to raise standards?
From the retreat that the statement represents, is not it clear that our children and our schools have paid a high price for that near-lethal combination of doctrinaire intransigence and administrative incompetence which is the hallmark of the Government's education policies?
Mr. MacGregor: That is the biggest load of nonsense that I have heard in a long time. I am astonished at the attempts by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to build bricks out of air—[HON. MEMBERS: "Straw!"] No, there was not even any straw there.
Let me deal first with the points that the hon. Gentleman made about standards. When he spoke about maths standards falling, he entirely neglected the fact that assessments made between 1982 and 1987 showed that in a number of areas maths standards had actually improved. When he draws our attention to an area in which standards may have dropped, the hon. Gentleman does not mention all the areas in which they may have improved much more than they have dropped.
By constantly harping on the aspects that still need to be improved in schools—and, of course, improvements will always be necessary—the hon. Gentleman destroys the confidence of the many good teachers who are doing so much to raise standards. That is already happening with the national curriculum.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned reading standards, but the evidence in that regard is not clear; those who presented it described it as prima facie and not certain. We do not know whether reading standards have fallen in some cases, although I am taking steps to check the figures nationally. But, if they have—here I choose my words with care—it is nothing to do with teaching resources; it is to do with certain teaching methods introduced by socialist educational practices and philosophies. If there was indeed a decline earlier in the decade, it was due to that approach.
The hon. Gentleman is way off beam when he talks about a U-turn. We are introducing the most carefully prepared educational reforms that have been carried out for a long time: that is why the advisory body's pilot projects were undertaken. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), said from the outset that the assessment of seven-year-olds would consist of a combination of external tests and teacher assessments. For the past two years we have been undertaking pilot schemes to ensure that we get the balance right. That was the whole point of the pilot project.
During the summer I said that I believed that the pilot schemes undertaken by agencies developing the tests showed that the system was overloaded. I could see that that was the case and I made that clear early on. However, big benefits have been gained from the pilot schemes, apart from our being enabled to reach these decisions. A great
1398
deal of work has gone into developing the tests, which we shall use for seven-year-olds within the national curriculum, and experience has been gained from the pilot tests.
The hon. Member asked about the cost of the scheme. Much of the cost of the schemes intended to be undertaken in schools next summer will be within their normal expenditure. Through specific grants this year I have supported a total expenditure of about £35 million for assessment in the coming year.
The hon. Gentleman's next question was about who will prepare and evaluate tests. The School Examinations and Assessment Council will now go out to tender to agencies to draw up the tests. The evaluation will be done by SEAC.
I am astonished that the hon. Member for Blackburn does not understand the link between the tests and the national curriculum. The curriculum is all about raising standards and extending the range of education. Assessment and tests will be linked with the development of the national curriculum in the particular subjects—English, maths and science—that we shall be testing next summer.
I confirm that we shall be doing national testing in the summer of 1991, for the first time. As the national curriculum develops I expect that we shall learn that some things need to be changed. The hon. Member for Blackburn shows an astonishing ignorance of how these things are done if he expects everything to be absolutely right from day one. We shall continue to develop on the basis of experience. The reason for carrying out the pilot tests was to learn from two years' experience before we tested nationally for the first time. We have concentrated the tests on certain areas, but we have not changed their nature.
The hon. Member asked about the specification that has been drawn up for developing tests, which will go to the agencies. It also contains information for teachers, although a great deal more information and training for teachers will be provided in the early part of next year.
I am simply astonished at the hon. Gentleman's charges this afternoon. We are carrying out precisely what we said we would do at the beginning: raising standards with national testing for all seven-year-olds as a basis. The tests have been based on the most careful evaluation of the pilot tests in the past two years.
Mr. James Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be widely welcomed by parents? Can he confirm that the tests will be sufficiently rigorous to ensure that any shortcomings in a child's education can be identified quickly? Does he agree that if there is a problem with a child's education the quicker that it is identified, the sooner it can be put right, to the benefit of that child's further education?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is one of the main purposes of assessment and testing. Yes, the tests will be rigorous, stimulating, imaginative and they will be external—the child will not see them in the classroom beforehand.
Above all, the tests will enable the teacher to assess the pupil's ability and to identify weaknesses, and they will enable the parents to know what level the child has

1399
reached. It is a more systematic way of ensuring that children have the benefit of such an approach in all schools.
Mr. Simon Hughes: My colleagues and I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement, and his decision to abandon the more complex and unworkable proposals envisaged by his predecessor. This scheme is a great improvement. However, will not parents be much more concerned about what the tests show than the fact there are tests? Is not the reality that, in more than 10 years of Tory Government, standards in literacy and numeracy have fallen dramatically in many areas? Is not the key question what will be done about standards and resourcing education so that they rise, which is much more important than what sort of tests we have, although they will be helpful in proving just how badly off and badly educated some of our young people are?
Mr. MacGregor: I reject absolutely the charge that what I am doing is different from that which was envisaged by my predecessor. What he so rightly set in train were pilots and work done by specialists to develop the basic concepts of the national curriculum and to carry them through into testing. As a result of what they did during the summer, we have learnt that the way in which they were trying to develop the tests was too cumbersome. What they were doing, for example—this is very much a technical matter—was to ask the teachers in all the classrooms where pilots were undertaken this summer to start the children at level one, and if they passed that, to let them go on to level two, and then, if they passed level two, to go on to level three. The teachers know broadly the level at which children come in. Therefore, it makes much more sense to go straight to the level that the teacher thinks is right and then, if the tests prove that to be wrong, to drop back or to go forward. That is a technical point, but it led to overloading and to too cumbersome tests this summer.
That was my conclusion after studying the results of the pilots undertaken by the educational advisers. I reject absolutely the charge that what I am doing is different from what was envisaged by my predecessor. I am sure that he would have come to the same conclusion as I.
The hon. Gentleman must surely acknowledge that standards of literacy and numeracy and many other standards have risen sharply during the past 10 years. That is why many more children are taking GCSE and A-levels and getting better grades, and that is why many more young people are going into higher education.
Mr. Timothy Raison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement most emphatically does not represent a retreat but a very important advance? Is he also aware that there is widespread appreciation of the great thoughtfulness and care with which he has approached the matter? That is crucial if we are to establish higher standards in British education.
Mr. MacGregor: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. He knows a great deal about these matters. I agree with him. I believe that this will strengthen the national curriculum because it concentrates the standard assessment tasks—the external tests—on subjects that really matter and which concern parents. It will enable teachers to carry out assessment in other subjects. I am sure that it
1400
is the right way to proceed. We have learnt from the pilots that were conducted by the education experts that the system was overloaded and cumbersome in the classroom. I believe that we have now got it right. That is the point of pilots and experiments.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I am sure that the Minister will be aware that teachers will greet his statement with a great sense of relief. Is there, however, any school in England or Wales in which the scheme that is to be adopted has been tested? What is to happen in schools where Welsh is the first language? I notice that the Minister of State, Welsh Office is here today. Are we to have a brief statement from him about that? Many parents in Wales will want to know what is to happen.
Mr. MacGregor: During the summer I talked to large numbers of teachers, including those doing the pilots, and found that there was a warm response to the tests. They felt that the tests had been imaginatively developed. We shall be building on them for the full national testing next summer. The tests already carried out have resulted in a positive benefit, and we shall build on them. The teachers found themselves in difficulties because there were too many tests. Overloading was the real problem. Among other things, it made management of the classroom during the period of the tests very difficult. That is what the teachers, including the National Association of Head Teachers, came to talk to me about.
We have all been evaluating the pilots. I repeat again that that is the point of pilots. During the past year we have tested the tests. On that basis, we can test the pupils next year. During the summer the teachers dealt with this admirably and did everything that they could to make sure that the pilots were worth while. Therefore, I am sure that they will welcome the statement that I have made today.
As for the hon. Gentleman's question about the Welsh language, the standard assessment task material to assess Welsh in Welsh-medium schools will be available to teachers next year, but the first statutory requirement to assess the language will be in 1992.
Sir Rhodes Boyson: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. I am sure that an overwhelming number of teachers will welcome this simplification. They are worried about the layer after layer. This is, therefore, a sensible proposal.
My right hon. Friend's statement was admirably short. Let us hope that the examinations will also be admirably short. We are talking about a week and a half. The much-maligned 11-plus took one morning. I do not see why the examinations cannot be carried out within a day, or half a day. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider cutting the time down even further.
I have considerable sympathy with teachers who feel that if one called a meeting of six classroom infant school teachers and six infant school heads, chosen at random from a list of teachers, and brought them together for a day, they could solve all these difficulties by drawing the tests up themselves, instead of leaving it to the educational establishment which did so much to destroy standards and which is still playing around with all these wrong ideas.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his opening remarks. We are being very thorough over the tests for children aged seven. We are testing a wide range of knowledge, skills, understanding and practical

1401
application. Children will be tested individually. Most of the tests will be written tests. Reading tests have to go far beyond one and a half weeks. They have to be done individually with each child. There will be a thorough and wide range of tests. It will be impossible to carry them out in half a day.
Teachers have been involved in drawing up the tests. The tests that have been carried out up to now were used in some local authorities but not in others. They did not apply to the whole of the national curriculum. It was necessary, therefore, to build on them in order to develop a wider range of tests for the national curriculum. I hope that my right hon. Friend will find that the tests are practical and rigorous. The tests will be external and I am sure that they are the kind of things that he would want us to do.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I welcome the proposals for testing seven-year-olds, so long as they are carried out sensitively and constructively and are never used to brand such young children as failures. However, the purpose of the tests is to identify specific needs—both strengths and learning difficulties. Unless we can be reassured that adequate resources will be made available to meet those identified needs, the tests will not be worth while. At the moment many children who have been identified as having special needs—I include children with strengths as well as those with difficulties—have to wait far too long for far too little.
Mr. MacGregor: The whole point of testing at seven is to summarise for parents and teachers the stage that a child has reached at the end of its time at an infant school. It will enable teachers to assess weaknesses and the areas in which further work needs to be done with that child. Children will be graded at different levels. It is a process of, among many other things, identifying special needs.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I welcome the simplified tests, but does my right hon. Friend think that they will have an effect on the way in which the national curriculum is taught at primary stage in schools? Does he agree that at present the national curriculum gives children a broad level of information instead of concentrating on basic skills? Will not these changes inevitably mean, therefore, changes to the way in which the curriculum is introduced?
Mr. MacGregor: The national curriculum is all about obtaining a broader range of knowledge and skills from the age of five to 16. I believe strongly that that is necessary if we are to have an education system for all our children relevant for the 1990s and beyond. A broad range of skills and the understanding and knowledge of practical application are all important. My announcement about concentrating the external tests on the basics—reading, writing, arithmetic and basic scientific skills—means that the tests will deal with matters about which parents are most concerned.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: The Secretary of State spoke of testing as a method of improving standards. It is teaching which improves standards, not testing. The time spent in testing is time taken from teaching. I do not believe that there is a school in the country where children are not regularly tested so that the
1402
teacher knows how well they are absorbing what is being taught. There is a case for trying to standardise tests, particularly in mathematics, but does the Secretary of State agree that when devising the tests it must be remembered that a child who is allowed to play with balancing apparatus at an early stage will understand quadratic equations easily later on, but may not do well in formal arithmetic tests, which will be no prediction of future standards or ability? Does the Secretary of State agree that the tests must be—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but will she ask her question because there is an important debate after this?
Ms. Gordon: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that the tests take into account cultural differences, class differences and ethnic minority differences so that the results will not be unfair? Does he agree that the external aspect of testing can be very damaging to children aged seven? It can destroy the self-image of many children who are not able to succeed. The tests must be devised so that children can succeed, because success lays the pathway to future improvement in education.
Mr. MacGregor: It is important to have assessment and testing at the ages of seven, 11 and 14 as well as at 16. It is important so that teachers can assess the progress of the child, so that parents can know what is going on and so that, nationally, we all know the progress that is being made. Therefore, I make no apology for introducing tests and assessments at seven, 11 and 14. There will be a wide range of ways in which the assessment is made. The reaction from the majority of the teaching profession to the national curriculum and concept of assessment has been very favourable. We are introducing a systematic means of checking what children have learnt, checking the results and assessing their progress.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the important Public Accounts Committee debate that will take place immediately after this statement. I understand the importance of this subject and I know that many hon. Members wish to participate. If they are brief, I hope to be able to fit them all in, but I shall have to stop questions to the Secretary of State at 5.10 pm. Therefore, I ask for brief questions now.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I welcome the clear guidelines for testing at seven set out by my right hon. Friend. I wonder whether Members of Parliament would achieve good scores if they were allowed to take the test. I should like to ask two clear questions—
Mr. Speaker: Order. How about asking one question? That will give other hon. Members a chance.
Mr. Greenway: Will the test include the spelling of words learnt phonically by children? That will be important. Is my right hon. Friend aware that if teachers are to be asked to spend one and a half weeks testing, it will have serious implications for staff time? They will need help and someone to take the class while they are doing the testing. What will be done?
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, spelling is included. It is one of the eight attainment targets outside reading. On my hon.

1403
Friend's second point, testing will be one and a half weeks carried out over three weeks. We believe that that is manageable.
Mr. David Trimble: I and my colleagues also welcome the Secretary of State's statement. We welcome the reduced scope of the tests which will make them more manageable for children and reduce the heavy load on teachers. I see that the assessments will be introduced in 1991. Will the tests come into operation in Northern Ireland in 1991?
The Secretary of State is referring to national assessments and one wonders sometimes to what nation he is referring. Statements of this nature should be made on a United Kingdom basis, not just an England and Wales basis. The Parliament of England and Wales went out of existence nearly 300 years ago.
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am responsible for education in England. I shall check up on the points he has raised and ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gets in touch with the hon. Gentleman about it.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his positive statement with its emphasis on diagnostic testing of pupils and improving quality and standards contrasts with the destructive and negative attitude of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)? It is the same negative attitude that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues exhibited a few months ago when they repeated the allegation—now proved to be untrue—in the National Union of Teachers' advertisements about the quality of our schools which did a great deal to damage morale among teachers.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Max Madden: Can the Secretary of State say what consideration, allowances or weighting will be given to children of seven who take the test but whose first language is not English and to teachers whose first language is English?
On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), unless these matters are dealt with in an extremely sensitive way, there is a danger that both children and parents will have their self-esteem damaged. I suspect that some of this may be connected with the recent statement to allow first and primary schools to opt out. If children and their parents become greatly dissatisfied, there will be pressure to opt out of the maintained system.
Mr. MacGregor: This has nothing to do with my recent announcement about extending the option of grant-maintained status to all primary schools. That stands supremely on its own merits. On assessment, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that the approach of the national curriculum is that children reach different levels of attainment in different age groups. Some children will reach a certain level at a different time from others. Next summer, in the assessments at seven, there will be three levels—first, second and third. The point is to show parents and teachers what level a child has reached in a certain subject. It may vary from subject to subject. It will show what needs to be done to help the child move to the next stage. It is a means by which a child can assess its own progress.
Mr. George Walden: Will my right hon. Friend give me an absolute assurance that the levels of attainment in the tests will equal or surpass those achieved currently in the best systems on the continent? In other words, can he assure me that this will not prove to be another example of the insular complacency that has afflicted our system? If he can give me that assurance, will he explain how it will be achieved, given that on the continent there is a far more advanced and extensive system of nursery education? At the end of the road, whether it is mathematics or English, we want A-levels. Although we have confidence in the Secretary of State, we do not have confidence in the education industry. That is why vice-chancellors are saying that they will need a fourth year at university for mathematics and it is why A-level English is being diluted, despite my right hon. Friend's assurance to the contrary.
Mr. MacGregor: It is my intention to ensure that we have rigour in the tests. Although it is a different approach from some that take place in other countries, I am determined that we should achieve that rigour. On nursery education, my hon. Friend will know that we start full-time compulsory schooling at an earlier age than most countries in the European Community. That must be taken into account.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: About five minutes ago the Secretary of State said that over the past 18 months he has been testing the tests. Will he also accept that he has been testing the practicality of the dafter ideas of his predecessor, now the chairman of the Conservative party, whose tests and practicality have been found severely wanting? Will he accept that the longer his predecessor stays as Conservative party chairman, the happier we will be, since he cannot do any damage to the nation's children or to us?
Mr. MacGregor: That is nonsense. My right hon. Friend had the good sense to ensure that we ran pilots before setting up a national testing arrangement. We did two years of evaluation, from which we learned much. It is to my right hon. Friend's credit that he set up a system under which we now have the most careful preparation for radical education reforms that I can recall. The hon. Gentleman misses the point of testing tests and evaluation in a small number of primary schools before we go national.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the two great tests that his statement has passed? First, it will give parents an answer to the objective question "How is my child doing in school?" and, secondly, he has clearly listened and responded to the hard-working and professional teachers, who have given him and his colleagues advice on how to handle this matter. He has shown that he has heard them and has been able to agree with their professional judgment.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Does the Minister agree that testing is educationally sound if it establishes a child's problems and allows remedial action to be taken? Testing can be bad if it is done simply to fill files and, in many cases, to act as PR material for a school

1405
or school authority. Will the Minister insist and be emphatic that these tests will not be allowed to be used as PR exercises by a school or education authority?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree that one of the points of assessment at seven is to enable evaluation of the child, his progress and the areas that must be tackled because he is showing weakness in them. Equally, it is perfectly reasonable and right—indeed, I would encourage it—for schools to state, if they wish to do so, and we are not making it compulsory next year, what they are achieving in terms of assessment. Two matters are important in helping to raise standards: first, greater choice, which we are achieving under several of our other reforms and, secondly, comparative performance and encouraging schools that perhaps are not doing as well as others to follow schools that are. That is achieved by showing what is going on in the school.
Mr. Michael Jack: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the children who undertook the pilot tests enjoyed them and found them useful? How does he propose to adapt the testing procedures to schools which deal with children who have special learning difficulties but which are also applying the national curriculum to their work?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend's second point is obviously for experts on the subject and I look to SEAC and the agencies it uses to assist with that. It was clear that teachers and pupils found the individual tests stimulating. It was important that they were rigorous, but they found them stimulating. The problem was that there were too many tests.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As I have been a weekly columnist for the New Scientist for 23 years, will the Secretary of State accept that among the scientific community there is sceptical curiosity about testing at seven for basic scientific skills? If John or Jane aged seven seem to fall down on the testing of basic skills in science, what happens? Does anybody try to help them? Do we have the resources to try to help them or is there a danger of simply breaking their hearts and doing nothing about it?
Mr. MacGregor: The purpose of testing is the exploration of science and scientific concepts at a level appropriate for seven-year-olds. I have seen some very good work being done in schools. Criticism has been made that we have not had enough scientific teaching at the appropriate level in our primary schools, just as we have not had enough technology teaching in the past. That is a valid criticism. We are making great improvements and the scientific community welcomes the fact that such heavy emphasis is placed on science in the curriculum.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I welcome the concentration in my right hon. Friend's announcement on the three Rs, which is precisely the subject of parental concern at present. Will he ensure that the results of testing are issued in a manner that parents can understand by cutting out the education jargon that afflicts so much of these reports? We should bear it in mind that the very parents who will be reading the reports are those who had trouble with the three Rs in the first place.
Mr. MacGregor: By no means always, but I agree with the main point that my hon. Friend is making. One of the dangers of the education world is that it is riddled with technical and educational jargon. It is extremely important that reports to parents are written in clear language and in a way to which parents can respond. I share my hon. Friend's concern and will try to ensure that happens.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will these arrangements apply to the private sector, or will Tory Members' children be exempt from the provisions of testing, as they are exempt from the provisions of the national curriculum? How will he prevent the seven-year-old examinations being turned into a seven-plus procedure, with all the accompanying difficulties for the children involved? Would not it be better, rather than lavishing millions of pounds on this system, to lavish millions of pounds on more teachers to get smaller classes, because that is the only way that we shall achieve better standards?
Mr. MacGregor: Parliament decided, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that independent schools should not be brought within the national curriculum. There is pretty rigorous testing in many independent schools at various ages. As I have made clear many times, I hope that more and more will use the national curriculum.
Mr. Cryer: They do not have to.
Mr. MacGregor: No. Under the legislation they do not have to do so, but I believe that more will wish to participate fully in the national curriculum and I will welcome that.
Mr. James Paice: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's concentration on the three Rs but particularly concentrate on reading? Will he assure me that the test will be sufficiently diagnostic that it will detect children suffering from dyslexia so that they are not branded as backward in reading and writing? It is of particular importance because I am afraid that a number of teachers do not accept that such a condition exists.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that that will follow entirely from the assessment at seven, but the assessment of reading will detect children who continue to have reading difficulties, and it will do so on an externally assessed basis. In other words, the tests will be external. That will enable the teachers to identify children who have reading difficulties, which obviously they will be able to do in many other ways.
Mr. Peter Fry: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, who has scored a great victory for common sense in his proposals. Many of us will see it as a victory over that part of the education establishment that seemed determined to undermine the Education Reform Act 1988. May we hope that in future announcements on tests he will follow the same policy as he has in today's statement? Will he consider the amounts that we pay those in the education service who advise, write and talk but do not teach, and concentrate more effort in the classroom, where the money is needed?
Mr. MacGregor: I have been evaluating carefully and discussing testing with many people. I have been evaluating the reaction of teachers who have been conscientiously doing the pilots. I have been discussing for

1407
some time with my official advisory body, the School Examinations and Assessment Council, and others what lessons we had learnt from the pilots and what decisions I should take. I believe that the decisions that I have taken, based on the advice of the School Examinations and Assessment Council, which is responsible for carrying this through, are absolutely right for the national curriculum. They will ensure that the national curriculum is carried through as we wish. They concentrate on the basics, which is important at the age of seven, and, for the first time, introduce across the country the concept of external tests. That is why I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the remarks that he made about the decisions that I have taken this afternoon.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: As a former teacher, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. It is good news that we are to make progress on testing in 1991. If we are to have a proper compulsory national system of testing of children, with a view to helping those in difficulties and raising overall standards, why cannot we have a proper compulsory national system of testing teachers, with the same objectives?
Mr. MacGregor: I have made it clear that I believe that teacher appraisal is desirable. I am trying to put in place a national framework for teacher appraisal. I do not think that it is right at the moment to move to statutory, compulsory, obligatory appraisal systems in every school, for the simple reason that the key priority at the moment is to get the national curriculum in place and to make those reforms work. I have been conscious of the hard work that many schools are doing in that respect. I do not want to overload the system at a time when we must make the national curriculum work. Many schools have been carrying out appraisals, and I have encouraged that.
Mr. Alistair Burt: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will reject the calls of those who wish individual tests for children to be made so variable, for a variety of reasons, that children's weaknesses may not be exposed or may be excused? Unless children have objective targets at which to aim, whatever their backgrounds may be, we will be selling them short. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to parents and teachers that these tests are only one way of looking at a school, that many other components make a good school and that tests should be seen in the context of whatever else is done in a school? Teachers must recognise that tests are important, but parents must also recognise that there are other components on which to make a judgment.
Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The whole point of introducing these external tests is to get the right balance between teacher assessment and external tests. The external tests bring in rigour and uniformity and give parents a much greater guarantee about the progress being made on the basics. It is important to strike the right balance, which is what I think we are doing. I agree with my hon. Friend that many aspects in a school are relevant to a school's performance, as well as what we have been talking about this afternoon.

Public Accounts
5.11 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the 34th to 41st Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1988–89, of the 1st to 32nd Reports of Session 1989–90, and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of finance and Personnel Memoranda on those Reports (Cm. 963, 964, 1057, 1101, 1150, 1235 and 1247) with particular reference to the following Reports:
1988–89
Thirty-sixth, Further matters relating to Northern Ireland;
1989–90
First, Financial problems at universities;
Sixth, Sale of rover Group to British Aerospace plc;
Thirteenth, Ministry of Defence: Further examination of the Sale of Royal Ordnance plc;
Sixteenth, Financial Management in the National Health Service;
Thirty-first, Quality control of road and bridge construction.
The last public accounts debate was a little less than a year ago. We are moving to a tradition of holding over the debate for the overspill of the Session or shortly afterwards. The last motion referred to 48 reports; this time there are 40 reports and eight Government replies. We have chosen a few reports to highlight to which special attention should be drawn, although obviously many others will be mentioned during the debate.
My first task is to thank members of the hard-working Public Accounts Committee. Two Members no longer serve on the Committee. The first is Ian Gow, whose absence we greatly deplore. He carried out incisive questioning and was a valuable member of the Committee. All members of the Committee regret the occurrence that led to his departure from the Committee and the absence of his wise counsel during our investigations.
The other Member who is absent from the Committee is my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). Like so many others, he has been moved to the Opposition Front Bench. A large number of Opposition Members on our Committee have moved to the Opposition Front Bench—my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). It looks as though the Public Accounts Committee is fulfilling, on the Opposition Benches, the role that the Government Whips Office fulfils in recruiting to the Government Front Beench. This is a compliment and we value it, but we face some difficulties in finding replacements.
I welcome the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He is always welcome. The roles of the Treasury and the Public Accounts Committee have several similarities. We are both anxious to get value for money and to ensure that taxpayers' money is used properly. We are grateful to the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), who left the Committee in the last reshuffle.
The most important aspect of the Committee's work is unanimity. During the time I have had the privilege of being Chairman, there have been well over 300 reports, and every one has been unanimous. It is an enormous advantage to have unanimity. The Government have to take note of our reports, because hon. Members have

1409
come to identical conclusions. Our reports are not mushy. Some Committees can produce unanimous reports because they sink their differences in the ambiguity of wording. Members of the Public Accounts Committee are outspoken at the beginning of our discussions and at the end.
Unanimity is crucial. It comes from our respect for the taxpayer. We do not produce partisan views when we question witnesses and discuss reports. We have the enormous advantage that we do not look at policy. We take policy for granted, however much personally we may object to it. Policy is laid down. We want its economic, efficient and effective implementation. I have been pleased to see the large amount of work that my colleagues put into investigations. That was not always so. I am grateful for the investigations by my colleagues into certain matters, rather surprising the National Audit Office and me with their thoroughness.
The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee are very much a partnership these days. The Committee depends on investigations by the National Audit Office, based as they are on detailed investigation of Government papers and accounts. We build on them with evidence from accounting officers and then produce reports for the House. Treasury minutes respond to our reports. We welcome the new form of Treasury minute, whereby each of our recommendations is followed by a response from a Government Department via the Treasury. Under the National Audit Act 1983, the Comptroller and Auditor General has complete discretion in the investigations that he undertakes. There is discussion with the Committee and our views are inserted in reports. We hear well in advance of matters that will be investigated.
I thank the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff. The office has undoubtedly improved enormously since the days of the Exchequer and Audit Department. Previously, there were civil servants trying to be auditors; now, there are proper auditors. In fact, one of our problems is that the auditors have become so good that the City and other private enterprises want to take many of them. Because of the different rates of pay, a number of people leave the National Audit Office. However, because of interest in the job, its importance and the initiative that staff are allowed, we are able to retain people despite the rather lower levels of pay. We are grateful to them for all they do. We have meetings at the National Audit Office to see how they are progressing. The Public Accounts Committee is always a critical Committee, so we cannot be filled with uncritical admiration for them. Nevertheless, we are filled with admiration for the way in which they carry out improvements.
The Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, Bill Jack, and his staff, do a valuable job. I have chosen the Northern Ireland report as the first one to mention. I do not think that we have given it enough attention in our Committee debates. I am glad to see some Northern Ireland Members here, and I hope that they will comment in due course. The CAG for Northern Ireland makes his reports separately from the appropriation accounts, but there are some reports from the
1410
appropriation accounts. We do not have to wait for an annual publication, as reports are now published twice a year.
We also thank Treasury Officer of Accounts, John Beastall, and his Northern Ireland counterpart, John Dowdall, for their attendance at our sessions, and the accounting officers who come to give evidence. We are very much aware of the amount of time that they give in coming before us to give evidence. We know that they take their responsibilities in this seriously and that reputations can be made and —I hope rarely—unmade as a result of their failures or—which is far more common—their successes in dealing with public money.
The 36th report of 1988–89 is entitled "Further matters relating to Northern Ireland". Typically, we have about two investigative sessions a year and look at six or seven matters concerning Northern Ireland. I will concentrate on one matter, but to bring it into perspective, I will mention some of the matters that we have considered previously.
The most important was the De Lorean investigation some years ago. It led to our appreciation of the work done by the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General. That report was fully up to the standard of anything that we have produced and led to some important matters. The Committee investigated the way in which the money was disposed of, which led to other interesting aspects.
We did not take evidence from either of the Ministers involved. Under the Labour Administration, one Minister started the whole process, and under the Conservative Administration, the other Minister gave substantial sums. The question was whether we should have them before us. I thought that it would be wrong to do so, and I still think that.
Under normal circumstances, we have the enormous advantage of looking at the issue, although we do not, of course, disqualify ourselves from hearing evidence from Ministers in future. However, when a Minister comes before us, personalities will play their part. Even more importantly, the Minister who started the process would be able to claim that it had not been continued in the way that he would have wished and the Minister who was involved at a later stage would say, "If only I had been there at the beginning, I would have handled it differently." We must avoid such a situation.
The person who always comes before us is the accounting officer of the day. He or she may be new to the post, but he or she holds the responsibility for the Department in the same way that the Financial Secretary will be responsible for his reply. Although he is fairly new to his position, I am sure that his reply will be interesting and we look forward to it. Our system provides the continuity of responsibility without which we could not sensibly operate. We have responsibility not for the people who come and go, but for the Department itself, so we are able to carry out proper investigations.
The De Lorean report led to various other matters, one of which was the role of the nominee directors. We found that there were nominee directors at a time when money was being passed over from the United States. We asked the Treasury what the role of a nominee director was and we had to wait an inordinate time for the answer. I cannot recall the exact time, but I know that it was six months or longer before we found out the answer.
Once one has raised such questions, one starts to wonder what the nominee directors are doing. There are a

1411
number of them in various industries. The Government appoint them and a nominee directorship is regarded as a bit of a perk in some quarters. One has to have someone quite good in the job, but one does not think of them as having the responsibility to inform the Government when things are going wrong, as they may often do. The rather light-hearted approach became a far more serious investigation and led to a further report.
A couple of years ago, we investigated road accident compensation. We found that pavements were being dug up—or something was happening—and that people were tripping over. Most of us have had a constituent who has made a claim after tripping up, but I can recall only a handful of such cases. Yet we found that in Northern Ireland there were streets in which there was a claim in almost every house. The following year, we asked how it was going, and we found that matters were worse.
Not so long ago, such matters were put out to private insurers. They thought that they could do a better job themselves, but they found that they were spending far more money on the claims. In one sense, it was not their fault, because the courts decided the amount of compensation. However, it is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland to ensure that the roads and pavements are kept up reasonably so that claims do not arise. We know about the problems in Northern Ireland as our colleagues tell us about them. We are also aware of them from the unfortunate statements that come all too frequently.
We understand that there are particular difficulties, but people in Northern Ireland, rightly, want the maintenance of the same standards that we expect in the rest of the United Kingdom. We do not make concessions on that, and it would be wrong to do so. I am sure that the Northern Ireland people feel the same as we do.
I want to refer again to the 36th report from 1988–89. In 1973, it was decided to promote a nursery to grow shrubs and plants for housing estates. That was a sensible proposition, as every housing estate needs plants and shrubs, and flowers would be needed for events such as lord mayors' functions. That happens in many local authorities in Great Britain.
It was decided that, instead of buying plants from outside, the nursery would grow them. The stock had to be valued at the end of each year and it was thought that as plants grow, they tend to be worth rather more at the end of each year than they are at the beginning. An average valuation of a 10 per cent. increase was put on each plant and shrub.
In March 1982, local government queries were raised and it was pointed out that plants vary. Some plants do not grow well, whereas others grow considerably and become far more valuable. A range of increase for each plant and shrub from about 10 per cent. to 40 per cent. was settled. Those that had done well would have an increase of 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. and those that had not done as well would have an increase of only 10 per cent.
Each year, the value of the small stock grew until it reached £570,000 in 1985. I am surprised that it did not happen earlier, but at that stage, several people began to find that a surprising figure. The nursery seemed to be a real profit centre. If it was doing so well, why did it not abandon the rigorous control of discretionary purchases and spend a little more on armchairs, desks or whatever? It was then decided that there should be an independent valuation, because £570,000 seemed such a large amount.
1412
An independent valuer was called in and valued the £570,000 of stock at £45,000. The problem was that people thought that the nursery had done well, but it had not.
The report says that the local government auditor was informed about the need for a more realistic stock valuation system. That was in place until the production of the figure of £570,000.
In question 4196 I asked:
"As a result of this over-assessment of the value of the stock what decisions were made which should not have been made? Was any expenditure incurred, for example, because they thought they were doing so well in making substantial sums of money?"
Obviously, that must affect the way in which the operation was carried out.
In the end, because of the difficulty of separating the fresh purchases from the old, it was decided to abandon the scheme. Sadly, people were dismissed. If it had been properly managed, it might well have been cost-effective.
In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the report, we say:
"It is clear that if at any time the Division directly responsible for the nursery had taken stock, or if the Finance Division had properly verified the figure for stock, the disparity between book and actual values would have immediately become apparent. We asked therefore why both Divisions failed to carry out these essential procedures and the Department replied that neither Division had sufficient knowledge of what was involved and that it could neither excuse nor justify these failures."
In paragraph 5 we say:
"We are astonished".
That is a word that I cannot ever recall using. The Public Accounts Committee's language is always restrained. We have a schedule of adjectives which has never gone as far as that. We understate. We are not putting people in the dock in order to sentence them to some horrible end; we are trying to improve the administration. That is crucial. Our task is to hear the evidence, not to indulge in attacking witnesses as they come before us.
I am reminded very much of the congressional system of inquiry, which many of us will have seen, where the chairman bangs his gavel and says that he has heard enough. It is easy to intimidate witnesses. That is not what we try to do. We try to discover the facts and to improve the administration. Nevertheless, in this case we had to say:
"We are astonished by these admissions and the confirmation that those responsible failed over a period of many years to carry out their fundamental duties."
Mr. Seamus Mallon: The first parliamentary question that I tabled on my election here was on that very matter and I have a growing—if I may use that word—interest in it. The reality is that the dogs in the streets of Northern Ireland, even those visiting some of the trees, knew that something was wrong. That was drawn to the attention of Ministers here and the Housing Executive board, yet the matter was not finally dealt with until it was considered by the Public Accounts Committee, and that aspect of the matter still disturbs me.
Mr. Sheldon: I accept that the matter should have come to the Public Accounts Committee much earlier. It was only because of the Housing Executive's failure to undertake the sort of work that it should have done that prevented that happening.
In paragraph 8 we say:

1413
"The C&AG referred not only to indadequate provision for plant deaths and the appreciation of non-existent stock as causes of the deficiency, but also to the unsatisfactory state of the nursery's stock records"—
which does not surprise me—
"and the lack of control over the issue, receipt and custody of stock."
We go on to say in paragraph 10:
"We deplore the absence of basic, essential controls on the issue, receipt and custody of the nursery's stock and we note that it is probable that further, unquantified losses were incurred because the nursery was not cost-effective."
This is not a large sum of money in the national scene, but we often consider smaller matters because they highlight the way in which we should approach such problems.
In the end, because of the difficulty of separating the fresh purchases from the old, the sale price was much less than the valuation of £45,000. We could not find out exactly, because the records were not as good as they should have been. I went into the matter diligently, because I thought that it would be useful to discover how much of that £570,000 was returned in the sale. It was almost certainly less than £30,000, and it may even have been as little as £3,000. I have no knowledge of that, but it was certainly much less than the valuation, that we know.
The nursery has now closed down, but what happened is a warning not to ignore any aspects of one's work, even though they may not be central. They must all be made subject to the same kind of control as the larger and more important areas.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Does he agree that, since the Comptroller and Auditor-General does not get the books until much later, he does an excellent job in the circumstances, and that that supports the argument that we have sought to lay before the House—that a Select Committee is needed to scrutinise at an early stage the different Departments' work in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Sheldon: I have no comment to make on that. My task is to take the policy for granted and to ensure that it is carried out in the most efficient, effective and economic manner.
That is our report, and I am sure that it was well received by those who wanted to see the problems of Northern Ireland brought into line with the situation in the United Kingdom. However, Northern Ireland is not alone in such misjudgments. I am sorry to say that we have a fair number, some of which I shall refer to.
The most important aspect of this is that we do not view with great pleasure the examination of matters which come before us where it is felt that inadequate action has been taken. As I said before, our task is to improve matters for the future.
Mr. Michael Latham: The right hon. Gentleman may be about to stress this, but in view of what he said about the Committee's careful language, which is absolutely right, it should be placed on record that the accounting officer himself in this case said, "They are appalling cases."
Mr. Sheldon: There is no question about that. We had the full support of the Departments in Northern Ireland. They learn a great deal from our work. A good accounting
1414
officer will usually welcome our investigation in so far as it justifies the action that he or she would wish to see in improving their own financial management. It is the kind of co-operation which we most importantly welcome, because it is that which leads to action being taken. If that were not the case, I am sure that we should be more extreme in our language. Government Departments have an interest in trying to improve the effective use of public expenditure; that is why they co-operate with us even though we may disagree, as we do strongly in a number of aspects.
The first paragraph of our first report 1989–90 entitled "Financial problems at universities" says:
"Following reductions in Government grant in the early 1980s, our predecessors in Session 1985–86 noted that continued financial constraints were expected to present universities with serious problems. This underlined the importance of sound financial management and the need for a review of the responsibilities of the University Grants Committee".
In paragraph 2(a), we say:
"We are greatly concerned at the serious financial mismanagement at University College, Cardiff in the period up to 1987. The breakdown of financial control, the attitude of those charged with proper stewardship of its funds and the disregard of proper procedures brought a major academic institution to the verge of insolvency."
That is most serious.
Paragraph 2(d) states:
"We believe strongly, however, that the UGC should have taken earlier and more positive action to identify, appraise and tackle the financial difficulties at Cardiff. They were well aware of the difficulties facing universities as a result of grant levels; and indeed they assured our predecessors that they would be discussing with universities exactly the sort of staffing problems that lay at the heart of Cardiff's troubles. We consider that they took too passive a role in concluding that they were unable to challenge the College's view that no staff reductions were necessary and that there would be no consequent financial problems."
In paragraph 2(e), we stated:
"We believe that the UGC's information systems left them too much in the dark about developing problems at universities; and we are concerned that their failure to take decisive action in the initial stages allowed the financial and other problems at the College to become more deeply entrenched and added to the eventual cost of rescuing it from insolvency. We also consider that the UGC made an error of judgment in not reporting these problems to Parliament in their annual survey at the first available opportunity."
In paragraph 2(g), we stated:
"we welcome the establishment of the new Universities Funding Council, with an expanded role, a more positive remit and greater powers and responsibilities."
In paragraph 2(h) we state:
"We expect the Council quickly to build up the planning arrangements, financial management and information systems, and the capacity for monitoring and analysis which are essential for the effective allocation and oversight of the grants to universities."
That is really the point. We found that there was a failure to get the financial management and information systems into place. There was not the monitoring or analysis that we believed was essential for the proper allocation and oversight of grants to universities.
We understand the severe problems and the reason why the Universities Funding Council involved itself rather less than it might have done. The council was conscious of the need for academic interference to be reduced to a minimum, but there is a difference between that and having responsibilities to ensure that universities are financially solvent and financially able to deal with their affairs. The council should be aware of that.

1415
What is the point of a Universities Funding Council which does not know when a university is in trouble before that arises? After all, the council is giving grants and handing out money to universities. It should not hand out money without knowing what universities are doing.
In a subsequent investigation, the report of which has been published but is not before us today because we have not had a Government reply, it is clear that the funding task of the Universities Funding Council must be tied in with a knowledge of what is happening so that it at least can take action and perhaps tell a university that it needs more money or that it should be taking advice on how to reduce its commitments. We know that universities are in a tight financial position; speaking as an Opposition Member, I would have something to say about that, but that is not the role of the Public Accounts Committee. It is up to the Universities Funding Council to take the requisite action. We will consider that report in due course.
I want now to consider the sixth report of the Public Accounts Committee, entitled "Sale of Rover Group PLC to British Aerospace PLC". We have produced an interim report and we have not dealt with all the matters. We learned that, in 1975, Rover was facing bankruptcy and was taken into public ownership. In August 1988, the Government sold the 99·8 per cent. which they held to British Aerospace for £150 million after provision of £547 million in the light of Government debt and investment programme.
We examined the Department of Trade and Industry and its financial advisers, Baring Brothers, and we have produced an interim report which deals simply with the facts as we saw them. We are going to set out our conclusions and recommendations in a further report. All I intend to do now is to pose a number of the questions to which we hope to append conclusions after the Select Committee on Trade and Industry has completed its examination and we have taken the matter further. The questions are posed from our interim report.
Why was there not acceptance of competition to get the best price? That is obviously a matter of particular importance for the Public Accounts Committee, whose task is to get the best price in all privatisations or sales of Government assets so as to protect the taxpayer. There were four expressions of interest to control the Rover assets—from Ford, Volkswagen, Lonrho and Melton Medes. We asked the DTI why it decided that there would be no competition and that British Aerospace would have certain advantages at the beginning in examining and deciding whether it wanted to take the company over for a negotiated price.
We asked why
"the threat posed by competition more than outweighed the benefits of a limited competitive tender of the kind that they and Barings had initially been in favour of."
The Department replied that it
"recognised the advantage of competition in giving a benchmark against which to measure prices, but had concluded that a public auction would be damaging to the Company."
On that basis, we examined the Department in our taking of evidence. So far we, have no conclusions; I simply have questions and the Department's answers, which will lead to further questioning and conclusions later.
We asked Sir Peter Gregson, the permanent secretary to the Department of Trade and Industry:
"why did you not follow up the four other expressions of interest? There were four other companies that were interested
1416
in acquiring the Rover Group. Why did you not follow them up? … In the beginning you were prepared to take them whenever they came, but at the end you were only prepared to take them if the negotiations failed. There is a clear difference over time. Why was this? … How could a firm offer be made if you were not giving them information on which to base those offers?"
The House may recall that the information was not given to the other companies in the same way that it was given to British Aerospace.
Sir Peter Gregson replied:
"A company could have made an offer on the basis of publicly available information. If a company did not choose to do that and wished to have the kind of confidential information which could only be obtained in a negotiating situation then that company would have to wait until the exclusive negotiations had come to an end."
We asked about Mr. Baring's judgment about that, and he said in response to question No. 108:
"If we had been concerned simply to get the best price and if we had not been concerned with the possible risk of failure, if we were perhaps slightly less cautious than the Government appeared to have been in this case, then we would certainly have gone for the limited competitive tender."
I asked:
"So to get the best price, competitive tender was the route?"
The reply was:
"Yes, but it involved some risk."
That was the Government's view, and it will be examined further in due course.
At question 114, I asked about the valuation. The valuation was very important. We were concerned that an up-to-date, comprehensive valuation was not required. I said:
"But it was not a comprehensive valuation of all the assets and the earning potential of the Rover Group."
Sir Peter Gregson replied:
"I believe that the important consideration here was not the breakup value of this company but the profitability of the company. There was ample evidence of that. There really was not a great deal of point in assessing the value of the plant and sites in very great detail if the whole purpose of the disposal was that the plant and sites should continue on a productive basis."
I said:
"So you had neither competition, nor valuation and you went into negotiation with those elements lacking?"
Sir Peter Gregson replied:
"I would not accept that there was no valuation."
That was the problem. We have seen it in respect of several sales of assets. Perhaps one is selling an asset at a value which is subsequently worth more than one thought at the time. That has occurred again and again. One of the big advantages that we said that the Government should have was put originally by the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) who used to be a member of the Public Accounts Committee and is now Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission. It played a part in almost every examination of the sale of public assets.
The hon. Member for Horsham asked why we were selling them all at one go. That somebody wishes to sell assets has nothing to do with the Public Accounts Committee. We are interested only in getting the best price available. We said, "If you sell them in tranches and you get it wrong, you may get it right subsequently." I instance, of course, the sale of gilts. At the beginning of the year, the figures are comparable, because the amount of money that the Government raise from the sale of gilts is roughly comparable to the amount of money that they are getting from the sale of their assets. I had dealings with the Government broker as I had certain responsibilities at one

1417
stage in my time at the Treasury. At the beginning of the year, one goes to the Government broker and discusses what is to be sold and for how much—£100 million, for example—and what sort of coupon there will be. It is planned through out the year. One sees how the market is reacting, so one sells.
That is not the way in which these sales are conducted. We might have thought that the best way to do it would be to obtain somebody with appropriate expertise. If we are to embark on the sale of assets, we should have someone with special expertise rather than the ad hoc arrangements that were made. However, that has gone now. We need to think in terms of trying to get the best price. If we fail, at least some further amounts may be obtained later. One of the problems is that the Treasury likes to know at the beginning how much it will get throughout the year. That is a limiting factor. It is much more important to protect the taxpayer, and that is obviously the Committee's task.
Another aspect is clawbacks. I shall refer to them in respect of the Royal Ordnance plc. If one sells something, it could be difficult to get a proper valuation. I understand the difficulties, particularly in valuing land. At least if there is a clause that we can share—not take over—in the unexpected sums of money that might be realised, which is also important, we can protect the public interest.
Some people say, "You will not be able to do that easily, because it will depress the value of the shares." Public money is different from private money. Somebody in a private company can take chances and so on, but when it comes to dealing with public money, there must be confidence that one is getting the best price for assets. There is an obligation upon all of us—not just the Public Accounts Committee—to make sure that the public feel that they are not being ripped off. Sometimes we might have a worse deal as a result, but the public will at least know that we have tried to get the best value for that money. That is crucial.
A lot of nonsense has been spoken about the leak of the confidential memorandum. It was assumed that we would always keep it quiet. The fact that a Department asks that a matter before the Public Accounts Committee be kept confidential may not mean that it will stay confidential. We investigate. We call witnesses before us, and they must give reasons why it should be confidential. If we think that the reasons are not right, we release it untouched. If we think that there is justification, we may decide to exclude certain parts of it. That is our duty or obligation. There may be serious reasons for the taxpayers' interests why certain matters should be confidential. The media condemnation was unjustified. We never reached that kind of decision—they never came before us to make that decision. It would be wrong to decide to release something before we even hear the case.
Very few matters that we take in private are not released in whole. Those that are kept back are usually to do with defence, the date of implementation of a new kind of weapon, cost and so on. There are just a few asterisks to meet that. In general, we are very open. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) will recall that all our sittings used to be in private. It is only recently that we
1418
have had the strong view that our sittings should be open, because we want to examine openly the matters that come before us.
I now refer to the 1989–90 Session, 13th report, "Ministry of Defence: Further Examination of the Sale of Royal Ordnance plc". In April 1987, the sale of Royal Ordnance plc to British Aerospace was concluded. Rather unusually, I should like to quote from the 48th report, Session 1987–88, because we had our preliminary investigation into the sale of Royal Ordnance plc then. That report deals with the price that was realised, £190 million, and the sale included land at Waltham Abbey and Enfield, which was sold to British Aerospace without any clawback provision for the taxpayer.
At paragraph 3(v), we said:
"We are concerned that, prior to deciding on the sale of RO, the MoD did not themselves explore the possibility of redevelopment at Waltham Abbey and Enfield or obtain an alternative valuation of these sites based on the assumption that their redevelopment might be approved in the future. We note that BAe could make a substantial gain on their sale or development".
That was before we knew anything about a valuation of Waltham Abbey or Enfield. It was without the advantage of hindsight. The Committee has the enormous advantage of hindsight. My colleagues and I try very hard to put ourselves in the place of the witness at the time the decision was made. However, this was something we did before, so there was no hindsight at all.
We said:
"We note that BAe could make a substantial gain on their sale or development without benefits accruing to the taxpayer beyond the sale price paid by BAe. We recommend that in any similar sales in the future, any feasible planning permissions likely to increase property values should be obtained before offers are invited."
That is of enormous importance. That aspect will arise again and again in respect of land. Values of up to £450 million were attributed to the sites. We found that values were substantially less than that, but there should have been a much bigger gain to the Government as a result of that sale.
I should like to give some examples of the questions that we asked. The late Ian Gow provided a splendid example which many of us well recall with both pleasure and sadness. However, I should like to quote from a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North. We were trying to establish what sort of valuation had been made of those two north London sites but were not getting very far, because we encountered all sorts of complications.
One of the most dramatic moments in the investigations carried out by the Public Accounts Committee came when my hon. friend declaimed in a rather more uncommon way than is usual. I should explain that each hon. Member now has only 15 minutes in which to make his or her contribution—nowadays, it is always "his" contribution. Our Committee meetings are so well attended and my colleagues' examinations are so thorough that we must all be limited in that way. It did not happen in the past, but it does now.
My hon. Friend was frustrated at not receiving a crucial answer about the method of valuation. Finally, he banged his hand on the table in a way that we can all remember and said—I shall not attempt to imitate his accent although one or two of my hon. Friends from Scotland might be able to do so—

1419
"I only have 15 minutes, Sir Michael. I am going to ask you again. We have heard that potential use value … is different from use value … I am asking you, in the context of planning permission … whether you carried out a potential use value valuation on the land'
Sir Michael replied:
"We did not seek a valuation on conjectures about planning permission and the particular form that that use might take."
My recollection of that answer is slightly different. I thought that my hon. Friend got the answer, "No," but perhaps it was elaborated on subsequently. One's memory is always a little subject to uncertainty. The important thing was that, in difficult circumstances, we got an answer to that question.
Our report refers to the role of the Treasury. It is interesting to note that, in April 1988, a year after the sale to British Aerospace in April 1987, the Treasury issued new guidelines to Departments on procedures relating to the disposal of surplus land. Our report states:
"These guidelines state that with potential for development should normally be sold with the benefit of planning permission; but where this is inappropriate because of delays and uncertainties about the planning position, it may be appropriate to seek to secure from the purchaser any increase in value attributable to the grant of planning permission after disposal terms have been agreed."
That is exactly what we said before we knew about the failure to achieve for the taxpayer some of the moneys that we thought should accrue to him.
Paragraph 35 states:
"we consider that the Department might have been in a better position to evaluate the bids received if they had carried out a further revaluation as at about 1986;"
The value of land was changing rapidly at that time. The paragraph continues:
"invited bids for the Company both with and without a clawback provision; and if they had obtained an estimate of potential development values, particularly for Waltham Abbey and Enfield (even though this would have been conjectural) before deciding whether any special measures, such as clawback provisions, were necessary to protect the taxpayers' interest. In the Committee's view, consideration of a clawback provision for the Waltham Abbey and Enfield sites would have been prudent and need not have resulted in continuing Departmental involvement in the business decisions of the Company."
I am pleased that some account has been taken of our views on this matter. We look forward to seeing the guidelines implemented.
Paragraph 24 of the Treasury minute that deals with this matter states:
"The aim should be to secure, in a cost-effective manner, an assessment of both the existing use and, where relevant, the potential development values of property."
We welcome that reaction.
I refer now to "Financial Management in the National Health Service" and to the 16th report of Session 1989–90. We spend £12 billion on the national health service, which has 14 regional authorities and 190 district authorities. We have looked at the national health service fairly extensively in the past few years, in a manner that we did not previously. I know that several Committee colleagues welcome that, and play a useful and constructive part in our examinations.
I refer to one or two of our past examinations to show the range of our interests. In our 50th report of the 1987–88 Session, which considered operating theatres, we found that only 50 to 60 per cent. of our operating theatres are in use during the working week—I am not talking about evenings or weekends—and that was at a time when people
1420
were waiting up to two years for certain operations. With one or two exceptions, most of us are non-specialists, so that came as a bit of a surprise, especially in the light of the bottleneck in the operating theatres. We found out why it was happening and posed some useful questions to try to improve matters for the future.
I know from a recent press report that the Government have taken action on consultants to ensure that their services are properly employed. One problem with consultants is that their terms of appointment are set by the regional health authority, whereas their practice and their work is in the hospital.
Our 18th report dealt with hospital building. We discovered that it can take up to 15 years to build a hospital. A major problem with public sector construction is the enormous amount of time that it takes to get things done. I was in New York city this spring and had the impossible recollection that its hospital had been built in only one year. I thought that that must be wrong and that it was just a failure of memory. I therefore went to see how long it had actually taken to build it and discovered that it had taken only just over 50 weeks to construct from ground to finish in 1931. That is remarkable.
Of course, that is not a typical example, but it shows how far short our construction is falling if it can take 15 years for us to build a hospital, and there is then the delay in commissioning it and getting patients in. Something is seriously wrong.
Our 40th report of 1987–88 considered estate management. We found a number of crumbling buildings and a general failure to repair them, which in the end costs far more. However, more important than that was our discovery that central management in the national health service had tried to establish the condition of its estates by sending out a questionnaire to its 191 district health authorities. Only 113 replied; that means that one third did not even bother. What is the function of a management board if it does not even get answers to queries?
This is a most serious matter. It made us realise that something must be fundamentally wrong. If the central management of the national health service is failing to get the kind of replies to which one would think any such organisation should be entitled, the chief executive cannot discover that which he has a right to know.
Mr. Michael Shersby: On the interesting point about the value of the national health service estate, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that asking about the value of a department's estate is what I might call the Public Accounts Committee's $64 question? When considering the evidence, it struck me as extraordinary that the national health service does not know the value of its own estate when, from all quarters, one hears about the pressure to build more hospitals. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that we discovered several buildings capable of renovation in areas where there was pressure for new building. Could he say something about that, because I found it a fascinating insight into what was going on?
Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It was a fascinating insight into the failure to know something about one's own business. If one is trying to be a chief executive of a body, one should know something about the business involved. There is no question but that we have brought about—I should say we are bringing

1421
about; it is too early to say that much has been accomplished yet—some improvement. We saw Mr. Duncan Nichol on those matters.
One report to which I refer frequently is that on premature retirement in the national health service. The Government decided as a matter of policy—it is open to them to do so and we do not question it—that the administration of the NHS was too top-heavy. Quite rightly, they said that it was necessary to bring about premature retirements and give redundancy pay to reduce the number of executives in the NHS. That failed to meet all our objectives.
Ever since then, in 1983, whenever someone comes forward with a plan, scheme or programme of any kind I like to know the objective at the beginning. I want people to quantify the objective as much as possible. Some objectives cannot be quantified too much, but I want it to be quantified as much as possible. I ask people when they are going to achieve the objective. At the end of the period of the plan, I want to compare the objective with the achievement. At the same time, there must be a monitoring system so that, if something disastrous is going on, it can be brought to a stop or changed. That is of crucial importance.
In the case of premature retirements in the NHS, it was not known how many people were likely to obtain or opt for retirement. We found that, in one regional authority, about 340—I am speaking from memory—opted for premature retirement. In another authority of comparable size, only one tenth of that number—25 or 30—opted for premature retirement. At the end of the exercise, it was not possible to say how much money had been saved. Nor could we be sure that some of the people who had taken early retirement had not been re-employed in the authority. We knew that some had been re-employed, but we did not know whether some had been re-employed by the same health authority. We strongly suspected that that was the case, but we could not prove it so we gave people the benefit of the doubt.
In such cases we must be sure that we have proper management and that we align budgets with need rather better. Our task is set out in paragraph 14 of the report:
"We attach great importance to timely and effective financial monitoring. We note the recent improvements made in financial reporting and expect the better flow of information to lead to tighter budgetary control throughout the NHS."
We welcome the Treasury minute on that. We know that obviously there is a shortage of suitable staff in the higher levels of the NHS, and we wish Duncan Nichol well in recruiting such people. We hope that there will be some improvements in the proper control of the whole of the NHS.
I now come to the 31st report of the Committee entitled "Quality Control of Road and Bridge Construction", Session 1989–90. We spend about £1 billion each year on motorways, trunk roads and bridges. Remedial work is carried out using concrete or bitumen. It is interesting that we still do not know whether concrete is a better substance than bitumen for road surfaces. I understand that certain other countries made that decision long ago. One would have thought that, with the help of the Transport and
1422
Road Research Laboratory and other bodies, we might have come to a firmer conclusion than we have reached so far.
There is a relationship between the cost of building a road and the cost of building including the premature repairs and traffic delays. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of our report, we point out one of the major problems:
"Quite apart from the misery, inconvenience and frustration caused to the travelling public by the need for largely unforeseen and unplanned remedial work, we are not satisfied that the Department have taken proper account of the true costs involved. Whilst premature maintenance costs need to be considered in the context of total construction costs, we believe that it is distorting the argument for the Department to suggest that the only alternative to their present course is to try to eliminate all risk of any remedial expenditure."
I do not argue with that. We say that when one builds a road one must take into account the cost of putting it right. I regret that I received the minute containing the Treasury's response only two days ago. We have examined these matters for a long time, yet it was brought to my attention only yesterday.
In yesterday's Daily Telegraph I noticed an adverse comment on the work of the Public Accounts Committee. I must say that I regretted that. We normally leave it to the Treasury Minister to respond and it is very rare that action is taken in advance of his response. The article shows that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Transport anticipated the Financial Secretary. It pointed out that
"the vast majority of roads do not give rise to unexpected problems."
That is obvious. It is not our task to look at things that go right. Our task is to see whether we can improve things that go wrong. I am sorry that it was a Treasury minute; I could have understood if it had been a departmental notification. I have not had time to go into it as thoroughly as I would wish.
Paragraph 148 of the minute points out:
"traffic delay costs could be smaller when maintenance is premature since traffic flows will be lower … Costs and delays inevitably arise from maintenance,"
If one talks about a "premature" repair, one implies that the repair should have come later. If I have a repair done to my washing machine within six months, presumably it means that I will not need to have it repaired later on. However, the point is, "Was the washing machine right at the beginning?" The question is, "Was the road right at the beginning?" If it was not, how much extra would it have cost to get it right? I am sorry that we had that item.
Even though the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said several things about the Public Accounts Committee with which I do not agree, I was pleased to note that the Treasury minute goes a long way towards meeting our objections. I welcome that. In paragraph 146 it says that the Department will
"introduce as soon as practicable an improved and computerised reporting system to cover all cases of defects and premature maintenance."
I welcome that. It is what we asked for and we have got it.
Paragraph 147 says:
"The principle of 'whole-life' costing is being introduced in setting highway design and construction standards—this takes account of both forecast maintenance and traffic delay costs."
I welcome that.
Paragraph 151 says:

1423
"The introduction of a five year rolling programme … is assisting in these tasks. Assessment of the whole life cost of roads and bridges will also help to identify the cost implications of alternative timings for maintenance."
I welcome that.
Paragraph 155 says:
"Amendments to the Specifications for Highway Works are being introduced to secure improvements in the construction of concrete roads."
I welcome that.
Paragraph 162 says:
"The Department accepts the Committee's view that it must further seek to improve its effectiveness in managing this area of its business."
That refers to poor workmanship and sanctions to deal with it.
The minute also states that the Department of Transport
"has therefore appointed an independent consultant to carry out a wide-ranging review which will take into account the Committee's views and recommendations. The Department is also introducing new methods of selecting and appointing consultants who supervise its contracts."
We welcome that.
Perhaps the Under-Secretary is unaware of the role of the PAC. It displays a unanimity of view and it is trying hard to improve the quality of the administration of the Department. We are not sniping at it, but we are trying to seek definite improvements. I am pleased to note that the Treasury minute accepts that.
Some might argue that the improvements made were already in train and indeed a great many of our recommendations are accepted even before we put them. As soon as a Department knows that we are going to investigate, it carries out an investigation itself, which is extremely valuable. We do not try to score points about that; we could, but that is not our job. If someone takes action before we report on the matters that we are likely to report on, we welcome that. We seek to encourage that. I hope that that practice will always prevail.
We all suffer greatly because of problems on our roads. On Sunday, when I came down the M6, I encountered four major roadworks, none of which was less than five miles long. Obviously, I am very aware of the importance of repairs.
The task of the Committee is to deal with the various reports produced. We get a great deal of pleasure from the fact that we are able to deal with them competently and adequately. I could mention one or two other reports at some length—for example, that on the Crown prosecution service concerning decisions to continue prosecutions which vary throughout the country. There was also a report on hospital buildings and some of the associated problems, with which I have dealt in part only, as well as a report on the control and management of the Metropolitan police estate. That is an important report, which demonstrates that estate management should be introduced, as it should be in many other areas of our activities.
There were also reports on the National Seed Development Council and the failure to receive the proper sale proceeds.
It is important to mention the publicity services for Government Departments. I welcome the Treasury minute that dealt with that and I am pleased to note that the Treasury has accepted the view about dealing with such publicity to ensure that there should be clear objectivity by
1424
Departments when preparing it. That important issue was clarified and the message has gone out to all Departments, which we welcome.
Once again, I should like to thank my colleagues for bearing with me during the long evenings we spent together. I look forward to continuing our efforts on behalf of the taxpayer—that, after all, is our interest.
6.23 pm
Sir Michael Shaw: As always on these occasions it gives me great pleasure to acknowledge, in common with the entire Committee, the tremendous work done by our Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). Normally on these occasions we refer to one another as honourable friends to demonstrate the unanimity about which my right hon. Friend has rightly spoken.
At the outset, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that Opposition Members are all too briefly with us as they move onwards and upwards. What happens to those former members of the Public Accounts Committee who must be feeling the push from underneath? Will they recirculate and come back to us before long? We all work as a good team as we pick up on each other's points and we form an effective questioning force under what has always been the very capable and tactful leadership of our Chairman, for which we thank him.
It would be remiss of me not to recall the sad loss of the former Member for Eastbourne, Mr. Ian Gow. He was a wonderful member of our Committee. He had an extremely shrewd brain and although it was not always immediately apparent, he was very kind. Some of the ways in which he put even the most casual question, however, made an accounting officer give it serious consideration. I imagine even the lightest question from him was regarded by such an accounting officer as one of threatening importance. Alas, we shall have him with us no longer.
It is important to remember that the Committee has helped to bring about a number of significant changes in Government accounting and organisation. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has already mentiond internal auditing and non-executive directors and it is also important to remember the "next steps" agencies, the importance of value for money as well as targeting jobs and responsibilities within Departments. In all those areas the PAC, along with other Committees of the House—let us not forget them as well as the work undertaken by Government Departments and their attitude to our work, which has always been welcome—has made a significant contribution.
I first joined the PAC in about 1973. I did not stay long, but I came back in 1979 and I have been a member ever since. I have seen many changes in the way in which we conduct our proceedings. In the old days, the questioning was largely undertaken by the Chairman—we were lucky if we put a question in the entire two hours of the sitting. The reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General were fairly sparse and in no way comparable to the present ones that form the basis of our inquiries. Today the effect of the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and of our reports within Government circles is much greater than it was. Certainly the Comptroller and Auditor General does more preparation than in the past. The same can be said of the Committee members before we go to our meetings.

1425
Although it is not for me to say, this might be the last time that I take part in these annual debates as I do not intend to stand at the next election. In that context, I hope that I am allowed to say that the standing and importance of the PAC has never been higher.
I echo the thanks that our Chairman gave to the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. John Bourne, and his staff. Without their help and comprehensive, thorough reports, our work would be impossible. I welcome the opportunity that we now have to go along to the National Audit Office to discuss matters of particular importance when they arise. While we retain our independence, our work results in great benefit for all.
I have said in earlier debates that the greatly improved Comptroller and Auditor General reports that we now receive, the greater thoroughness of our questioning and presentation of reports and the fact that our proceedings are normally open to the public give greater impact to our work generally and to our reports in particular. Publicity concerning the various issues arises when our reports are published. That is an advantage over the old system, when our meetings were held in secret.
The matters that we discuss are important and must receive attention immediately. So as we deliberate subject by subject, the media deal with each item, instead of having to deal with an assortment of subjects arising in one day's debate. By that means we can have wider influence than used to be the case.
Looking back over the year, I select for comment two items, one of which was dealt with by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, that of Northern Ireland. I have always had much sympathy for those with responsibility in that area. The conditions under which they operate cannot be regarded as in any way normal. The physical unrest and deep sectarian divisions create problems beyond my experience. But, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, danger lies in the fact that we may cease to apply, in considering the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, the same judgment as we apply to reports emanating from the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Whatever sympathy we may have, because of the problems of those working in Northern Ireland, we should do them a disservice if we failed to deal with the matters that they bring to us with the same critical eye as we give to other issues. We owe that duty not only to those who live and work there but to those who have invested, and others who hope to invest, large sums in Northern Ireland. Remember, the object is to try to make things work there as smoothly and normally as possible. That will happen only if we set the highest standards of inspection to the reports that come before us.
Regrettably, some extremely sad reports come to us. Occasionally one tends to say, "Never mind, it is Northern Ireland." That is the wrong attitude to take. We must examine the issues and say, "Let us try to get things right." From the reports that have come to us from the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the witnesses who appear before us, it is clear that all concerned are trying to improve matters. I believe that it will not be long before we see improvements. That will be justification for the seriousness with which we tackle the issues.
1426
One is bound to feel sad when considering the report on, say, roads and the system of stocktaking the stores scattered throughout Northern Ireland. It was clear that the system of stocktaking was inadequate. Happily, the notes that we are receiving, particularly following the cross-questioning of witnesses that I conducted, show that the stores are under much better control. The system generally has been much revised, with the internal auditor now seeing that reports go direct to the top man rather than to an intermediary. Because of more effective stock control, less stock is required. That is always a good sign. If stocks can be reduced, that is a sign that the business is being run more efficiently.
As I say, many of the reports are depressing. Particularly depressing was the report about the plant nursery, and I shall comment on only a few points about which I asked questions. Obviously, no system should be allowed to continue if nobody is taking stock and stocks are increasing year by year. That way lies disaster. Indeed, had the organisation been in private hands, disaster would have occurred more quickly. One must express worry when Mr. Murray, the auditor, said that it had never entered their heads that people were not taking stock. He described that as "a fundamental error." The mind boggles at the thought that an auditor did not check to see whether somebody was taking stock. We find such fundamental problems arising time and again.
I hope that I am not being optimistic when I say that, as a result of our inquiries, things are beginning to improve. Indeed, we must proceed on that hope, just as I hope that officials are proceeding on the conviction that we shall continue to make inquiries into their activities.
My second point about Northern Ireland concerns the land registry. Although a serious lapse has been evident, we can learn from it in other areas. The land registry was set up and the same fees charged for a long time. A witness said:
"Fees were not revised in the intervening years because it was mistakenly believed that the registry was operating at a surplus, when in fact it was not covering its costs."
Why was it not covering its costs? The answer to that question was terrifyingly frank. We were told, in effect, that there had just been a mistake, and they were all sorry about it. It is terrifying to think that those who filled in the accounts did not realise that they should have been adding sums for headquarters costs. That state of affairs continued for a long time.
I cross-questioned witnesses on that issue because, although it was a basic error, it covered a significantly wider sphere. If an agency is established—the land registry, although not an agency, was a type of agency —one must consider the fees and departmental expenses. That is where the wider sphere comes in. In this case, those making up the accounts were correct, except that they did not add a big sum for departmental expenses, remembering that those involved at headquarters were anxious, for obvious reasons, to spread their expenses over as many branches as possible. The differences were enormous. When we cross-questioned the witnesses about the expenses of headquarters that could be relied on as being part of the land registry, Mr. Murray said:
"In normal circumstances I would not spend much time overlooking the land registry".
His assistant, Mr. Mackenzie, said that he spent perhaps 5 per cent. of his time on the land registry. Look at it as we would, we could not see that the enormous difference in

1427
the cost of overheads that had been missed out was justified by any facts concerning the services rendered by head office. I hope that that is now being examined more cautiously; there is a formula, but I doubt that it is accurate.
The other report that I wish to mention is "The Next Steps Initiative". This is a first-class initiative, and I am greatly encouraged by the fact that it is being brought in carefully—at times slowly, perhaps, but that is better than rushing into it without getting it right; big costs may be involved if we do not get it right.
The Public Accounts Committee said in paragraph 3(v) of its conclusions:
"We note that, consistent with the Government's priorities for Next Steps, the agencies established so far were set more demanding financial and operational targets accompanied by additional flexibilities on financial matters and staff and pay to enhance their ability to operate more efficiently … We agree with the conclusion of the C & AG that, if continued, this early demonstrated commitment on the part of the parent and central departments to the thrust of the initiative augurs well for the success of Next Steps".
I entirely agree.
The example of the cross-questioning in the Northern Ireland report makes me wonder whether we are being careful enough to ensure that, in certain cases, we are not simply creating another department to be looked after by the Department itself. I put that question to the representative of the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service—what a mouthful that is—and asked him,
"to deal with the problem of what has been described as the people back in the departments syndrome. The responsibility still lies with the Minister for the agencies so far as Parliament is concerned.
(Mr. Kemp) Yes, correct.
So he will want his civil servants to brief him on statements, on questions and anything relating to an agency.
(Mr. Kemp) That is right.
That means to say therefore that the Department back home will tend to formulate a staff that will double bank the agency so that they can get the information from the agency and use it and check and put forward to the Minister.
(Mr. Kemp) I hope very much not."
I hope not too. It has been admitted that there is an interface, but if it is not carefully guarded, that interface can grow and there can be additional expenses.
Talking of expenses, departments such as town halls have a lot of fixed expenses to meet. I have noticed that the more that they can feed them out to their various departments and agencies, the more they are prone to do so. That is why they do not like getting rid of them and turning them into private enterprise efforts: then they have fewer places in which to put their overheads. I trust that nothing of that sort would be allowed to happen in Departments of state.
I thank the Chairman of the Committee for all the work that he does, and for the enormous effort that he puts in. Above all, I thank my colleagues on the Committee for the way in which they try genuinely to examine the problems, rather than seeking to turn the process into a political fight. That is the essence of the Public Accounts Committee; long may it continue.
6.44 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: As a new boy on the Committee, I shall make an extremely brief contribution, although I should add in my defence—in case I wander into a slightly longer speech than some might wish—that mine is a renewed rather than a new
1428
membership. I was a member of the Committee as far back as 1966, when—as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw)—things were somewhat different.
What is still enjoyable, however, as the hon. Member for Scarborough pointed out, is the "consensus" way—if I may use the "in" term—in which the Committee members approach the task of analysis. It is significant that this is the first time since I became a member that we have sat in "confrontational" postures to discuss our work.
As a new Committee member, I already have my collection of yellow cards from our Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). However, let me say while I have his good will —for I see him smiling—that on one of his foreign tours he must have bought a Brussels watch: I think that it is operating on metricated minutes, which, as everyone knows, are far shorter than the imperial minutes on the watches of the other members of the Committee.
It is a matter of deep regret to all of us that our late friend and colleague Ian Gow is not able to take part in our discussions today. We all miss his charm, wit and friendliness, as well as the pungent relevance of what he had to say.
I am a living embodiment of the contention that all is onward and upward amongst Opposition members of the Committee. As an ex-industry Minister, I should have liked to take part in the discussions on Rover; but, as I was not a member of the Committee at that stage, it would have been rather presumptuous of me. I shall therefore save my comments until—as I hope—we examine the matter again.
I shall confine myself to two issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred to the criticism that he felt was due to the University Grants Committee for allowing University college, Cardiff to get into the predicament in which it now finds itself. The fact that the Committee has had to focus on that has to some extent made life more difficult for the new administration, which is having to cope with difficulties that it did not create. Its operations are clouded by the £4·4 million of repayable grant that had to be taken to ease the college out of difficulties that should never have existed in the first place.
It is to the credit of the new administration that, in the last year, it made a surplus of £4·8 million before provision to its capital account, and anticipates a surplus of £4·5 million this year. There has been a remarkable turnaround since we had our chance to discuss the fortunes of the college. Indeed, I am delighted to hear from the principal that about 25 per cent. of the £4·4 million has already been repaid, and that within six months the debt will be less than £3 million.
As well as dealing with the administrative consequences of the tragic circumstances in which it found itself, the college is making a massive inroad into the financial problems that it was forced to inherit. It is doing so against the background of rapid expansion. It is spending—not over-optimistically—£20 million on expansion, new building and the introduction of local area network facilities for the newly emerged University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology and Cardiff university college and it shows all the signs of completely shaking off the clouds that it inherited from the previous administration.

1429
One interesting point, which was raised when I had discussions with the principal, was that when the Universities Funding Council makes its projections—colleagues at the National Audit Office may like to consider this and discuss it with the UFC—such discretion is used that comparisons between universities may be invalid or difficult to sustain. The principal said that that applied to the way in which inflation and staff costs are treated for future projections. University authorities may use their discretion about the precise formula that they use. The principal said that Cardiff used the UFC's most pessimistic scenario for its projections. He demonstrated the scale of such differences by saying that a 1 per cent. difference when assessing the situation means a £1·5 million difference in staff costs over five years, and a £3 million difference in overall costs in the same period.
If further analysis and reports to the Committee are to be undertaken, I hope that the UFC will consider whether it can make projections more consistent.
As a Welshman I wish to mention a matter which is of some local inconvenience to the people of Wales, and to those who choose to visit us or to come to Wales on business trips—the problems of the Severn bridge, which are mentioned in the report on roads and bridges. It will be no surprise to hon. Members to hear a Welshman say that we regard it as a sad saga.
The Friday before last people had to queue for more than three hours to cross the bridge in a westerly direction. It is not merely a question of inconvenience and cost. It upsets lorry schedules and it affects commercial drivers, who have limits placed on the hours that they are allowed to drive. However, there are wider implications than boring inconvenience. What is most galling is that the situation is unnecessary, and that came out in the report. I shall mention later the Treasury minute based on the report, but the National Audit Office report states clearly that in 1961, at the last minute, just as construction work on the foundations of the bridge was about to start, the Department of Transport introduced a new design. It was novel, and it presented new technological problems.
The NAO also said that, having introduced the new design, the Department proceeded to ignore its guidelines, procedures and standards. The Department did not carry out the calculations that would usually have been expected for a bridge design. Sadly, eight years later the bridge was showing signs of corrosion and fatigue.
I am sure that the Chairman of the Committee shares our bewilderment that, far from that being a source of hand-wringing in government, section 148 of the Treasury minute, to which I referred, states that, because corrosion was discovered early in the life of the bridge, it should have been a matter of great rejoicing. According to the Treasury, as there was less traffic crossing the bridge when the corrosion was first discovered, it was less of a problem than it would have been if it had been discovered later. The problem is that we have had to put up with it for the intervening 20 years, so I do not find the Treasury's argument very persuasive, and £17 million has had to be spent on the bridge.
The permanent secretary told us that much of the work done on the bridge was to strengthen it against wind
1430
damage, damage from collision with a ship and to accommodate two and a half times the planned vehicle load.
As the National Audit Office report points out, 52·5 per cent. of that £17 million was used for remedial work and only a quarter was used for anything to do with strengthening or increasing the capacity of the bridge. Three quarters of the work that has had to be carried out on the bridge was remedial, and was due to what is described in the report as "design faults". So we are back where we started in 1961, when the Department of Transport at the last minute ignored standards, practices and procedures. The resultant design faults are still blighting the lives of motorists virtually 30 years on.
A fascinating coincidence—not lost on the users of the bridge—is that when the toll was increased recently, according to the report, the increase was needed to raise £50 million to carry out the balance of the work needed on the bridge. Tolls were increased to raise less money than had been demanded to carry out the remedial work. In other words, if the bridge had not needed remedial work, the tolls would not have had to be increased. The bridge needed remedial work because of design faults and it had those faults because the Department did not do its job. I find those circumstances hard to reconcile with the statement made in the House by a transport Minister who said:
"The work is designed to upgrade the bridge for the future; it is not in any sense a reflection upon the quality of the original design of the bridge, which was built fully in accordance with the standards that then applied."—[Official Report, 27 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 543.]
One wonders who was briefing the poor man. I am sure that he would not have made that up, and I am sure that he would not readily have come to the House with a statement so contrary to the facts. No Minister wants to give the House information that he knows is blatantly incorrect.
As is revealed in the National Audit Office report, the people of Wales now face cost and inconvenience because a Ministry failed to do its job and to carry out its responsibilities in the way that everyone in Whitehall thought it was carrying them out.
The Treasury is hedging its bets in its response. Paragraph 158 states:
"The Department found no evidence that standard checking procedures were not fully complied with"—
which is rather different from saying that they were, which is what one might have hoped that the Treasury would say.
"It is difficult to be precise about events which happened over thirty years ago"
that is even more dubious, it raises even more question marks—
"but it was not necessarily practicable nor appropriate fully to apply standard procedures to an innovative design."
The NAO, therefore, has it all ways. There is no evidence that the Department did not carry out its normal procedures, though the Committee and the National Audit Office criticised it for not doing so. However, the Department virtually implies that the Treasury would have criticised it had it carried out the normal procedures because, it says, the normal procedures were not necessarily appropriate to the new design. Which posture is the Department adopting? Is it saying that it did carry out the normal procedures or that it did not and that the Treasury is glad that it failed to carry them out? We are left in the dark. All we know is that the motorist is still paying

1431
for errors that need not and should not have arisen—errors which were the direct result of departmental incompetence, as demonstrated by the NAO report.
The House will understand the feeling of many people in Wales that they should not have to carry the cost of that incompetence and that it ought to be borne by the Department that imposed those errors upon them.
7 pm
Mr. Michael Morris: I, too, pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of our Committee. I have been a Committee member for 11 years. During that time there have been two Chairmen, both of them Opposition Members who have brought a penetrating mind to that job. If this is to be the last public accounts debate for my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw)— though I personally doubt it—I should like to say to him that his acumen, too, has been of an extremely high order.
Two qualified accountants sit on the Public Accounts Committee. However intuitive and good the rest of us may be, it is important that colleagues with up-to-date experience of the latest accounting practices should sit on the Committee. My hon. Friend is not the youngest member of the Committee, so it is a great tribute to him when I say that he is very much up to date with what is happening and that it shows in his questioning of witnesses.
I ask the House to reflect on the Public Accounts Committee's role in the years ahead. Its role may change, as may the nature of this debate. The PAC is the watchdog of the legislature and the Administration. The Committee carries out its investigations after the event; it does not challenge the policies of the Government of the day. It accepts policy objectives and examines what has happened. That is a strong starting point. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, the Committee is greatly supported by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the staff of the National Audit Office. About 1,000 people, most of them highly qualified, are beavering away. In their green reports they produce material that, on the whole, is of a high standard. I hope that they will not mind me saying "on the whole". There have been instances when the reports have veered into policy areas and when they have gone too far towards producing policy proposals. As a person who has a modest area of woodland, I have to declare an interest when I say that when I look back at the forestry report and see the present level of planting it is obvious to me that it has been unduly influenced by some of the activities in north-east Scotland.
I am concerned about the nature of what I call the green reports—the National Audit Office reports—in the sense that they are, quite incorrectly, seen by the media as the work of the Public Accounts Committee. That is unfortunate. It is not clear to the public that the Public Accounts Committee still has to look at those reports and decide whether it agrees with them. We shall have to overcome that difficulty.
My Committee colleagues know that I have strong feelings about the presentation of our reports. The format of our reports has changed a great deal while I have been a member of the Committee. When we visited the United States about eight years ago I was impressed by the fact
1432
that there the conclusions are brought to the front of reports. A little persistence has resulted in the Committee's conclusions now being printed at the front of its reports.
Moreover, it seemed to me to be illogical that one had to be a ferret of considerable ability to find the Treasury's response to the Committee's conclusions. I refer to the Treasury minutes. I am delighted that the Committee's recommendations are now listed in the Treasury minutes and that the answers are given there. I thank the Treasury Bench for having achieved that change.
The Committee can still learn from what happens overseas. When they look at the front of any of the Committee's reports, the public can be forgiven for wondering what they are all about. I refer, for example, to the Committee's first report on financial problems at universities. I believe that there would be merit in the Committee doing what our cousins across the water do; it should highlight the three key points on the front cover.
There is no doubt that our work is successful with the civil service, but I do not know whether it is entirely successful with the Government of the day or the House. Part of the problem, I believe, is that we still conduct too many inquiries. There is little merit in a plethora of inquiries; the Committee would do better to conduct in depth fewer inquiries.
Ever since I became a member of the Public Accounts Committee I have taken a great interest in the national health service. I can almost reel off the number of NHS reports that the Committee has published. If, however, I did not have the most marvellous filing system in the East Cloisters, I should be unable to delve into the Committee's inquiries six, seven or eight years ago. One of the challenges for the Committee is to collate that great bank of knowledge and recommendations, some of which will become highly relevant as changes occur. At the moment the Committee depends entirely on the accounting officer's memory. The usual answer is that he was not in post at the time, so he cannot help. We are unable, therefore, to rely on the Department. Moreover, the memory of those in the National Audit Office is not quite as long as the memory of Committee members. The challenge that we must face up to in the months and years ahead is to effect a link between the present and what happened six, seven or eight years ago.
The same point could be made about privatisation. The Committee has considered privatisation and the disposal of Government assets in many of its reports. We must pool together all the lessons that we have learnt from those reports.
I believe, too, that the scope of the Committee's considerations needs to be reappraised. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough referred to Government agency agreements. There is little doubt that the Committee will have to consider closely the relationship between a Government agency, the Department and the expenditure of public money. My hon. Friend mentioned overheads. The whole structure will have to be looked at closely.
As we come to the end of the era of privatization—there is not much left to privatise—there will be public sector bodies which are not agencies or normal Departments but which still have public money in them. When we passed the National Audit Act 1983, nationalised industries were kept outside, mainly due to the chairmen of those industries. The time will come in the near future when we should reassess our scope in that area.

1433
We need to look at Europe. It may be just circumstantial good luck, but on the Order Paper today from the Leader of the House is the new structure for analysing the work of the EEC and the directives that come to us. In the new Session we shall have three Select Committees looking at draft directives split across three broad subject areas. It does not need me to re-emphasise to the House the importance of the EEC and its relationship with this Parliament. I plead considerable ignorance of our relationship with the European Court of Auditors and how the linkage will work in relation to the ever-increasing importance of Brussels. In our new Session we should have a deliberative discussion on the linkage with our work in Europe.
I want to deal with two of the reports, which both cover the same area: the first report on the financial problems at universities and the 16th report on financial management in the national health service. The report on the universities is principally about Cardiff but that has been covered adequately. I want to emphasise the recommendation that we made about universities generally. In paragraph (f) we make it clear that we remain concerned at the serious financial difficulties facing many universities. We emphasise the fact that the Universities Funding Council should monitor what is happening and we recognise the importance of the restructuring exercise that is in hand. The report says:
"On both these matters we expect the Council to keep Parliament fully informed on progress and results."
That is a crucial paragraph and should not be forgotten.
The 16th report on the NHS is also about financial control. It picks up the aims of resource management initiatives. It explains the importance of case histories and regrets the slippage that occurred during 1988–89 and 1990–91. The response in the Treasury minute says that action is being taken.
If I have a worry that I wish to share with my colleagues, it is that in both higher education and the NHS —outside defence they are the two large areas of public expenditure—the aim seems to be to achieve a financial "level plain". In my judgment, that is the wrong way round. The philosophy of the Public Accounts Committee over the years has been to ask people what their objectives are. Their objectives are concerned not with finance but with policy. Currently, those policy objectives appear to be subsumed by the financial objectives. We run into great difficulties as a Government and a nation if we allow the accountancy element to dictate policy rather than the other way round.
The Chamber is fairly sparsely attended, but I should tell my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee that it is time that we had a deliberative session on the scope of the Committee, its relationship with Europe and the financial dimensions involved.
7.14 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: I should like to join other Committee members and say that I regret the tragic loss of Ian Gow from the Committee and the House. As several hon. Members have said, we shall all miss his incisive and perceptive style of questioning. The Committee benefited from his example, especially those of us who are younger and less experienced. I was a particular beneficiary because I sat next to Ian Gow and benefited
1434
from his whispered comments, many of which would not bear repetition in the House. He was always ready to say what he thought about a witness in terms that were as incisive and perceptive as his questioning.
I should like to join other Committee members in expressing my appreciation for the work of the National Audit Office. As years have gone by we have all learnt increasingly to appreciate its work. It is not patronising to say that the quality and standard of its reports and the work behind them has improved tremendously over the years. Every year we find that they are better and better and more informative. They go far beyond the old style of reports, which were concerned only with ensuring that civil servants did not abuse the taxpayer by taking his money. That is, of course, an important part of the work of the National Audit Office and it must ensure that there is no question of fraud. However, its work has gone beyond that now. We are concerned about value for money, as is the National Audit Office.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that many of our recommendations are put into effect before we make them. The same can be said to a greater extent of the work of the National Audit Office. Many of the faults, defects and errors of Government Departments are corrected before the NAO reports on them. That is to be welcomed because we do not want a lapse of time. We want them to be corrected as quickly as possible. However, the NAO does not always receive the credit that it deserves. Having talked to members of staff, I know that they recognise and accept that. They do not resent it because they are inspired by the spirit of dedication to public service. They are happy to see that things are put right. Nevertheless, this is an occasion on which to point out that the full benefit of their work cannot always be appreciated because we do not always know how many stable doors have been shut before they have been opened.
I should like to join other Committee members in expressing our appreciation for the work of my right hon. Friend the Chairman. We all recognise his skill and the leadership that he provides. I would not say that both sides of the Committee appreciate his work because, as he said, we do not work in that way. We all appreciate his skill in choosing who shall ask a question next. In an unguarded moment he once confessed to me that he sees himself much as an American football coach, playing Committee members as appropriate and bringing them in when he thinks that a witness deserves them. I am sure that he will particularly miss Ian Gow's contribution in that respect. As the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) said, we all appreciated his contribution. He was much too self-effacing in his remarks. Also, we shall miss the hon. Member for Scarborough if he is to leave the House at the next election.
The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) made some interesting suggestions about the way in which we can improve our work and the presentation of our reports. It is a great misfortune that we confine ourselves to one debate a year. In that debate we are expected to consider many reports. This year we are expected to consider 40 reports, but it is sometimes more. That is too much to digest and too much to debate. I am not suggesting that we should have a debate for every report, but some reports would merit their own debate. For example, the report on the quality control of road and bridge construction would have merited a debate. A case

1435
can be made for having a series of debates in which we might take several reports together. This year, we have had several reports on the national health service, and it would have been useful to have a debate on those reports as a group, in which we could have drawn out common suggestions, themes and criticisms of NHS management.
The hon. Member for Northampton, South drew a comparison between the problems of the national health service and those of universities. That has been one of the themes of this year. The health service and universities are suffering from a similar problem, and too often we assume that it is overspending. I wish that we could spend more time asking whether they are underfunded rather than overspending, because that can produce the same result of expenditure exceeding income. Perhaps we should consider whether they are receiving enough money, not simply whether it is being overspent.
I link that with the objective of value for money. Too often, we fall into the trap of assuming, as sometimes do the National Audit Office reports, that value for money means spending less. Sometimes, we get better value for money by spending more. I give as an illustration a question that I put to the chief executive of the national health service management executive, and I was disappointed that he did not seem to understand the difference. If the national health service spends 2 per cent. more and treats 5 per cent. more patients, is not that better than spending 2 per cent. less and treating 5 per cent. fewer patients? It is a real cost improvement if more money is spent and more patients are treated because it comes from higher productivity and the unit cost is less. In our questioning and reports, we do not place the right emphasis on getting real value for money, which may result from increasing the amount spent by a Department or service.
I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) assured us that University college, Cardiff is doing much better and resolving its financial difficulties. However, that university is an example of it being better to take two reports together. Our first report, entitled "Financial Problems at Universities", was occasioned by the difficulties at University college, Cardiff, in which I took a personal interest. We have a Treasury minute, which is why it is included tonight, but we do not yet have the Treasury minute on the 36th report, entitled "Restructuring and Finances of Universities". Those reports would have made a good debate, because the report on University college, Cardiff and its problems leads naturally to the more general and wider problems of other universities.
Although many of the witnesses who appeared before us in the past year were rightly criticised, the Universities Funding Council was the least impressive of the bodies that we examined. I draw the attention of the House to some of the comments that we made in our first report, which arose from the difficulties at Cardiff. In the report, which was published on 15 January, we said:
"We believe strongly, however, that the UGC"—
as it was then called—
"should have taken earlier and more positive action to identify, appraise and tackle the financial difficulties at Cardiff. They were well aware of the difficulties facing universities as a result of grant levels; and indeed they assured our predecessors that they would be discussing with universities exactly the sort of staffing problems that lay at the
1436
heart of Cardiff's troubles. We consider that they took too passive a role in concluding that they were unable to challenge the College's view that no staff reductions were necessary."
We expressed our respect of the independence of universities and said that
"this does not mean that the UGC should have abjured sufficient control to be able to assure themselves of competent financial performance by universities."
We added:
"We also consider that the UGC made an error of judgment in not reporting these problems to Parliament in their annual survey at the first available opportunity."
We then commented on universities generally and said:
"We remain very concerned over serious financial difficulties facing many universities. We expect the new Universities Funding Council to monitor developments closely and to intervene as necessary to ensure a high standard of financial management … We expect the Council quickly to build up the planning arrangements, financial management and information systems, and the capacity for monitoring and analysis which are essential for the effective allocation and oversight of the grants to universities. We look to the Council to secure prompt and determined action where required by the public interest, whilst recognising also the responsibility and autonomy of the universities themselves in such matters."
We ordered that report to be published on 15 January 1990. The evidence on which it was based had been taken on 11 May 1988, and I revert to the point made by the hon. Member for Northampton, South that sometimes we should try to issue these reports more quickly. When we received the Treasury minutes in April 1990, the Treasury told us that
"The monitoring of all universities' financial position has been improved by: UFC requiring institutions to produce annual financial forecasts, which are then analysed; institutions presenting their accounts in a uniform format according to newly-agreed conventions so that they can readily be analysed and compared with previous forecasts; financial relations between UFC and the institutions being governed by financial memoranda which set out conditions under which Exchequer grant may be paid; and the UFC establishing an internal audit unit and generally strengthening its financial expertise."
Unfortunately for the Treasury, we had taken evidence between our report on the problems at Cardiff and their general application and the publication of its minute. We had taken evidence in February, only six weeks after we had prepared our report on Cardiff's problem. The Treasury minute published in April bears little relation to the evidence that we were given in February, only two months before, by the chairman of the Universities Funding Council, as is shown in our report, which came out quite recently.
In the report, we say:
"The Funding Council needs to act vigorously in discharging its new responsibilities and ensuring a high level of accountability to Parliament for the financial control exercised over university expenditure and the economic, efficient and effective use of resources."
We make other comments, conclusions and recommendations, culminating in the statement:
"The Funding Council must take vigorous, prompt and effective measures to resolve these matters."
The echoes of the first report are in our 36th report. Between May 1988 and February very little had improved or changed; indeed, I find it difficult to see any improvement or change. I do not believe that the Universities Funding Council has done anything like enough, and it did not have to wait for our report. If it had followed the suggestion and encouragement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne to put the greater part of recommendations into effect before they

1437
were made, we should have expected some progress to be made between May 1988 and February 1990, but I regret that we did not see such progress.
Therefore, it would be a good idea if, from time to time, we took reports together, as the hon. Member for Northampton, South suggested, to consider recommendations made a few years before and what happened when we took evidence at a later date. That would improve not only the work of the Committee but, much more important, the performance of Departments and accounting officers. Perhaps sometimes it is a good idea to go back to see what was recommended by our predecessors perhaps five or 10 years previously and how much has been done, rather than simply considering rather bland and flattering Treasury minutes that promise much but produce very little.
7.28 pm
Mr. Michael Latham: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), who makes a signal contribution to our discussions in the Public Accounts Committee. As he said, he sat next to our friend, Ian Gow. The highest tribute that I can pay the hon. Gentleman is that he and Ian made a fine team in putting witnesses on the spot, in the interests of taxpayers. They worked well together in our Committee. Ian might well have been speaking at this moment almost where I am standing.
Many hon. Members, particularly the Committee's Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), referred to Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland report. One sentence in the 36th report sums up the way in which Ian Gow went straight to the kernel of the problem. On 14 June 1989, he asked the accounting officer, Mr. Blease:
"Does it come as a surprise to you if members of this Committee have read with disbelief the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General?"
Mr. Blease replied, "No." Ian put his finger on the deplorable failure of administration which had taken place in that case, and in many other cases—a failure described by the accounting officer as "appalling". I echo the comment of the right hon. Member for Ashton-underLyne—who was properly given support by the Ulster Unionist party as he said it—that we do not expect third-world standards of administration from parts of the United Kingdom. I used that expression in questioning as well. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we expect and demand as a Committee exactly the same standards of administration in any part of the United Kingdom and we trust the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland to bring these cases before us, as Dr. Jack does now and as his distinguished predecessor, Mr. Calvert, did before him. All of us remember debating the disgraceful events involving the De Lorean report, to which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred. It was one of the most serious failures of administration and of spending control ever to come before the Committee in the more than 100 years of its existence. The Committee rightly drew attention to that failure in its lengthy report, which the House felt necessary to discuss in a separate debate.
I have listened carefully to this debate, as I have listened to many over the seven years in which I have been a member of the Committee. There is always a danger,
1438
which we have not wholly avoided today, of being like soldiers pinning medals on to our own chests. There is always a danger that we shall say, "We are all doing very well. Everyone is very happy. If people were not happy, the House would be packed and Members would be moaning about the Committee's failure. The fact that people are not doing that suggests that the Committee is doing its job well." I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) and other hon. Members have made it clear that, while we have important work to do, we must never be complacent about it. We must always look for ways of improving and refining it in conjunction with the National Audit Office, which does such a signal service on behalf of taxpayers, and under the guidance of our Chairman.
Other than my direct constituency work of bringing the problems of my constituents before the House—which we all have to do, as it is an essential part of our duties—I believe that the work that I do on the Public Accounts Committee is far and away the most important thing I do in the House. It is the only thing that makes any difference. About 80 per cent. of what I do in the House is probably wasted, and perhaps 50 per cent. is harmful. The work that I do on the Committee is beneficial to taxpayers generally, for only one reason: because of the structure of public service, the method by which the National Audit Act 1983 was drawn up and the Committee's work, the Committee can bring the accounting officer, the permanent secretary, the Sir Humphrey Appleby, before it, and he has to come personally.
One report which no one has discussed and which is probably not widely known is described as the second special report. It was published a few months ago and in it we set out the revised terms of appointment of accounting officers. Publishing the report provides a useful service to the public, who can see what accounting officers and permanent secretaries have to do. I should like to quote from paragraph 11, because it is an important point about which the public should know. The report states:
"If a course of action is in contemplation which raises an issue not of formal propriety or regularity but more widely of prudent and economical administration, it is the duty of the Accounting Officer to draw the relevant factors to the attention of his Minister and to advise him in whatever way he deems appropriate. He may think it right to refer to the possibility of criticism by the PAC. If his advice is overruled, he should ensure that both his advice and the overruling of it are apparent clearly from the papers."
I have talked to Ministers many times about that matter and several have said that that is no idle threat. On several occasions, they have made suggestions to the accounting officer, to the permanent secretary, who has said, "No, Minister. We cannot do that because I am the poor Charlie who has to go before the Public Accounts Committee and explain it away, not you. We must not do that." I asked Sir Peter Gregson when he appeared before us during the Rover inquiry whether the process of giving a written minute to the Minister had taken place. He said that it had not happened. I have asked that question on other occasions, for example, during the De Lorean affair. This is a strong power for members of the Committee. It enables an accounting officer to persuade politicians, of whatever Government, that they cannot take actions that would look bad in front of the Public Accounts Committee.
Perhaps the Committee's principal strength is not the unanimity to which the right hon. Member for

1439
Ashton-under-Lyne referred or the back-up of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which is essential; it is the fact that the Committee is properly resourced. The House has devoted a lot of time—I remember the 1979 debates—to considering whether we should strengthen the Select Committee procedures. The debates took place when Lord St. John of Fawley was setting up these Committees as Leader of the House. Distinguished Members, such as Mr. Enoch Powell, took the view that such Committees were potentially detrimental to the House because they would take people away from the Chamber and allow for a consensus approach that would take away from the flow of party conflict. There are distinguished Members of the House now who still take that view and periodically express it.
There has been such a danger in the reports and the proceedings of some departmental Select Committees. To some extent, it depends on the subject that they have taken. If they take highly partisan subjects, they are likely to produce highly partisan reports or reports with a 7:6 majority. They often do so on the basis of the views of the expert witnesses and advisers who have been hired for the inquiry. By passing the National Audit Act and making the Comptroller and Auditor General's Department responsible to the House, the House has said, "Here is a properly resourced, fully staffed and efficient Department that does all the work in advance." On several occasions, led by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, the Committee has not been prepared to continue an inquiry because a Department has come to us disagreeing with the words in a green report. The Committee cannot operate on that basis. We have to have an agreed report in front of us. Then we can proceed.
As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and other members of the Committee remember, we have sent some of those great mandarins away with their tails between their legs because we have not been prepared to put up with them arguing about the text of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report when it should have been agreed in advance. On one occasion—no names, no pack drill—a permanent secretary took me out to lunch to get my advice on how to appear before a Public Accounts Committee. I gave him my advice, he thanked me very much for it, and shortly afterwards he retired from Government service.
Our work will become increasingly important. We often have to deal with the work of, for example, the Ministry of Defence, where billions of pounds have been wasted by inefficient procurement, poor management and so on. The Committee has greatly welcomed the appointment of Sir Peter Levene and much of his work as Chief of Defence Procurement.
As I sit in the Committee Room, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, two afternoons a week, most weeks of the year for the past seven years, it makes me mad to have to look again at examples of deplorably sloppy administration and of money being wasted, whether it is just a few hundred thousand pounds in Northern Ireland, such as happened in the nursery—which is none the less important—or billions of pounds in the Ministry of Defence. It is being wasted at a time when I, like all other hon. Members, have to go to surgeries in my constituency where I meet constituents who are not receiving pensions or social security and who are getting into difficulties over housing,
1440
over the community charge or in other areas. There is no money to deal with that because much of it is being wasted in faulty administration.
This may be my last speech in this debate. I believe that this is the role with which Members of Parliament especially have to deal. We have to go to the Committee and we have to read learned tomes from the National Audit Office. Finally, we have to say to ourselves that we are elected to represent ordinary people and it is their money that is being misspent. We must say, "I do not care, Sir Humphrey Appleby, whether you were there when it happened or not. You are the person who must explain to us why it went wrong and, above all, what you are going to do to get it right." That is why my hon. Friend the Paymaster General is sitting on the Treasury Bench now. That is why, when my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary winds up the debate, he and the Paymaster General will be taking governmental responsibility in their replies. I hope that when they go back to their Department they will say to their officials—who work very hard—and to all those in other Departments, "Look, at the end of the day. 1 have got to take the flak on the Government Front Bench. Please go away and smarten up your administration."
7.41 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I congratulate the members of the Public Accounts Committee on their work. I am a new Member of this House. On making my first acquaintance with PAC reports and on reading through them, I have been greatly impressed. I have also been impressed by the way in which the Committee members have carried out one of the primary functions of the House —scrutinising the work of the Executive. Having read the high quality of the reports that they produce, it is slightly disappointing to come to this debate and to see acres of green on the Benches.
I intend to concentrate on the matters relating to Northern Ireland that are highlighted in the reports. However, before I come to those, I have a passing comment relating to the first report in 1989–90 on "Financial Problems at Universities". That has already been touched on by several hon. Members and there has been particular reference to University college, Cardiff. It has been said that it was remarkable that the University Grants Committee, as it then was, seemed to be either ignorant or reluctant to act when matters at Cardiff were getting out of control.
Belfast is a lot further away from Cardiff than London is. However, as a former university teacher, I must tell the House that the fact that Cardiff was running out of control was common knowledge in the common rooms of Belfast long before the UGC or the Government acted. I find it rather sad that matters turned out as they did. The Government bailed out University college, Cardiff on condition that many of the senior staff who were responsible for administration had to have their careers prematurely ended. I notice that the same penalties were not publicly applied to those in the UGC who had been turning a blind eye to the situation for several years.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) referred to the comment made by the permanent secretary of the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland on the cases mentioned in the 36th

1441
report, which related to the nursery. The permanent secretary said, "They are appalling cases." The chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive said:
"there had been a degree of negligence at every level involved in the management and control of the nursery …"
and that it
"did not receive adequate attention at the highest level."
He was asked:
"what was the highest level at which you regard responsibility? … Where did the buck stop?"
The chief executive replied:
"The buck stops with … "
The text peters out in three dots. He continued:
"If something similar were to happen now, the buck would stop with me".
The comment about "appalling" cases was made in reply to a question from the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, He said:
"These are two very bad cases. We hope we will not have to be dealing with this sort of thing again."
Eight months later, they were.
The 26th report of 1989–90 deals with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's essential-car user scheme. Under the scheme, essential-car users were entitled to a high allowance per mile and to low-interest car loans. The executive was promiscuous in the number of people it designated as essential-car users. At first, there were 1,084, but after a while the executive realised that too many had been designated and the number was reduced to about 500. The 584 or so disappointed former essential-car users threatened legal action, which was settled by the executive at a cost of £1·2 million in compensation. The executive had handled the matter in such a sloppy way that it had to pay out that sum. That was far more than was lost through the nursery scheme, which was described in the 36th report.
The case of the Housing Executive is especially galling to hon. Members who sometimes have to press the executive about the housing needs in their constituencies, only to be told that insufficient funds are available for this or that development. It is galling to see the millions of pounds that the executive has managed to lose. Money has been lost in other places as well. Other hon. Members have referred to the claims made by people who have allegedly tripped while walking along the footpath. It would be wrong to give the impression that the fault lies with the courts in Northern Ireland. It lies with the executive and with the Department of the Environment for failing to defend cases that were plainly spurious. Once word got round that all one had to do was to make a claim and that, like "Monopoly," one could pass "go" and collect more than £200, everybody was on to it in some areas.
We see such cases occurring again and again. As well as commenting on the individual cases, we should say that there is a need for a more radical approach to the way in which the administration of the executive is conducted. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee commented on the De Lorean case and referred to the rather curious position of the two directors appointed by the Government to serve on the board of De Lorean. As hon. Members are aware, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is not a normal housing authority. Unlike all the other housing authorities in the United Kingdom, it is not under the control of a local authority or of elected representatives. There are three elected representatives on
1442
the board, but the majority of the members are not elected, but appointed. The main criteria for selecting the persons to be appointed are that they will ignore the views of the elected representatives and will acquiesce in the views of the management of the executive. If one appoints to a board people whose chief qualifications are that they will do nothing and that they will acquiesce in what the administration does, it is not surprising that such situations develop.
Those familiar with the Upper Bann constituency will understand why I could not help feeling that there is a remarkable contrast between local councillors and Ministers, civil servants and chief executives, such as those of the Housing Executive, when it comes to the sort of negligence that leads to the losses with which we are dealing. If a local councillor were to act in a negligent manner he would be surcharged, but if a Minister ignores a situation—the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) told us that the nursery was the subject of his first parliamentary question when he came to the House, so Ministers were not ignorant of the situation—there is no surcharge, despite there being clear negligence. It is remarkable that people who serve without remuneration in local authorities can be exposed to considerable financial penalties, whereas persons who serve in the House and elsewhere, for a respectable financial reward and with considerable opportunities for earning on the side, should be responsible for the same or even worse losses without any penalty falling on them.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton referred to the penalty of having one's conduct adversely commented on by the Public Accounts Committee. That clearly is a penalty of sorts, but it is quite different from the penalty on councillors. Something should change in that respect.
I am sorry to refer to the hon. Gentleman again, but he said, and I entirely agree, that the Committee expects the same standards of administration in Northern Ireland as elsewhere. One way of achieving that is to ensure that Government Departments and other bodies in Northern Ireland are subject to the same disciplines as Departments elsewhere. The same standards will not be achieved without the same disciplines. Part of the problem in Northern Ireland is that bodies there are not subject to the same disciplines as bodies elsewhere. With the honourable exception of the Public Accounts Committee, the conduct of those Departments is largely ignored. Despite our continual efforts to persuade the Government to establish a Select Committee, as proposed by the Procedure Committee, nothing has been done. I hope that that road block will be removed so that we see the same disciplines applied in Northern Ireland as here.
The same report deals with cleaning and portering services in hospitals, which are the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland. My concern here is that the Department's response to the Public Accounts Committee's conclusions is weak in a couple of cases. The Committee refers to guidelines for the operation of the cleaning services and concludes that the DHSS should ensure that guidelines on good practice on any health-related subject are implemented. Unfortunately, the response is weak. The Department merely note the Committee's comments and says that where appropriate it will set up mechanisms to monitor the implementation of such guidelines. Such a weak response makes one unsure about whether such guidelines will be implemented.

1443
The Committee's third conclusion on cleaning services in hospitals was that low unit costs, which in some areas are remarkably low, should he examined to ensure that a proper quality of service is being maintained. The Department's response to that conclusion was to remain virtually silent. It just says that the variations in high and low unit costs had been investigated and then goes on to refer, as if as a solution to the problem, to the present competitive tendering initiative imposing a discipline. I wish that it were possible to be confident that competitive tendering would cure the danger of a low quality of service, but, if anything, I fear that competitive tendering is likely to result in lower services than we have at the moment.
Looking through the minutes of evidence, I was struck by a comment made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton. He said that in England opposition to competitive tendering had been minimised because most tenders in NHS hospitals in England had been won by in-house organisations employing the same people who had done the work before. If only the same were the case in Northern Ireland. Far too often in Northern Ireland, the in-house tenders have been overridden in favour of outside tenders which gives real reason to believe that a lower quality of service will be delivered.
The Department's response to the Public Accounts Committee's conclusion on competitive tendering was that substantial savings were expected, but there is considerable doubt about whether there will be substantial savings and we fear that any savings that there may be will be swallowed up in other losses. For example, the Southern health and social services board in my constituency, which is responsible for cleaning and portering services in hospitals and which claims that it is achieving some savings through competitive tendering for cleaning and similar services, is moving to new headquarters. It decided not to move to new headquarters in Craigavon but instead to go to Armagh at a higher cost—some £2 million. I hope that the relevant Minister will take heed of that and act accordingly.
I conclude as I began, by congratulating the Committee on the thoroughness of its work, and I hope that more time will in future be devoted to its work.
7.56 pm
Mr. Michael Shersby: I add my tribute to the late Ian Gow, a dear colleague whom we shall all miss for many years to come. My abiding memory of him on the Public Accounts Committee was asking the question that he used to ask the accounting officer at the very beginning of his contribution, "On what day did you take up your appointment?" By getting the answer to that question, he was able to fix firmly in the minds of members of the Committee the date from which that accounting officer had responsibility for his Department. His questions were always penetrating, and his contribution to the Committee's work is a great tribute to his memory.
Listening to the debate, it is evident to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) was right when he said that the Committee's role is changing. This is one of the more interesting debates that we have had because we have talked about the way in which the Committee works and that is of interest not just to us as Members of Parliament but to the British public and the British taxpayer.
1444
It is all the more important that my hon. Friend should have made that point, because the British taxpayer can now watch the Committee at work and see what he or she is getting by way of value for money in return for the taxes that are paid. That must be one of the most important advances that has been made by Parliament since the Committee was set up in the last century.
One of the most interesting sessions that the public had the chance to watch on television was the Committee's examination of Sir Peter Gregson, the permanent secretary to the Department of Trade and Industry, when he was giving evidence on the sale of the Rover Group to British Aerospace. That episode rivalled anything in "Yes Minister". Sir Humphrey Appleby is in serious danger of being replaced or retired. Sir Peter gave a masterly performance in a remarkable session.
We have not yet published our final report on Rover Group, but we have published an interim report and a report on the leak of evidence which was published by The Guardian. This evening I am in the somewhat curious position of being able to comment on the sixth report of the Public Accounts Committee on the sale of Rover, but I do not have the advantage of having at my disposal the Treasury minute which sets out the Government's views. That will have to wait until the final report appears in due course.
Several of my colleagues have already referred to the effect of the Committee's work on the civil service. I am an occasional lecturer to the civil service college, and I have been impressed by the extent to which civil servants, as part of their training, are helped to understand the work of our Committee. That is valuable in maintaining the high standards in the British civil service.
I have just returned from Zimbabwe, where I had the privilege of being a member of the delegation to the 36th Commonwealth parliamentary conference. Together with several other members of the Public Accounts Committee who were also members of that delegation, I attended a fascinating session on the work of Public Accounts Committees in other Commonwealth Parliaments which proved to be one of our most interesting sessions. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) and I were fascinated to learn that, in Zimbabwe, the Committee has the power to have police present at hearings, to fine accounting officers who have not done their job properly and to have them arrested by the police afterwards. That has not proved necessary in Britain yet, and I hope that it will never be. However, it is interesting to note that some of our Commonwealth colleagues find it necessary to adopt more draconian measures than ours.
The most fascinating investigation which the Committee has carried out in recent times has been into the sale of Rover Group to British Aerospace. The motor industry and motor cars have provided us with some of our most interesting work over the past few years. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton for the quite extraordinarily effective work that he carried out when we investigated the affairs of the De Lorean motor company.
In our sixth report on the sale of Rover Group, we considered the fact that, in 1975, the British Leyland Motor Corporation was making heavy losses, was facing bankruptcy and was taken into public ownership. In August 1988, the Government sold their 99·8 per cent. shareholding in the company to British Aerospace for £150

1445
million, after providing a cash injection of £547 million in recognition of the company's debt and to support its investment programme.
From 1975 to the sale, the taxpayer had provided £2·9 billion in non-interest-bearing capital to support the company. My memory of my 18 years in this House is punctuated by periodic attendances in the Chamber to listen to debates in which Industry Ministers of both Labour and Conservative Governments sought to persuade hon. Members that they should vote yet another large tranche of our hard-pressed taxpayers' money to support British Leyland. A staggering sum of money was invested in that company—unfortunately to very little effect. We could all see the considerable difficulties which the company experienced until the time when the Government were obliged in August 1988 to take it into public ownership to prevent it from going bust.
When we came to the point of examining the sale of the company to British Aerospace for £150 million, it was perhaps not surprising that the Committee was anxious to be clear beyond all shadow of doubt that the Government's actions were justifiable and that the taxpayer was getting value for money for the sale of that very considerable asset. That was the basis of our investigation.
As I have said, the Committee has not yet published its final report, but the interim report is before us this evening and I can therefore pick out one or two of the salient points which will doubtless feature in the final report.
Last December, we examined the Department of Trade and Industry and its financial advisers on the sale and we had before us as witnesses the permanent secretary to the Department and his colleagues and a representative from Baring Brothers—otherwise known as Barings. We questioned them on the arrangements for the sale and the adequacy of the financial terms that were eventually agreed.
As the basis of our examination, we used a report and separate memorandum from the Comptroller and Auditor General which concluded that Rover Group was worth substantially more than the price that was agreed with British Aerospace. The purpose of the interim report is to deal only with the facts relating to the exclusivity and conduct of the Department's negotiations with British Aerospace and the handling of the relations with Parliament and the European Commission. As I have said, the conclusions will be set out in another report. The exclusive nature of the deal which the Department of Trade and Industry did with British Aerospace is the subject of this interim report.
British Aerospace first expressed interest to the Department in buying Rover Group in February 1988. We were told that its interest was conditional on the granting of exclusive negotiating rights, and the chairman of Rover Group told the Department that, in his view, such exclusivity would be in the company's interest. He was obviously very concerned that open competition would cause a repeat of the uncertainty that had damaged the business in 1986, during the negotiations with General Motors and Ford which, the House will recall, were abortive.
As a result of the chairman's view and the events that took place in 1986, the Department considered that
1446
competition would put the Government in a better negotiating position and might lead to better sales terms. However, it accepted that competitive bidding would lead to uncertainty and might so damage the company's prospects that the Government would have to consider extensive contingent liabilities under what are called the "Varley-Marshall-Joseph" assurances which are named after former Industry Ministers. The assurances would not allow Rover Group to be left in a position where it could not meet its obligations. They were worth £1·6 billion as the contingent liability. We must take that huge sum of money into account when trying to fathom out what determined the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to agree to the exclusive deal and sell Rover Group to British Aerospace.
The Department received legal advice that the exclusive negotiating rights granted to British Aerospace should amount to no more than a statement of intent to deal exclusively. The negotiating rights would leave the Department free to take account of any other offers that it might receive from potential bidders. In fact, we were told that approaches were made by four other interested parties —Ford of Europe, Volkswagen, Lonrho and Melton Medes, which is a Nottinghamshire company.
The Committee asked the Department why it believed that the threat that competition posed more than outweighed the benefits of a limited competitive tender of the kind of which it and Barings had originally been in favour. In evidence, the Department told us that the Government had carefully considered whether to proceed on that basis. They recognised the advantage of competition in giving a benchmark against which to measure prices, but they concluded that a public auction would be damaging to the company.
That belief, which was shared by the company, was based on the experience of 1986, when interest by Ford and the consequent loss of confidence by dealers and customers resulted in a decline in the Rover Group's market share from 18·4 per cent. in January to 15·8 per cent. in February 1986. That market share was never recovered.
As I recall the evidence and the climate in the Public Accounts Committee, that information certainly had a substantial bearing on exclusivity—that the creation of uncertainty in relation to a motor company can result in a substantial and rapid loss of market share which it is extremely difficult ever to recover. The chairman of Barings made it clear to us that that decision was a matter of judgment by the Department. It is not a matter of certainty; it is a matter of judgment.
We found ourselves considering a very interesting matter indeed. We noted carefully that an initial deal for the Rover group was concluded with British Aerospace in one month. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) talked about the time that it takes to build a hospital—15 years—but the speed with which the Rover Group was sold to British Aerospace was quite breathtaking—one month.
We therefore asked the Department why it was in such a hurry to sell the company, given that it was simply the Government's wish to dispose of it within the lifetime of this Parliament. We were told that the Government took the view that, if they could end the uncertainty about the future of the Rover Group which had persisted for a considerable time, it would clearly benefit the company. Of course, they were anxious to relieve themselves at the

1447
earliest opportunity of the contingent liabilities under the Varley-Marshall-Joseph assurances, which were very substantial indeed.
The taxpayers who watched the Public Accounts Committee taking evidence at the meeting on 4 December must have been aware for the first time that those large contingent liabilities still existed and that they might have had to put their hands into their pockets once again. That did not happen, because the company was sold.
We also pressed the Department of Trade and Industry on why it did not opt for a public flotation to test the market. That had been done before. We were told that, after extensive analysis, it had concluded that it was not a viable prospect and that trying to sell the shares on the open market was not really a serious runner.
We looked closely at the money involved. It has been talked about a great deal in the press and on radio and television. It was not just the £150 million that British Aerospace paid for the company that interested us: it was also the assets which the company acquired in return for the £150 million and what happened to them. At the end of the day, all that added up to a net cost of £460 million to the British taxpayer, because it included a debt write-off of £469 million, further assistance in the form of regional assistance, the easing of tax restrictions and the payment of British Aerospace's costs. It also included withdrawal by British Aerospace from the Columbus project.
We had to consider whether the spending of £460 million of British taxpayers' money could be justified in the very speedy disposal of that company to British Aerospace. We had it in mind that, because the Department did not have the benefit of competition to determine a fair price, it had nothing to act as a benchmark or a valuation of the assets in negotiations with British Aerospace. The Committee was told that the aim was to assess a fair price for the company on a going concern basis, taking account of past losses, including interest of £2·7 billion, injections of public funds of £2·9 billion, and potential liabilities under the Varley-Marshall-Joseph assurances of substantially more than the £1·6 billion that I have just mentioned.
The company had achieved a profit—not a very big one —of £27·9 million before tax and interest, which it hoped to improve in subsequent years, but only at the expense of a £1·5 billion capital expenditure and restructuring programme. In looking at the episode, one must take into account those two huge figures, the £1·6 billion contingent liability and the £1·5 billion capital expenditure and restructuring programme. They are very large sums of money indeed.
Clearly. any company considering the acquisition of the Rover Group from the Government would have had to think carefully about whether the modest profits of the company would justify taking what must be considered a fairly substantial commercial risk, bearing in mind the uncertainty of the motor industry, the fact that far more cars are being produced than there are customers to buy them, and the fact that, all over Europe, Governments are supporting and propping up motor companies by subsidies of one kind or another, whereas if there were no subsidies in the free market there would undoubtedly have been a considerable rationalisation of motor manufacturing capacity some time ago.
We had to look at all those figures and try to balance them. I cannot say more than that. I cannot pre-empt any decisions that the Committee may come to in its wisdom,
1448
on which it will report to the House in due course. However, I can refer to the sale of the company's assets, which were quite substantial. I think that they amounted to about £106 million. That matter must be considered, together with the purchase price of the company.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-uncler-Lyne referred to the absence of a clawback provision, something with which we are all familiar. When an asset which belongs to the taxpayer is disposed of and it is subsequently proved that it has been disposed of at a price lower than it should have been, there is often provision for clawback. We asked why, in the case of the sale of the Rover Group, no provision had been made in the sale and purchase agreement for clawback within a prescribed period.
In reply to our questioning, the Department of Trade and Industry told us that the Government had imposed a repayment clause in relation to the main core of the Rover Group's business and on the tax losses on the company's trading, but they had not extended those arrangements to the disposal of surplus sites and the disposal of stakes in the associated companies. I should not be at all surprised if the Public Accounts Committee had more to say about that when it eventually makes its final report on this matter.
It was therefore with considerable concern that the Committee, in studying the final memorandum from the Comptroller and Auditor General, noted that the £150 million price of the Rover Group did not have to be paid until 30 March 1990. We are all familiar with the offers that are made nowadays by just about every motor company—one does not have to pay any interest for a year. We are not so familiar with such a situation when it comes to disposing of public assets, yet it appears that that is virtually what happened—the company did not have to pay until the end of March. I can only guess that there must have been some considerable arm twisting to persuade British Aerospace to buy it and for the Government to have accepted that condition.
The Committee asked why that fact had not been publicly announced. We were told that those matters were referred to in the proper place in relation to parliamentary scrutiny and control of the estimates and expenditure under various legislation. Vigilant though Members of Parliament are, it has been known that perhaps not all of them scrutinise the estimates as carefully as they should; they may therefore miss, deep within them, a fact such as that which we felt was so material to our consideration of the Rover Group. If such a sale is ever again contemplated, the date on which payment is due should be made known to the House. Hon. Members should not be left to discover it by accident from a close scrutiny of the estimates with a large magnifying glass.
The House will have to await the final chapters of this interesting episode. I believe that the Committee did a powerful job in flushing out much of the information that the public had a right to know. On this occasion, it did so with the television cameras switched on. I have subsequently met many people who are not as well informed about what we do here in Parliament as hon. Members, but who said that they found it the most fascinating investigation by a parliamentary Committee.
That greatly encouraged me. It convinced me that television has been a welcome innovation into the proceedings of the House and the Standing Committees. I hope that we shall see far more of the work of our Select

1449
Committees and our Standing Committees on television in future, because many people who cannot easily come to London to sit in the Strangers' Gallery can take a great deal of interest in what is going on. That is of considerable benefit to us, because they often send us information that we can use when questioning witnesses.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to our Chairman for the most skilful way in which he conducts our proceedings. I hope that this will not be the last such debate in which we shall hear a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), who is a wonderful colleague, and a skilful member of the Committee. I hope that we shall have another such debate before the end of this Parliament. I make the same remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), who said in passing that this might be his last such debate because he is not seeking re-election to Parliament. I shall never forget his powerful contribution in our six-month inquiry into the De Lorean affair. It was a substantial contribution to parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive.
8.22 pm
Mr. John Battle: Unlike most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I have never been a member of the Public Accounts Committee, but I believe that its work is vital to good government and to the well-being of our constituents. This collection of reports has an impact on some of the poorest of our constituents, such as those on housing benefit, pensioners and those living in rented housing. The Committee's reports should be taken seriously by all hon. Members. I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) on the presentation of the reports and their number. He said that many of the reports are lost to time, buried in filing cabinets, and that they are not linked to later reports. As a result, the recommendations are not connected and are not taken as seriously as they should be.
I shall concentrate on four of the reports—the retail prices index report, which is the 34th report of the 1989–90 Session; the report on housing benefit, which is the third report of the 1989–90 Session; the report on housing association grant and housing needs allocation which is the 27th report; and the 16th report, which deals with financial management in the national health service.
I recall that a recent Government press release used the retail prices index almost as a unique selling point because the Government were anxious to claim that, because increases in social security and pensions which are to be announced in the forthcoming uprating statement, will be set at current inflation rates—at the rate this October—the poorest pensioners and those in receipt of social security benefits will receive a bumper bonus in April. However, that relies on the crucial assumption that inflation will be reduced by then. Furthermore, the briefing failed to mention that in the previous five years the rate of inflation when the benefits were fixed in October was lower than the actual rate of inflation when the benefit payments started the following April. In other words, for five years those on pensions and benefits have, in effect, been shortchanged.
If that is seen as a strong statement of the case, I refer hon. Members to the report on the retail prices index. In paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 the Committee draws attentionton
1450
to a computer error that led to an understatement of the retail prices index in 1986 and again in 1987. As the report states, that led to
"many millions of people receiving lower pensions and benefits than they were entitled to receive."
Paragraph 32 states:
"The Government considered that the Exchequer should not benefit from the error and special compensation payments, totalling some £102 million, were made to recipients of specified pension and social security benefits. In addition, donations totalling £14 million were made to appropriate charities to reflect small underpayments to a large number of beneficiaries rather than incur disproportionate administration costs in meeting individual payments. Nevertheless, the estimated administrative cost of the compensation exercise was some £5 million."
In other words, the cost of correcting the error and of giving the money to charities was £5 million. Although the report states that it involved
"small entitlements to a large number",
we are talking about weekly amounts being deducted from people's pensions and benefits, which could have had significant effects. It meant that the poorest in our society were paying the price for that computer error.
The language of inflation is changing. We do not just have inflation now; we have "headline inflation" and the "underlying rate" of inflation. It is almost as if there is a deliberate attempt to split the concept of inflation. We have already heard proposals to take mortgages out of the retail prices index. The Public Accounts Committee report refers to that—I am glad that it recognised the difficulties of doing so. There have also been proposals to remove all housing costs from the RPI. When that proposal is advanced, it might be worth reflecting on the fact that there is a rampant rents explosion. Rents are increasing far too quickly and beyond the rate of inflation, yet we now hear that housing costs may be deducted when calculating the rate of inflation.
There have recently been proposals to ignore oil price rises when calculating inflation. It seems logical to some—perhaps to those who believe that inflation could be brought down to zero—that if everything in life that increases in price were excluded from the calculation, inflation could be reduced. The easy way of bringing down inflation is by deflating the way in which it is assessed. Of course, we need a realistic measure of the price changes in goods and services. That is basic to any assessment, whether of housing benefit payments or hospital budgets. It is essential that people know where they stand, so that budgets can be assessed in the first place. But one does not arrive at that realistic measure by manipulating inflation down because its actual rise is so deeply embarrassing to a Government who are committed to abolishing it entirely.
We are awaiting the Treasury response to that report from the Public Accounts Committee. We should look forward to it but when the new means of defining the retail prices index is brought before us we should not forget that many millions of people depend on that assessment for their pay and their pensions. It is absolutely crucial to get it right.
There is a clear link between the report on the retail prices index and the third report of the Committee on housing benefit. In the Treasury minute in response to the housing benefit report, it is more than clear that there has been enormous difficulty with housing benefits because of a mismatch between Government policies in the Department of the Environment, which deals with the whole structure of housing and rent costs, and the practice

1451
in the Department of Social Security. I quote the conclusion of the Public Accounts Committee, which appears in the Treasury minutes:
"We find it unfortunate that an important measure … of controlling Housing Benefit expenditure—the power to ask the Rent Officer to determine a fair rent for tenancies entered into before April 1989—was withdrawn. We recognise, however, that policy in this area is mainly the responsibility of the Department of the Environment."
The Treasury minute did not go on to add the conclusion of the sentence which said:
"and trust that they were aware of the considerations which were of importance to the Department of Social Security."
I remind the House that in March 1988 there were two Bills before the House on which I had the fortune or misfortune to serve in Standing Committee practically simultaneously. One was the Local Government and Housing Bill which dealt with the deregulation of rents. The other was the Social Security Bill, which dealt with fixing the formula for housing benefit repayments to local authorities. In another Treasury minute we read:
"DSS and the Department of the Environment maintain close liaison on issues such as this where their policies interact. The Government decided to repeal the power of local authorities to apply for registration of a fair rent for a regulated tenancy".
The difficulty was that the boxed thinking of the Departments meant that one Standing Committee did not know the policy measures being dealt with by the other and which were incorporated in the Bill, which later became an Act. It was pointed out at the time that simply to deregulate rents would result in housing benefits being paid on astronomically high rents. That was not regarded as a problem in the Department of the Environment Bill but the DSS had not realised the impact of deregulating rents on its budget.
When one Department does not know what the other is doing, it is crucial that such matters are ironed out for one simple reason. If there is a difference between the level of the rent and the amount of housing benefit paid to those who are means tested in order to receive assistance to pay their rent, it is crucial to know who pays the difference. Is it the tenant, who is means tested and may be on full housing benefit? If such tenants find that they get rent increases they cannot pay they may receive notice to quit and are evicted. Or must the local authority pay the difference? In that case, other local authority tenants make up the difference because the amount falls on the local authority housing budget. I am glad that at last the issue of the abolition of fair rents has been picked up and that it has been acknowledged that a space has been opened up for exploitation of housing benefit by unscrupulous landlords. The report referred to
"abuse by landlords who require tenants to pay unreasonably high rents on which benefit is then paid."
The key question of who pays the difference—the tenant or the local authority—must be answered because those entitled to full housing benefit as a result of means testing of their already low incomes should be the last people to pick up the difference.
In the report on housing association grants and housing needs and allocations we read a clear policy statement:
"Social housing is intended for those who cannot afford market prices or rents".
Again, there is a clear conflict of policy. The Government encourage market rents, which in turn undermine social housing. In practice social housing is being priced out. Even housing association housing is driven to cut costs and increase rents. Although the Treasury response cannot
1452
and has not taken account of the recent instruction from the Housing Corporation to housing associations that they must compete for housing association grants, the impact of that action will be an increase in rents.
The assessment of housing needs is the assessment that local authorities make of their local housing resources. They must assess what their area needs. The assessment is submitted to national Government. Local authorities are then given, not a grant, but permission to borrow, in order to get on with the job of providing and maintaining the housing stock in their area. The assessment is based on the general needs index. I draw attention to the report, which stresses that the index is not sufficiently locally sensitive to changing needs and improvements and developments in housing. To give a practical example, if an authority in an inner city area such as Leeds has many houses with outside toilets it is given a weighting, because the houses need to be provided with inside toilets. But if the authority improves all those houses it will be penalised in the allocation. In practice, it is better to keep the houses with outside toilets because that increases the local authority's weighting.
I am glad that the issue of the general needs index has been raised, but the key is in paragraph 14 of the report. It shows beyond a doubt that the crucial issue is that of resources. It says:
"Because resources had been too limited and the process of 'damping' operated since 1986 had limited changes in the Index scores, the Department had only used the Index in an attenuated form since 1986."
Paragraph 15 says:
"We regard it as unsatisfactory that the distribution of housing resources to local authorities has been based for so long on out-dated assessment of needs."
That focus is most welcome. Again, the emphasis must be on the general lack of resources. I accept that, as the Chairman of the Committee made clear, the reports are written in restrained language. However, there has been a deliberate reduction in local authority housing budgets of two thirds in the past 10 years. My own authority needs and has asked for £112 million for this year's programme. It will be interesting to see what response we receive in the weeks and months ahead. In the meantime, I hope that when we consider housing needs we take account of the absolute shortage of housing and the needs of people for a decent, appropriate and affordable home.
Lastly, I wish to glance at the report on the health service. In the general statement in the Treasury minute paragraph 59 says:
"The Department of Health considers it most important that health authorities should be in a sound financial position when the White Paper changes are introduced and has made elimination of deficits a priority for 1990–91 through flexible and realistic planning."
It seems that the entire response of the Treasury to the Public Accounts Committee report is based on the future projections for the White Paper. We are entitled to ask what that statement means. The Public Accounts Committee could be drastically overworked in the next few years examining health service reports precisely because of the changes in the White Paper. The issue at root is balancing the books for the deadline of next April when hospitals put forward their bids to be self-governing trusts and to opt out.
The PAC recognises the difficulties of planning using estimated pay and price inflation, which is calculated a long time in advance. The current policy that has been implemented augurs no real change in practice from the

1453
proposals in the report. For example, Leeds general infirmary—the LGI—has put in for self-governing status and it must balance its books by April. It has, however, overspent its budget for the first five months of this year and across the entire district health authority the deficit has now reached £500,000. That deficit has largely arisen from funding for Leeds general infirmary.
Unit general managers have been instructed to freeze staff appointments and to cut spending on drugs and equipment, and catering and portering services are to be reduced at Chapel Allerton and Newton Green hospitals. The director of finance has instructed that vacancies in hospital administration are not to be filled and that payments of bills are to be delayed where possible. That is precisely the opposite of the recommendation in the PAC report and the response to it by the Department of Health recorded in the Treasury minute. That minute makes it clear that where possible the payment of bills is not to be delayed. It is clear from the current budget plans and their implementation that ward closures and cuts in essential services represent the only option for Leeds general infirmary if it is to get its budget deficit under control or anywhere near balanced by next April.
The PAC report devoted a great deal of attention to condemning "crisis management". Paragraph 66 of the Treasury minute records that the Department of Health
"shares the Committee's condemnation for the crisis management measures used in the NHS; such measures are never acceptable."
Crisis management is happening now, but what of the future? The inflation estimates in the documents provided for the opting out of Leeds general infirmary and St. James's are miles from reality and the inflation figures for two areas of the same city have been estimated at between 5, 3·5 and 3 per cent. for the LGI and 7, 5·5 and 5 per cent. for St. James's for the years 1990–93. There is a real discrepancy and that is especially important when one considers that if the estimated inflation figure is not met the expected impact of the actual inflation will be provided for by
"a reduction in service levels".
Recently the Leeds Western health authority has had to pay out about £1 million in compensation. I understand that only one third of a million may be met out of the local budget, but even that will mean a reduction in local services.
The Leeds health authority budget could be balanced if land and property were sold—the houses that Leeds general infirmary owns—but site sales to balance the books cannot be the way out of crisis management in the short term. That is not an appropriate programme for an expansion of services.
I hope that, before the trust proposals are put forward, the Department of Health will seriously consider the PAC report and the Treasury minute on it. I hope that those reports will be sent to the regional health authority so that it can consider them before submitting its details. If that does not happen, the same mistakes that arose over housing benefit and the computer error and housing rents will be repeated. Despite advance warnings, we shall find that, surprise, surprise, in future years the accounts of the self-governing hospital trusts and declining health service provision will provide the bulk of the work for the PAC.
1454
I hope that the Treasury will advise the Department of Health to look carefully again at the authority's proposals before they are proceeded with.
8.43 pm
Mr. Richard Page: First, I should like to endorse all the references that have been made by the Chairman of the Committee and other Committee members to our late colleague Ian Gow. Nothing that I can say can add to what has already been said, but we have a duty to ensure that his memory never fades so that the murderous creatures who brought about his death realise that they will never be able to achieve their aims with the bomb but only through the ballot box.
I am always surprised that this debate is not better attended and not subject to greater demand by hon. Members because the material source is rich and varied, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has just illustrated. There is no danger of galloping over the same old ground for the sixth or seventh time. One should never call the speeches of hon. Members boring, but a debate on a narrower subject tends to be somewhat repetitive when the same fact is examined in a variety of different ways. Perhaps we could learn something from the Bundestag, where debates that take us six or seven hours are limited to just three hours.
I cannot compete with the long service medals that have been paraded this evening. In comparison with 20 years or so of service, my three years on the Committee makes me a relative new boy. I was, however, taken by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), who spoke of the need to examine our procedures to see how they could link with the European Court of Auditors. The work of the PAC is subject to continual review and perhaps we should examine whether there should be a closer link with European methods of examining how various Government Departments work.
In the three years that I have served on the Committee I have seen various Departments and topics come round and round—I hesitate to say, like bad pennies. One issue, however, that does not come round time and again is the retail prices index, to which the hon. Member for Leeds, West has already drawn attention. I believe that it is some 10 years since it was subject to the scrutiny of the PAC. Apart from some criticism of the methods by which some information is collated—something that can be easily put right—the PAC noted:
"The assurance of the Central Statistical Office that the basic framework of the RPI ensures an extremely robust indicator for measuring consumer price inflation."
It goes on to say, however, that it welcomes
"the consideration currently being given to the development of a statistical reliability model"
for the index and the efforts to develop
"a systematic methodology for assessing possible enhancements".
That addresses the question whether the basket of goods representative of family spending four years ago is still accurate. It also leads one to question whether there is any regional balance or shopping types that should be taken into consideration. Perhaps the RPI should be targeted relative to the group to which it is applied. The obvious example is the pensioner whose weekly basket of purchases may not be identical to that of the average family. I do not wish to say anything further, but if we use an RPI on which

1455
decisions are made, it is appropriate that it relates to the group subject to those decisions rather than being a general index that may not be accurate.
The 29th report of the PAC concerns the Customs and Excise and specifically the disposal of drug smugglers' assets. I believe that that subject illustrates that constant dripping wears away the stone, as I first raised the disposal of drug smugglers' assets through Customs and Excise in the 22nd report of 1989–90. The response then was to the effect that the Treasury was not yet persuaded of the merits of the scheme, mainly because it did not think that it would be right that the resources devoted to drug smuggling
"should depend on an unpredictable and fluctuating level of proceeds from seizures"
and we were told that the discussions were continuing.
The matter having been re-examined this year, I am glad to note that it has moved on somewhat. The response now seems to be that Treasury Ministers have agreed to a scheme by which a proportion of the sums from drug smugglers' assets could be used in the anti-drugs context. We are told that, although 13 international confiscation agreements have been made, as yet no funds are flowing from the initiative. We can only hope that such procedures will be developed with the passage of time.
I appreciate the desire of the Minister to be cautious, wanting to proceed year by year. I hope that his efforts will be successful and will help to protect the youth of the country from the trafficking scum who would destroy it.
One of the most damning reports of the year was on the Energy Efficiency Office. Any body that sets itself up with such a title is leading with its chin, and I regret to say that we found little efficiency and not much energy. The report is damning because it questions whether the Energy Efficiency Office should have been in existence for the past five or six years. No targets were set, monitoring was suspect, to say the least, and there was no co-ordination among Departments to see whether there was any relative progress or whether best practice was spreading. The situation was summed up in a sentence in paragraph 10 of the report, which said, with that typical understatment that is part of the PAC's raison d'etre:
"we question whether the Energy Efficiency Office as presently constituted and run can secure the objectives set out by the Secretary of State and achieve value for money."
I read that to mean that it has been wasting its time, and nothing that came out of the evidence convinced me to the contrary. But in the belief that hope springs eternal, the Committee added:
"We emphasise that we expect the Energy Efficiency Office to exercise close central direction and monitoring of the initiative and to provide advice to departments on best energy efficiency and practices."
That must happen if that office, which should be a vital organisation, is to have any purpose, and need exist, in the future.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred to the 31st report, entitled "Quality Control of Road and Bridge Construction", which links, in my view, with the 28th report of the previous year on the backlog of maintenance of motorways and trunk roads. Like other hon. Members, I raise the issue because of the main roads that run through our constituencies and cause grief and aggravation. My constituency is bisected by the M25, at times the largest car park in the United Kingdom. I share my constituents' anguish and aggravation because of their belief that they are paying the price for the sins of the forerunners in the Department of Transport.
1456
The saga of deferred maintenance continues. The problem was highlighted in the report of two years ago. Our last report showed more clearly that not sufficient attention had been given to design life and quality of maintenance. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), a member of the Committee exposed the lack of quality of maintenance. I recommend hon. Members in all parts of the House to read his cross-examining on page 7 of that report. He highlighted two cases, one of plinth-bearing replacements and the other of spaghetti junction, where there were impressive overruns—if one can regard any excess of expenditure of public money as impressive—of taxpayers' money.
Although sanctions are available to the Department, there is a feeling that they are being used sparingly. For example, we noted that, despite the many failures in producing the correct level of support in exercising maintenance contracts, the reliance by the Department on the sanction of banning contractors or consulting engineers from tendering had been imposed only once in recent years and that few warnings had been issued. I suggest that the Department takes a tougher line when dealing with overruns on contracts and with faulty and shoddy work.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne took issue with the Treasury minute on design life and the relevant cost of quality improvement on initial installation. I support him in that. The matter remains unresolved. I fear that the saga will continue to run as the whole question of the maintenance and repair of roads and bridges returns for consideration by our Committee.
I shall not go over that ground again, except to say that I found it remarkably callous that the Department's calculations did not take into account the heavy cost of delays incurred by the travelling public and industry. We must treat the travelling public with the correct attitude because they pay for the maintenance that in turn pays for all the jobs connected with the Department. More consideration of those who use the roads would not go amiss.
As I said, this whole debate contains a rich vein of information that need never run out in the time scale available to us. I have highlighted a few issues that are of importance and that I found interesting during the year. Other hon. Members have adduced their thoughts. I join others in expressing appreciation to our Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, for the gentle yet firm way in which he guides us. I am sorry that occasionally he finds it necessary to issue the 15–minute warning, but if he did not do so we should on many occasions not conclude our deliberations before midnight.
8.58 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Let me associate myself and my hon. Friends with the remarks made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the late Ian Gow. Ian was cruelly murdered, and I condemn unreservedly both the murder and the murderers.
The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee described Ian Gow as a valuable member of the Committee, and also referred to his hard work and wise counsel. He was an able parliamentary opponent. Following his resignation from the Government on a point of principle, he took a particular interest in Treasury

1457
matters, and was always available to bat for the Government side in our little skirmishes over taxation policies.
I shall miss Ian's contributions to Treasury debates very much. I found out that, as well as being a tough and formidable opponent, he was—as has already been said —a very kind and a very nice man. We are diminished by his death, and also by the manner of it.
I welcome the Financial Secretary to his new job. I hope that he is not offended by the level of attendance tonight; it is actually quite good for the concluding stages of a Public Accounts Committee debate, and I am sure that that is a tribute to him. We have all come to hear his debut from the Treasury Front Bench. I welcome him on behalf of the Opposition, and look forward to hearing his contribution later.
Let me also express my thanks to the Committee for its work, as I have done in the last three Public Accounts Committee debates in which I have replied for the Opposition. I especially thank the Chairman of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). The PAC is a hard-working Committee, but it is kept going by his diligence and enthusiasm as Chairman: that is very much appreciated. We also appreciate his approach to the work of the Committee—work that is considered, reflective and courteous, and brings about the unanimity that is so important to the integrity and power that the Committee's reports carry.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on having got his hands on the Committee's papers, and also on being the only non-member of the Committee to take part in this debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about David Trimble?"] It seems that I am mistaken: the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is also to be congratulated.
It was quite difficult to obtain copies of the Committee papers during the summer. While I realise that Committee members are familiar with them, if they were more easily available to those who do not serve on the Committee, perhaps other hon. Members would be more likely to take part in our debates. I rather agree with the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page): if more hon. Members realised what a seam there is to tap, there might be a better attendance and a broader range of contributions.
I was sorry to learn that the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) is retiring at the next general election; I wish him well in his retirement. He has been a regular contributor to our debates in this Parliament, and, if he is here for the next debate, I shall be able to wish him well again.
The Chairman described the Committee as a kind of "training scheme" for Labour Members from the 1983–87 intake who have gone on to take starring roles in our Front-Bench team. I am now something of an old lag: this is my fourth year of responding to these debates, and my third Financial Secretary. I do not think that I am wearing them down, as they have all gone on to greater things, and I am sure that the new one will as well.
There are certain recurring themes in these debates. The Ministry of Defence figures prominently this year, as it has previously; so do the affairs of Northern Ireland. The issue
1458
of fraud is perhaps not quite as prominent as it was in the previous two years, but it nevertheless features in some of the reports.
There are two further issues that are defined not by Department or by type, but in a more general way. The first is the issue of public expenditure foolishly forgone, which is dealt with in several reports. I am trying to introduce the word "Lamontable" into the English language to describe such public expenditure foollishly forgone, and I shall continue to do so. The word has not been taken up yet but, with grit and determination, I shall manage to get it into the dictionary.
The other feature which becomes all too clear from the reports is implementation of Government policy clashing with the best interests of the public purse. That is especially noticeable in the reports dealing with privatisation.
First, I shall deal with the report on matters relating to Northern Ireland. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee took us all back when he referred to the report on the De Lorean affair. He then invited us to get inside one of those De Loreans and go "Back to the Future", to examine similar affairs.
Reference was made to the paving stone accident claims in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members may recall that there was a time when just about every house in Belfast seemed to contain someone who had fallen down and had a claim against the state for injuring their knees. The previous Public Accounts Committee report dealing with social security matters in the Province could have been mentioned. That report set out the problems clearly, but conclusions seemed to be a little further away. I notice that the Treasury response to that report was not very encouraging either.
Other issues that the Public Accounts Committee will have to consider in future will certainly include progress on the AOR1 contract, compared with the original promises made.
The hon. Member for Scarborough referred to the land registry in Northern Ireland, which failed to put up the fees to cover its costs. That is a simple problem, but it should have been picked up long before it was.
Another report before us today deals with plants and with microfilm. Although the sum of money involved is not vast when compared to sums mentioned in other reports, the word "astonished" is used—and that is strong language from the Public Accounts Committee.
When studying all these issues, I found a key theme —it is supervision: checking and monitoring and intense and continuing audit. I suspect that that is not as easy to achieve in Northern Ireland as it is to say in a debate. I strongly support the hon. Member for Scarborough, who said that the tests that we apply to Northern Ireland should be no different from those we apply elsewhere in Britain. That is right but it is not easy, and the House should be aware of the difficulties while we keep that purpose firmly in front of us.
Before leaving the subject of Northern Ireland, it is worth referring briefly to the 30th report of the Public Accounts Committee about collection of the broadcast receiving licence fee—the BBC TV licence. It says:
"We are very concerned at the current level of licence evasion and regard it as unacceptable."
I suspect that that was also said back in 1985. The report goes on to point out:

1459
"We note that, although only some I million households have black and white televisions 1·8 million monochrome licences were issued last year."
That fact caught my attention and I am sure that of other hon. Members. What conclusions are we to draw from it? The Public Accounts Committee drew the obvious conclusion. When I read through that report I was reminded of the debate that we had earlier about the road fund licence and its collection. It said that the penalty for non-payment is less severe than paying the licence fee. We have been told that events have not moved on since the Public Accounts Committee last considered the matter. We seem to be getting stuck. 1 hope that the Committee will not come forward in the next Parliament, or three years into it, and tell us that it is worried about the level of licence evasion and regards it as unacceptable.
There must be a response to these licence issues, whether it be the road fund licence or the BBC's television licence, that goes further than letting the problem drift and noting that it is still a problem in two or three years' time. The problem is not unrelated to the problems in Northern Ireland, where the level of evasion is substantially higher than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The most important report before us is the Public Accounts Committee's sixth report on the sale of Rover Group plc to British Aerospace plc. Both the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that this is an interim report which poses questions; it does not reach definitive conclusions about them. I fully accept that the Public Accounts Committee has more work to do. Nevertheless, they are powerful questions and to some extent almost lead to their own conclusions. Good and plausible answers will have to be given to them. The hon. Member for Uxbridge did his best to provide them in his speech.
The questions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, rightly raised were: why not accept competition in order to obtain the best price? There is a departmental response to that question, although how convincing the Committee finds it will be a matter for further consideration. The Department needs to justify its policy of exclusivity.
My right hon. Friend also asked what evidence there was that the public option would be damaging and why the other offers were not followed up in a closed competition. The Department said that competitive tendering involves risk. That is not the line that Conservative Governments usually adopt. Normally we are told that competitive tendering is good and that it should be embraced rather than thoroughly avoided, as it was in this case.
A number of other questions were asked. Since the Department did not have the benefit of competition to determine a fair price, the Committee asked why it did not carry out an evaluation of all the assets of the company. That was a fair question, and there was a response to it. The Public Accounts Committee will have to consider carefully precisely what assessment to make of that response.
A number of other questions fall into the same category. The Public Accounts Committee asked the Department why it was prepared to accept a settlement that the European Commission showed it was possible to improve. It asked the Department why it had based all its negotiations on profit forecasts at the lower end of the
1460
Rover Group's profit forecasts when the company was forecasting a range of profits in 1988 of between £37·5 million and £65 million. The Committee also asked about the Rover Group's stakes in nine associated companies.
A question that in particular caught my eye was the one which was put to the chairman of Barings. He was asked to explain the disparity between his company's evaluation of Istel at £8 million to £10 million and the fact that it was disposed of shortly after the sale for £39 million.
The Committee also asked the Department why it had not sold off the surplus land that was not connected with making motor cars before the Rover Group was put up for sale. The Department told the PAC that, at the time of the sale, there was only one such site—Bathgate—and that that remained the case. In subsequent written evidence, the Department confirmed that it had been aware of moves to close down a further three sites in time.
The Department told the PAC that it did not carry out an evaluation of the Rover Group's shares in these companies early in 1988 when British Aerospace made its initial offer for the company. The Department was unable to put a precise figure on the value to British Aerospace of the Rover Group's tax benefits—a significant issue.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the fact that, in the case of the sale of the Rover Group, no provision was made for the Government to claw back from British Aerospace within a prescribed period some part of any unforeseen financial benefits accruing from the sale of surplus sites or shareholdings, or the use of tax benefits.
The hon Member for Uxbridge referred to the date for final payment. He seemed to take that particularly seriously, and I share his view. The Public Accounts Committee asked the Department why it had not been announced publicly. The replies that the Department is giving to that and other questions relating to our relationship with the European Community do not show our country in a very good light. The Public Accounts Committee inquired why details of the additional £38 million were not reported to the European Commission. The Department replied that it thought it better not to draw attention to them at the time, since it did not want to take the risk of reopening the deal.
Anything that gives our Common Market partners misgivings about the way in which we conduct public administration is to be deplored. I seem to remember saying this to the hon. Member for Uxbridge last year, but, while I do not want to pre-empt the eventual findings of the Public Accounts Committee, there is clearly enormous cause for concern. I look forward with considerable interest to the outcome.
On the question of land sales and the valuation of assets, I must say that the Department could have been warned by the previous inquiry that the Public Accounts Committee carried out, into the sale, again to British Aerospace, of the royal ordnance factories. In its 13th report, the Committee concluded:
"Nevertheless, we consider that the Department might have been in a better position to evaluate the bids received if they had: (a) carried out a further revaluation as at about December 1986; (b) invited bids for the Company both with and without a clawback provision; (c) obtained an estimate of potential development values, particularly for Waltham Abbey and Enfield".
It is bad enough for the issues to appear in the sale of the Royal Ordnance factories. To have those aspects reappear in a further privatisation exercise will take a great deal of defending before the Committee.

1461
In an effort to get the word "Lamontable" into the English language—it is a worthy cause, which I am sure has the wholehearted support of the House—I turn to the 31st report of the Public Accounts Committee, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) referred. As he said, it is not simply a matter of inconvenience to road users when they find that the road or bridge on which they are travelling is taken up for maintenance. There are enormous costs for industry, not least the cost of lorry drivers who are on fixed time and are being delayed. As my right hon. Friend said, the whole thing is unnecessary. As he pointed out, the Treasury minute dealing with premature corrosion is almost Sir Humphrey Appleby "Yes Minister" stuff.
One of the advantages of having had to respond for the Opposition every year for four years is that I was able to consider the report alongside an earlier report on the maintenance and construction of motorways. The Department of Transport will have to take seriously the conclusions of the Public Accounts Committee's reports. In paragraph 2(iii), the Public Accounts Committee says:
"We are concerned that since there has been little systematic investigation of the causes and costs of premature maintenance, the Department may not be in a position to take full account of unforeseen repairs and premature maintenance in their cost benefit analysis or in setting standards for road construction."
That is extraordinarily serious. We heard something similar to that when we were considering the motorway programme. I hope that that is taken seriously in both the Department of Transport and the Treasury. It surely represents public expenditure that should have been made to avoid substantially greater sums of public expenditure later.
Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West referred to the report on financial problems at universities, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) made an important point when he said that this report echoes an earlier report and referred to the gap between May 1988 and February 1990. It is not sufficient to know what is going wrong; we must address it and put it right. The tributes that were paid to those who are currently struggling with the problems at University college, Cardiff, were justified. Efforts are being made to respond to the specific problems that the report outlined.
A report that struck a chord with me because it related to an earlier report was the one on the Metropolitan police estate. Two years ago, one of the most horrific Public Accounts Committee reports that I have seen was produced on the financing of the Metropolitan police. The current report complements that earlier investigation. The Public Accounts Committee said:
"We consider that the poor condition of the Metropolitan Police's operational estate is unacceptable, and that this almost certainly hinders efficiency and effectiveness."
That comment was made at a time when public concern about crime was rising substantially, as is crime itself.
The report continues:
"We are not satisfied that even within the funds available, effective management of the estate has been given the care and attention it clearly requires … We endorse the Metropolitan Police's acceptance of the fact that, though cutting back on maintenance seems an immediate, easy option, it is in the long term a damaging and expensive one."
1462
That is a message that I try to convey to the Department of Transport; it is certainly right in this context.
The report continues:
"We are concerned that the Metropolitan Police have over the years built up an extensive land bank of valuable sites without having determined a clear strategy and timetable for bringing them into use."
The Government's response to that and further points made in the report is to accept most of the Public Accounts Committee's findings and say that all will be put right when money is available. Money will have to be made available, or substantially higher sums will have to be made available later. Again, a little public expenditure that is forgone now will cost the public purse much more later.
Mr. Shersby: The report of the Metropolitan police estate was of considerable interest—I declare my interest as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. It has resulted in several sites that were held by the Metropolitan police estate either being developed for the purpose for which they were originally intended or being disposed of as part of a disposal programme. There are too many rundown police stations in London that need urgent attention, and money realised as a result of sales can be used for that purpose.
It might amuse the hon. Gentleman that, on one famous occasion, two members of staff were standing in the window of the National Audit Office. One said to the other, "I wonder who owns that site across the road." They decided to find out and discovered that it was owned by the Metropolitan police and that it was being used as a car park. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that it will be redeveloped as the new Gerald road police station, the purpose for which it was originally intended.
Mr. Brown: That is pleasing news. It is particularly pleasing that proceeds from the sale of those sites can be used to improve police stations or to develop other police stations. That is an obvious answer to the problem, but it is not one that obtains throughout public administration, as any councillor could tell the hon. Gentleman.
As it is "after eight", I shall briefly consider the report on the Royal Mint. I was much taken by this report because I originally thought that the idea was pretty daft. The report tells us:
"In 1987 the Mint launched the Britannia gold coin, which they expected to make a major contribution to their sales and profits. However, they significantly overestimated the demand for it and, despite advertising and promotion expenditure of over £3·5 million, it produced a profit of only £100,000 on sales of £63–64 million in 1987–88. We therefore asked the Mint why they had embarked on this enterprise."
That seems a fair question. The answer is in the following paragraph:
"We were told that it was a Ministerial decision taken in the early part of 1987".
In other words, this was some daft idea of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). It might have had a better chance of success if the right hon. Gentleman had not gone on to slap VAT on gold coins and if there had not been a fall in the price of gold which reduced the bullion market overnight. These are the people to whom we entrust the management of the economy!
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Since then, it has become clear that the statement that we received from the Department concerned was in error about VAT. VAT had changed some years before.
Mr. Brown: That spoils what was otherwise quite a good shot. Never mind, the principle remains true—the idea was daft. Better care should be taken in weighing up the commercial prospects of these ventures before embarking on them, regardless of when VAT was imposed.
The last report to which I want to refer is of particular sadness to me. In the last Parliament, I served my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) as his deputy in the Labour party's legal affairs team. That duty brought me to serve on the Committee on the Prosecution of Offences Bill which set up the Crown prosecution service. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will perhaps remember all that fairly well. I think that he was involved at some stage, although I cannot remember whether he was on the Committee.
The Crown prosecution service was set up in a bipartisan spirit. It was approved by both sides of the House. We all made speeches wishing it and the Bill well. Although there were questions we wanted to ask and points we wanted to explore with the Government, the Bill's passage was not unduly obstructed. However, the Opposition were worried about rates of pay for solicitors who were to work in the service. We felt that the Government had underestimated the costs of staffing and were underfunding the service. We expressed particular concern about the way in which the relationship between chief police officers and the Crown prosecution service would develop.
All those points have been picked up by the Public Accounts Committee. It saddens me that aspects that we thought would go wrong have gone wrong. The report states:
"We are disturbed at the very high cost of employing agent lawyers, especially where their performance has been less satisfactory".
We hoped that staff of the Crown prosecution service would be wholly in-house and that it would not be necessary to employ agent lawyers, except in special circumstances.
The report continues:
"We were concerned to learn that, despite the steps taken to establish effective liaison between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police, consultation and feedback were still being hindered by inadequate communication and, in the view of the Crown Prosecution Service, the late delivery of files from the police."
It was always important for the functioning of the new Crown prosecution service that the service and the police helped each other and understood the new relationship that was supposed to exist between the two. Clearly, that has not worked out as well as the Government and the Opposition hoped.
The Public Accounts Committee continues:
"We are disturbed at the large proportion of discontinued cases which were not dropped until the court hearing."
The cost of that must be substantial. Clearly, it is up to the Crown prosecution service, to the police and to the court authorities to co-operate to ensure that there is a substantial reduction of such cases. I wholeheartedly endorse that recommendation by the Committee, which also says:
"We were disappointed to learn that the Crown Prosecution Service had failed to secure the improved standard of case preparation it was expected to achieve over previous prosecution arrangements."
1464
Perhaps the most serious and worrying point in the report is when the Committee says that the estimates have proved to be far too low. It says:
"Nevertheless, we are concerned that the estimates proved to be far too low and that the Service appears to be costing almost twice as much as the previous prosecution arrangements, with a staff requirement practically double the size originally envisaged. In these circumstances we find it surprising that, more than two and a half years after becoming operational, the service has not fully met the initial objectives set by the Government mainly because it still did not have enough staff."
The Public Accounts Committee is exploring a worrying point there.
The duty of replying on such matters in the House falls to the Attorney-General, although, of course, the Crown prosecution service is still administered from the Lord Chancellor's Department. I hope that heed is taken of the report. The whole House wishes the Crown prosecution service well, but we want our wishes to be put into effect and not undermined, as seems to be happening.
I want again to express our wholehearted gratitude to the Committee for the substantial time that it has put into examining these matters on our behalf. I reiterate our thanks to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for his leadership, and for the sense of direction and of unity of purpose with which he provides his fellow Committee members.
9.31 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): I join all those who have paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) for the distinguished chairmanship that he has brought to the Committee over the past seven years. Several members of the Public Accounts Committee and others have said that the role of the Committee may never have been more important. I have no doubt that that owes a great deal to the objective and determined way in which the right hon. Gentleman conducts his business. The whole House owes him a debt of gratitude for the work that he leads in that way.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the high turnover of members of the Public Accounts Committee—especially of Opposition Members—and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) referred to the high turnover of Financial Secretaries. He seems to have accounted for three so far in the course of the four debates in which he has taken part. I look forward to taking part in a great many more of these debates as Financial Secretary. I enjoyed this debate because it demonstrated how seriously the members of the Public Accounts Committee take their work and it emphasised the importance of that work.
There is one former member of the Public Accounts Committee whose absence tonight is conspicuous and tragic. I refer, of course, to our friend Ian Gow. I was proud to count him a friend and a colleague. He leaves a gap in our hearts that can never be filled.
My hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) predicted—I do not know whether gloomily or otherwise—that this debate may be their valedictory occasion as members of the Public Accounts Committee speaking in such a debate. The House owes both of them a debt of gratitude for their work. They have been distinguished members of the Committee and have brought to it great

1465
clarity of mind and expertise. I know that the Committee will miss that. I was going to say, "we". I believe that I am now a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I hope that I may be forgiven for not yet having appeared at a sitting as I became a member of it only on Tuesday of this week. I believe that I have a respectable alibi.
All Ministers, particularly Treasury Ministers, are conscious of the need to ensure propriety and value for money in the spending of taxpayers' money. The Public Accounts Committee has an exceptionally important role to play in both those areas. In the area of propriety and regularity, it is rightly concerned to ensure that the funds that the House votes to the Executive are spent only for the purposes that the House has authorised and are properly accounted for.
On value for money, it has been a major objective of the Government since they came to power to improve the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of public spending. In that respect also, the Government and the Public Accounts Committee have common objectives. The financial management initiative launched in 1982 is a continuing programme to promote efficiency and value for money by placing responsibility as far as possible at the level where operations and activities are managed and delivered. It therefore seeks to provide managers with a framework of objectives of output and performance measures, cost information, training and expert advice. Within that framework, managers are responsible for making the best use of resources and achieving the greatest value for money.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred in particular to six reports and I shall deal first with Northern Ireland and the nursery and the microfilming contract. All who have spoken recognise that the Housing Executive carries out a substantial and successful housing programme, sometimes in exceptionally difficult circumstances. But the Committee's criticisms were clear and stark and have been accepted. Remedial steps have been taken to ensure that nothing similar happens in future. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was unusual for the Committee to express its astonishment. I concede that astonishment registers high on the Committee's Richter scale. If I may say so, the words were not misused. The Government accept that there were important lessons to be learnt from that episode and I assure the House and the Committee that they have been learnt.
The second report referred to by the right hon. Gentleman related to the financial problems at universities, particularly at University college, Cardiff. The circumstances that led to the Department of Education and Science's intervention in the affairs of University college, Cardiff, were exceptional. Mismanagement by senior college staff put the institution in severe financial difficulties with an increasingly great deficit. As the Committee's first report acknowledged, when the Department had incontrovertible evidence in late 1985 of those exceptional circumstances from the then University Grants Committee, decisive action to remedy that was instigated.
It became clear that the only route to effective survival was the merger, which I understand had been long mooted with the University of Wales Institute of Science and
1466
Technology. That merger took place in 1989. It was supported by some extra funds, but subject to stringent conditions, to ensure a fresh start. Of the £11 million new funds, £4·4 million was in the form of a repayable grant to be repaid by the new institution using its best endeavours to sell surplus assets and by the recovery of certain other sums. The new institution has made a good start from difficult origins. To date, some £1 million of that £4·4 million loan has been repaid to the Exchequer.
Since the education reforms, monitoring has been undertaken by the Universities Funding Council and there have been several key changes. The lines of accountability have been clarified. The UFC has its own accounting officer and its relations with the universities are governed by financial memoranda. Universities are required to provide appropriate financial monitoring data and, in any case, now have a standard format for their accounts. The UFC has strengthened its financial expertise, including the establishment of an internal audit unit, to scrutinise all of those. In the unlikely event of another institution beginning to suffer the same kind of mismanagement, the UFC should be able to detect that quickly and act appropriately. However, under the Education Reform Act 1988, its powers of intervention are not unfettered. Parliament insisted that proper allowance should be made for the autonomy of universities.
I want now to consider the sixth interim report on the sale of Rover Group to British Aerospace. I have no doubt that the Government acted wholly in the national interest by conducting that sale. I also have no doubt that it was carried out in a correct, defensible and justifiable way.
The sale fulfilled our objective of privatising the company within the lifetime of the current Parliament. It was our aim to relieve the taxpayer of the liability represented by the Varley-Marshall-Joseph assurances, which at the end of March 1988 were estimated at £1·6 billion and which were set to increase substantially. It was our aim to achieve that sale on the best possible terms and to achieve a clean break that would protect from further risk the taxpayer who had, it is worth remembering, already contributed some £2·9 billion to Rover Group.
We also aimed to achieve privatisation without exposing Rover Group to the uncertainty to which it had proved so vulnerable in the past. All our objectives have been achieved and, most importantly, Rover Group is now flourishing in the private sector. It has committed £500 million of new capital investment. Its new range of models has been highly successful and, with the introduction of three-shift working at Longbridge, record productivity levels have been attained. The contrast with British Leyland's miserable and depressing history in the public sector could hardly be sharper.
Mr. Terry Davis: Is not it true that Rover Group was already making substantial profits when it was publicly owned?
Mr. Maude: It was making a very modest operating profit, but that took no account of the wider financial circumstances, which were still pretty dire.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred particularly to price and exclusivity. It is worth pointing out that Rover Group was sold for £150 million and one of the conditions of sale was the implementation

1467
of the corporate plan involving £1·6 billion of new capital investment and the undertaking that no further public assistance would be given to the group.
Exclusive negotiating rights were therefore granted to British Aerospace and the reason for that exclusivity was perfectly clear. Competitive bidding would almost certainly have given rise to political controversy which, we must remember, had previously been extremely damaging to the commercial prospects of Rover Group. It would have undermined the realisable value of the business and put the broader objectives seriously at risk. The European Commission decided that £150 million was a reasonable purchase price for the company and that the granting of exclusive negotiating rights to British Aerospace had been justified. I have no doubt that the terms of sale represented the best that could realistically have been achieved.
When talking about clawback, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne made a good point. He said that there is a difference between public and private money. I cannot remember his precise words, but I shall check on them because they expressed a good deal of truth. Broadly speaking, he said that one should not take risks with public money and that is precisely the point about the exclusivity. He went on to say, I think, that one should not take risks even if that means that one might receive slightly less as a result. That is the whole point about the exclusivity. We had been through the unhappy episode of a possible sale to Ford and General Motors, with all the uncertainty and the political controversy, which, if I may say so, was prompted to a large extent by Opposition Members, and which had caused serious damage to British Leyland as the group was then known. It was perfectly justifiable, in the interests of the taxpayer and of the company, to avoid such controversy being renewed.
Over recent years, the PAC has taken a close interest in the privatisation of royal ordnance factories. We welcome that interest. It is right that, when public companies are privatised, the Committee should consider whether a fair return has been obtained for the taxpayer. I particularly welcome the Committee's 13th report. Its considered conclusions about the sale provide a welcome corrective to the more sensational claims that appeared in the media.
The company was sold as a going concern after a wide-ranging and open bidding competition. We are confident that the price that we received was a true reflection of its market value. Not one of the major commercial companies involved in the bidding thought it worth paying more than that for the company with all its assets and liabilities.
I now refer to the 16th report on financial management in the national health service. Like management as a whole in the NHS, financial management is now focused on implementing the recent reforms. The Committee's observations about financial management in the NHS have been at the forefront of planning for the reformed NHS. The reforms will demand sharply improved financial management. That requirement has been a feature of all aspects of their implementation. An upgraded system of financial planning and monitoring is being put in place, supported by a substantial investment of time and effort in staff training.
A principal objective of the new systems is to provide the means to ensure that health authorities keep in financial balance in the new competitive environment. An NHS that has its finances in balance will not seek to fund its activities at the expense of creditors. The monitoring of
1468
efficiency savings is part of the financial monitoring package. An objective of the reforms is to achieve better value for money. Continued pursuit and achievement of efficiency savings will play an important part in securing that goal.
Good financial management in the NHS requires the commitment of all managers from the management executive down, a clear expression from the top of the priority of such financial management, translation of that commitment and priority into systems that will support management in that task, and the recruitment, retention and training of suitable staff to operate the systems.
Mr. Michael Morris: My hon. Friend will be aware that in the recommendations is the poignant point that the health service has previously been a bad payer, particularly in relation to small businesses. May we have an assurance that, in respect of the Treasury, in the difficult financial climate at the moment, when a level playing field is supposed to be achieved, it will not be to the disadvantage of suppliers to the health service?
Mr. Maude: We should certainly expect it not to be such a problem in future.
I now refer to the value of the land and concern about whether the NHS knew of the value of its estate. One of the reforms to be introduced from April next year is capital charges intended to make the NHS take account of the value of its capital assets. As part of the preparation for the introduction of capital charges, all district health authorities have had to draw up asset registers recording the value of their land and other capital assets. The land has been valued by district valuers.
I now refer to the last report—the 31st report—on road and bridge construction. I first deal with the Chairman's point about delay in the most recent Treasury minute. It was laid before the House, and copies were provided for members of the Committee on Monday of this week, on the first day after the recess. As a newcomer, I understand that it is the long-standing practice not to issue Treasury minutes responding to Committee reports during the recess. I am sorry if the rather earlier timing of the debate after the recess has caused a difficulty.
There was criticism of maintenance being carried out earlier than forecast at the time of construction. There are three important general points to make about this premature maintenance. Premature maintenance costs are very small in relation to the cost of construction, and simply spending more money on the construction does not necessarily avoid premature maintenance.
Civil engineering, of course, inevitably involves risks. The bulk of premature maintenance referred to in the report was caused by factors that were unforseeable or uncertain at the time of construction. We do not knowingly or avoidably build defective roads and bridges.
A certain amount of action was taken in any event before the PAC report was published. Standards, specifications, materials and techniques were kept under constant review and improvements were regularly introduced when justified. A good deal of action has been taken since the publication of the report, including the introduction of an improved computerised reporting system for all defects and all premature maintenance, concentrating on the few cases where there is substantial evidence of significant failure, by consulting engineers or contractors to obtain all costs that are legally recoverable.

1469
An independent consultant was appointed to carry out a wide-ranging review of the means of redress of poor supervision and workmanship, including the use of sanctions.
Certainly problems have arisen after constructing some sections of modern trunk roads and bridges, but many of the problems identified by the Committee will not recur. We must not overlook the fact that maintenance of many roads and bridges is completely trouble-free. Government constantly strive to secure better value from the huge current investment in the roads programme. To meet the demands of modern traffic flows, we work at the frontier of engineering knowledge. New materials and techniques normally still offer significant net benefits, even after allowing for premature maintenance.
This has been a useful debate in focusing attention on the valuable work of the PAC. I should like to pay a final tribute to the work of the Committee and to that of the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the National Audit Office for its essential support. I thank all members of the Committee who have spoken in the debate and the two gallant hon. Members who are not members of the Committee but who have also made valuable speeches.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the 34th to 41st Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1988–89, of the 1st to 32nd Reports of Session 1989–90, and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda on those Reports (Cm. 963, 964, 1057, 1101, 1150, 1235 and 1247) with particular reference to the following Reports:
1988–89
Thirty-sixth, Further matters relating to Northern Ireland;
1989–90
First, Financial problems at universities;
Sixth, Sale of Rover Group to British Aerospace plc;
Thirteenth, Ministry of Defence: Further examination of the Sale of Royal Ordnance plc;
Sixteenth, Financial Management in the National Health Service;
Thirty-first, Quality control of road and bridge construction.

Mecca Tunnel Disaster
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
9.52 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I wish to raise in this brief Adjournment debate a subject which is probably the saddest constituency case that I have raised in my 17 years' membership of the House.
On 2 July there was a widely reported disaster at Mecca involving religious pilgrims in a pedestrian tunnel. The first reports that I saw—I have since checked them—indicated that up to 100 people had died, but this figure climbed within a day to well over 1,400.
King Fahd of Saudi Arabia caused additional news coverage of the disaster by his remark that the disaster was "God's will" and
"had the victims not died in the tunnel they would have died elsewhere at the same predestined moment".
The Saudi authorities were quoted on 3 July as saying, "Everything is under control". That statement can be taken several ways, but that is not the purpose of this debate and neither can I go into the reasons for the disaster. What I want to raise is the involvement of British citizens as victims—injured or missing—in the disaster. Given the nature of the pilgrimage, it is clear that other nationalities must likewise be affected.
On the evening of 20 September, I was contacted by my constituent, 17-year-old Zubia Waheed, on behalf of her family. The following day I met Zubia and learned that she and her five brothers and sisters aged between four and 13 had not heard from their mother and father since 2 July. Their parents are British citizens, Mr. Abdul Whaid Khan and his wife, Mrs. Munawar Sultana. The couple had arrived for the pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia on 19 June and were due back home on 23 July. They had telephoned home virtually every day since their arrival to make sure that things were okay. However, since 2 July their names have not appeared on any list of the dead or injured.
They have not been located in any of the hospitals. Furthermore, they have not been identified or located by friends and relatives from photographs taken of the victims. Relatives of the family have travelled from Pakistan to check the photographs in Saudi Arabia because friends of the family living in the United Kingdom have been refused visas to visit Saudi Arabia to check for themselves.
The only figure that I have seen for the number of victims is 1,426 but more than 3,500 photographs of victims have been checked to try to trace the couple. I understand that the counting stopped at 3,500. There were still more photographs to count, although all the photographs had been checked. Last Friday I was given a similar figure for the number of victims by a friend in Birmingham. He was the leader of a group of pilgrims in Saudi Arabia at the same time. He told me that it was common knowledge that over 3,000 people died in the tunnel disaster.
I have met my young constituent Zubia on three occasions. She is a credit to her parents and to the youth of this country—a view shared by every member of the statutory authorities that have come into contact with the young lady in recent weeks. She has given up her course at

1471
the local college to look after the other children. But they all, including Zubia, have two simple questions—"Where are mum and dad? When are they coming back?"
Within an hour of my first meeting with the family I telephoned the Foreign Office. Like many people, I remember the press reports of the disaster in July. After that there was nothing at all. There was no reason to suppose that British citizens had been involved. There had been no press reports and no investigations. When I telephoned the Foreign Office and said who I was and that I was telephoning about the Mecca tunnel disaster, Jacqueline Walder of the consular section told me who I was phoning about. She told me the names of my constituents before I gave them. That indicated clearly to me that the Foreign Office staff in London were on top of the matter. The issue was clearly on the desk. Obviously, the family and friends of my constituents had been in contact with the Foreign Office before approaching me in September. That must be contrasted with the attitude of the Saudi Arabian authorities, particularly the Saudi embassy in London. It was asked by The Independent newspaper on 5 October about the disaster and the questions that obviously flow about the dead and injured were put to it. The response from the press office of the Saudi embassy was
"God, what's brought this back?"
I believe, as would anyone who read the article, that the matter should never have gone away in the first place. It is clear that there are disputes about the number of victims and that people cannot be accounted for and are missing.
I have subsequently discovered that several other British citizens were involved in the disaster. I presume that the Minister will give us the latest available figures. I have spoken to people in other parts of the country. I spoke at the weekend to Mrs. Shamin, of Nelson in Lancashire, whose husband Mr. Nadir Ali Khan, a British citizen, also disappeared on 2 July without trace. She was with her husband on the pilgrimage but she was not with him that day because her health is not good. She remained behind for several weeks in Saudi Arabia to search for her husband. She also, bless her, came across friends of my constituents and arranged for photographs of Zubia's parents to be sent out to her so that she could look among the photographs when she was searching for her husband—also to no avail.
I contacted the Saudi embassy in London on Monday morning to inform it as a matter of courtesy that I intended to raise this issue tonight. In my letter, I gave an indication of the type of questions that I expected the Minister to be able to answer. What was the final death toll? Given that there were between 4,000 and 5,000 people in the tunnel and having seen the photographs, it is inconceivable that all the injured survived, but no figure beyond the first published has ever been given. How many of the dead and injured were British citizens? Above all, why are some British citizens totally unaccounted for? I told the embassy that Zubia and her brothers and sisters had received no help from the Saudi Government and that they had convinced themselves that their parents are alive.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
Mr. Rooker: Zubia and her brothers are convinced that their parents are alive and held in some kind of camp or in slavery. In recent months they have spent a small fortune telephoning the authorities in Saudi Arabia.
The fears of Zubia and her brothers are backed up by a known case of another citizen of Birmingham who went on a pilgrimage last year but could not get back to this country until this year. A woman in another part of Birmingham—not in my constituency—was forced to skivvy in a hotel for several months to make ends meet. The local community in Birmingham knows about such cases and thus there are great fears when people go missing.
I told the ambassador that I am not a diplomat but that my job is to push the case of my constituent as hard as I can so that the Foreign Office tells the Saudi Government that this problem must be settled. I told the ambassador that the lack of information from his Government is bound to give rise to fears in this country that Saudis believe that human life is cheap—one might say too cheap to count.
The Saudi Government have contributed to the lack of reporting by the media of the consequences of the disaster, its aftermath and its effect on the families because they do not allow journalists in to make inquiries. Journalists who asked questions after the disaster were thrown out.
People of Birmingham who visit Saudi Arabia regularly are of the opinion that the Saudi Government are incompetent and arrogant when dealing with visitors. It is certain that no Saudi Member of Parliament will raise this matter in the Saudi Parliament.
We also need to know what inquiries and investigations have taken place inside Saudi Arabia. Where were the dead and injured taken? Has the Foreign Office sent any formal notes to the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs? Has the ambassador in London been called to the Foreign Office to try to explain why British citizens are unaccounted for? It is also reasonable to ask whether our Government have had any contact with any other Governments whose citizens were similarly affected. The nature of the pilgrimages means that millions visit the holy places and, by and large, they are not citizens of Saudi Arabia, but come from all over the world.
It is now virtually on record that British citizens died in the disaster. Their families grieve and we grieve with them, but other British citizens have disappeared without trace. What are their families supposed to do? What of the future? What about documentation and compensation? The facts about what happenened to those citizens are crucial to their relatives so that they are able to live in the future.
Many other natural practical questions come to mind about the circumstances of the six children in my constituency. I do not want to raise the questions in public, but I put on record my grateful thanks for the speed and care with which the statutory authorities responded once alerted to the situation.
I cannot accept that constituents of mine and of other hon. Members—I am referring to British citizens—can simply disappear in an allied and friendly country such as that. The tunnel disaster of July 2 occurred a clear month before the invasion of Kuwait. While the invasion has, of course, put extra pressure on Government arrangements there, that is no excuse for inaction, delay and lack of response.

1473
I appreciate—one could not have been in public life and a Member of the House for nearly 17 years without appreciating—that Britain gives the Saudi Government the kid glove treatment on many issues. But I warn that grave offence will be caused to, and taken by, British citizens if we do not receive information and knowledge about what happened to our citizens in that country.
I hope that the Foreign Office has made that abundantly clear to the Saudi authorities. British citizens carrying British passports rely when the chips are down on those famous words on the inside cover of the passport. If those words are to have any meaning, the Saudi Government must realise that the issue will not go away until we know what has happened to the British citizens involved.
10.6 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I wish at the outset to thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for raising the question of the tragic incident at Mecca on 2 July and express, through him, my sympathy with the families of his two constituents who failed to return from this year's Haj but about whom there is still no information, and to the family of one other British pilgrim who are in the same situation. I can well understand how they feel.
I wish also to express my deep sympathy to the families of the British pilgrims who so tragically died, and to those who were injured in the disaster in the Mowaisem tunnel. We were all stunned by the news of this terrible disaster, affecting so many pilgrims who were carrying out an act of the highest religious devotion.
Her Majesty the Queen and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister immediately sent messages of condolence to His Majesty King Fand. That was before we knew of any British victims. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary sent a similar message to the Saudi Foreign Minister, His Royal Highness Prince Saud al Faisal. We did not know at that stage whether any British pilgrims had been involved.
The disaster struck when the pilgrims were returning from Muzdalifa to Mina, close outside the city of Mecca, on the day of sacrifice, the Eid al Adha. This journey takes pilgrims through the Mowaisem tunnel.
From what we learned from the Saudi authorities, a crowd built up just before 8 o'clock on the morning of 2 July in the area of the tunnel. The 600-metre tunnel, opened in 1979, had previously coped well enough with two-way crowd movements, but, tragically, the volume of traffic proved too much on this occasion.
Apparently, two major waves of people going in opposite directions converged just inside the western mouth of the tunnel. This led to a stampede and the death of many pilgrims. Many were suffocated or trampled in the crush. Some died when they were forced off the raised walkway at the tunnel's western approach. The Saudi authorities have put the total number of deaths at 1,426. Unofficial estimates put the death toll much higher.
I understand that the Saudi authorities have begun an inquiry to determine the causes of the tragedy. They have a difficult task. In the meantime, it would be wrong, indeed impossible, for me to try to anticipate their findings.
1474
The numbers of pilgrims visiting Mecca for the Haj are of course very great indeed. Unofficial sources put the number of pilgrims at this year's Haj at between 1 and 2 million, half from overseas. The Haj authorities give the figure for British pilgrims as about 5,700, based on the number of United Kingdom passports; but many of the British pilgrims are dual nationals, and choose to travel to the holy places on their other passports. Our best estimate of the number of British pilgrims is about 10,000 people.
It may be helpful if I give the House an account of the action taken by our posts in Saudi Arabia in response to this tragic disaster. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Perry Barr for his words about the activities and support of the consular section of the Foreign Office. However, I should like to take the opportunity to rebut recent suggestions in the press of official indifference, and to tackle the implication that the Government are unconcerned about the fate of British Moslems killed in Mecca. I can refute that allegation totally.
As soon as we learned of the disaster on the afternoon of 2 July, before we had any knowledge of British casualties, the consulate in Jeddah tried to find out from the Saudi authorities and others exactly what had happened. Non-Moslems are not allowed into Mecca, so we were unable to send a United Kingdom-based member of staff; none the less, on the following day, 3 July, we sent the pro-consul—who is a Kenyan Moslem—to Mecca to gather first-hand information on the tragedy.
During his visits to Mecca in the days immediately following the tragedy, the pro-consul visited hospitals to look for United Kingdom pilgrims who might be injured. He made contact in Mecca with British pilgrim tour leaders, and was also in touch with the Saudi Haj Ministry. He had no reports of British deaths or injuries until 4 July, when he was able to confirm one death. A further six British deaths were confirmed on 5 July.
In the succeeding days, further casualties and deaths were reported and confirmed. We kept in close contact with the Haj Ministry. The pro-consul visited Mecca again on 11 July; in fact, he visited Mecca almost daily during the first fortnight of July.
Our ambassador in Riyadh subsequently called on the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' consular department and on the Deputy Minister of the Interior. The consulate-general in Jeddah remained in constant touch with both the European section of the Haj Ministry and the Indian and Pakistan sections in an effort to track down dual passport holders. Follow-up action with the Saudi Haj Ministry and with hospital authorities continued during August and September.
There were of course many telephone calls from the public to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to our posts in Saudi Arabia. The hon. Member for Perry Barr has generously paid tribute to the service provided by our consular department, which kept in regular touch with relatives in the United Kingdom in the weeks succeeding the tragedy.
The British casualty figures now stand at 20 dead, and a further 14 British pilgrims were injured and treated in well equipped hospitals in Mecca; all, I am happy to say, have now been released.
Our posts in Riyadh and Jeddah are continuing, and will continue, to press the Haj authorities for more details. They have built up regular personal contacts with the Saudi officials involved: in our experience, that is the key to successful handling of a problem such as this. Most

1475
recently, the consul in Riyadh delivered personally a formal note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs requesting urgent assistance in tracing the British citizens still missing. The Saudi authorities promised speedy action; we will press them on that.
As to compensation, which the hon. Member for Perry Barr mentioned, that is, of course, a matter for the Saudi authorities. However, the consulate general in Jeddah is pressing to establish where matters stand.
Until recently, six British pilgrims were unaccounted for. That number is now reduced to three. It is, of course, regrettable that any of the missing should remain unidentified, despite the best endeavours of our consular staff, who have pressed the Saudi authorities on every possible occasion, but we must recognise that the Saudi authorities have been working in very difficult conditions. They have been having to try to identify those buried by comparing photographs taken of the bodies before burial with those in the victims' passports.
This has been a difficult and lengthy task—not least because of the numbers involved. What is more, the pilgrims would have handed in their own passports to the Haj authorities, so would not have been carrying them at the time of the disaster. I have already mentioned the further complication that some British pilgrims have dual nationality and were travelling on other passports.
1476
While there has been criticism of the way in which the Saudi authorities handled the disaster, we have also had reports from relatives that they were very helpful to those who were attempting to identify the bodies of their kin.
In conclusion, while I fully understand and share the concern of the hon. Member for Perry Barr, I must recall the very large number of victims of this disaster and the enormous difficulty the Saudis are having in identifying them. For our part, we are dependent on the Saudi authorities for information.
None of this, however, detracts from the pain which the relatives of those who are still unidentified must feel. The Government fully understand their wish to be able to satisfy themselves about this tragedy, so we shall continue to press the Saudi authorities, through the consulate-general in Jeddah and the embassy in Riyadh, and we shall, of course, pass on at once any information they receive to the relatives in this country. The Saudis have assured us that they will grant visas and assist families who wish to continue searching for information in Mecca themselves, and we will be glad to assist those applying for visas if necessary. Our consular staff in Jeddah will of course do everything possible to help, too.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General whether his Department will take positive steps to discuss with the Data Protection Registrar all his Department's legislation that impacts on the use, collection, processing or holding of personal data; and whether he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I am reminding my officials of the need to consult the registrar about proposed legislation which might affect or be affected by the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Shops Act
  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Attorney-General in the light of the High Court judgment of 18 July relating to the Shops Act 1950, what guidance he will be giving to local authorities and courts to enable them to enforce the law in a consistent manner.

  The Attorney-General
  I do not propose to give any guidance to local authorities, and it would be improper for me to offer guidance to the courts.

  The judgment of Mr. Justice Hoffmann in Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Norwich City Council v. B&Q plc is clearly expressed, and neither local authorities nor courts should have any difficulty in understanding its effect and acting upon it. Mr. Justice Hoffman decided that the effect of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Torfaen Borough Council v. B&Q plc is that the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act 1950 do not contravene the EEC treaty, and that accordingly for shops in England and Wales to be open for the serving of customers on Sunday otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act continues to be an offence under the Act. It follows that local authorities continue to be subject to the duty of enforcement conferred on them by section 1 of the Act.

  Electoral Law
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration has been given by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the contents of the document published by the Conservative party entitled "Offer from the Conservative Party", relating to registration of proxies by overseas voters, with respect of its compliance with electoral law.

  The Attorney-General
  I have invited the right hon. Member to forward a copy of the document to which he refers to the Director of Public Prosecutions indicating any criminal offence he believes may have been committed. The Director will then consider whether any action on his part is appropriate.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to prosecuting Ministry of Defence officials over their handling of the case of Mr. Colin Wallace.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has received a letter from solicitors acting on behalf of Mr. Colin Wallace requesting that he initiate a criminal investigation and he is considering the matters raised.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Flooding
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what damage was caused to (1) dwellings and (2) farmland and crops as a result of the breach in the river Roe floodbanks on Saturday, 6 October and what is his estimate of the sums required to(a) repair the banks and (b) restore the loss of (i) farmers crops and land damage and (ii) dwellings and household furniture and goods.

  Mr. Brooke
  As a result of a breach in the left floodbank approximately 160 hectares of land were flooded. There have been no reports of damage to dwellings received.

  The cost of repairing the floodbank is estimated to be of the order of £11,000.

  As the Government do not meet the cost of losses due to accidental flooding of farmland, crops or dwellings, no estimate of these costs has been made.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Namibia
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further economic help Her Majesty's Government proposes to give to Namibia in both the context of the European Community and the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Chalker
  On 21 March I announced in this House that Britain would be providing £10 million of aid for Namibia, for commitment over three years. Technical assistance is already being provided for education, public sector reform and police training and the scope for assistance in certain other sectors is being explored with the Namibian Government. Military training is also being provided under separate arrangements. The European Community is meanwhile considering the terms of Namibia's accession to the Lomé Convention and Britain is working to ensure a speedy and favourable outcome to this consideration. Pending accession, the Community is providing an interim package of aid totalling 19 million ecu (£13·24 million) in 1990, of which our share is about one fifth.

THE ARTS

  Cultural Property
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if Her Majesty's Government will ratify the 1970 UNESCO convention on illicit trade in cultural property; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 15 October 1990]: Her Majesty's Government have no plans to ratify the 1970 UNESCO convention. While supporting the principles and objectives laid down in the convention, we consider that the convention's definition of cultural property is unduly wide. In addition, the requirements of the convention on imported and exported goods would impose a heavy administrative burden on both the Government and the art trade with, for example, the requirement for all dealers to keep registers of the material bought and sold. Implementation of the provision on restitution and prohibition of imports would require new legislation and allocation of substantial additional administrative resources, and the identification and verification of claims made against items imported into the United Kingdom would not be straightforward.

  United Kingdom museums and the art trade already subscribe to codes of practice on the handling of items of dubious provenance, which help to uphold the objectives of the convention.

TRANSPORT

  Road Safety
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has concerning the number of serious or fatal accidents where a hand-held car telephone was an element; what assessment he has made of the road safety aspects of such instruments; and what consideration he has given to alternatives not requiring use of either hand for conversation.

  Mr. Chope
  There is no information available on such accidents. The use of hand-held telephones while driving constitutes a potential road safety hazard and rule 54 of the highway code states that drivers should not use a hand-held telephone while their vehicle is moving. Drivers who need a car telephone should use hand-free equipment.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the proportion of serious or fatal road accidents occasioned by right turns; and what action he is taking to reduce their occurrence.

  Mr. Chope
  A total of 17 per cent. of all fatal or serious road accidents involve a vehicle turning right. The highway code advises motorists on the correct procedure for making a right turn and this advice is reinforced in my Department's publicity programme. Many of the small-scale engineering works to improve road safety address this problem. The expanded national road building programme will create new higher-quality roads which are generally safer and on which right-turning accidents are less common.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many outstanding approvals there are for the provision of light-controlled right turns that eliminate 862
  conflicting movement; what delay has occured in their installation; and what plans he has to eliminate significant delay.

  Mr. Chope
  The provision of signal-controlled right turns that eliminate conflicting traffic movements is within the scope of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1981. Equipment for this purpose is already type approved by the Department and does not require specific approval. Technical advice has been published showing correct layout of signals, signing and roadmarkings. In the case of trunk roads the Department's policy is to provide signal-controlled right turns where appropriate.

  Transport Policy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the European Council over developments in environmental aspects of transport policy following the publication of the White Paper on the environment (Cm. 1200) in September.

  Mr. Parkinson
  None. But following consultation between our Departments, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will press for the introduction of tight emission controls for cars of all sizes at the European Council of Environment Ministers on 29 October. At a later stage he will press for the adoption by the Council of the tighest practicable emission standards for heavy diesel vehicles, and I understand that the European Commission expects to submit shortly to the Council of Transport Ministers proposals on transport and the environment generally.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what investment plans he has approved for British Rail Network SouthEast with particular reference to new rolling stock for the north-east Kent routes; and when he expects delivery of such stock.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail has not yet put to us investment proposals relating to new rolling stock to be deployed in north-east Kent. Last year we approved proposals for 400 vehicles for inner suburban services in south-east London and north-west Kent. We have approved in principle further vehicles and infrastructure works for this area. The whole scheme will cost £700 million in total. The new trains will begin operation from 1992 onwards.

  Midland Line Electrification
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has received, and what meetings he has had, with east midlands local authorities, regarding the midland line electrification; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received a number of representations about electrification of the midland main line and I recently met representatives from Leicestershire county council, Northamptonshire county council and Kettering borough council, to discuss this issue. British Rail has not so far identified a robust commercial case for electrification; but I hope that the local authorities will continue to discuss their plans with BR.

  Kegworth Crash
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the official report into the cause of the accident to a Boeing 737 near Kegworth on 8 February 1989 will be published.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The report of the Department's air accidents investigation branch (AAIB) into the accident, which occurred on 8 January 1989, is being published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The report contains 31 safety recommendations addressed, directly or indirectly, to the Civil Aviation Authority which has the statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of civil aviation in the United Kingdom. The AAIB's recommendations are passed to the CAA as soon as they are determined and I understand that the CAA has already completed action or put research into train as a result.

  The report is very detailed and comprehensive and the AAIB is to be congratulated on a most thorough investigation into circumstances surrounding this accident.

  Networker Trains (Kent Coast)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has taken any decisions that will result in the delayed introduction of the new networker trains to serve the Kent coast routes; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 17 October 1990]: Decisions on the provision of external finance for British Rail for the three years to 31 March 1994 will be announced at the time of the autumn statement. It is for British Rail to decide its investment priorities in the light of the external and internal funds available to it; and it will be updating its plans in due course.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mobility Allowance
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many reviews of mobility allowance claims were conducted during the last year for which statistics are available.

  Mr. Scott
  During 1989, the medical questions were reconsidered, on review, in 720 claims for mobility allowance.

  Attendance Allowance
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many reviews of attendance allowance claims were conducted during the last year for which statistics were available.

  Mr. Scott
  In 1989, the total number of decisions reviewed was 66,574.

  Pensions
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of people currently retiring will receive the basic rate by way of retirement pension.
  864
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In the six-month period ending March 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 317,000 claims for retirement pension; 244,940 awards were made of which 79·45 per cent. received the full rate basic retirement pension.

  Elderly People (Residential Care)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he received the report of Messrs. Price Waterhouse on the costs of residential care in charitable and proprietorial homes for elderly persons; and if he will place a copy in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The report was received on 20 September. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making a statement shortly.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to review the 75-plus age disqualification for access to assistance from the independent living fund.

  Mr. Scott
  The decision to restrict eligibility to those aged between 16 and 74 and who also receive attendance allowance at the higher rate was taken by the trustees in the light of the resources made available for this financial year. We understand that they are keeping this decision under review.

  Mesothelioma
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information the Government collect about the number of people suffering from mesothelioma; and what action the Government have taken to support and compensate all victims.

  Mr. Scott
  The Health and Safety Executive collects figures from death certificates mentioning mesothelioma and the Department keeps records of the number of industrial injuries claims made for this disease. Industrial injuries benefit and war disablement pensions can be awarded to claimants with mesothelioma and additional benefits can be paid depending on other needs. In addition, the Pneumoconiosis (Workers Compensation) Act 1979 provides some measure of compensation to those people or their dependants who cannot sue their employer because he has gone out of business.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are receiving the reduced personal allowance due to downrating after over six weeks hospitalisation and are still liable for community charge.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information is not available in the form requested. All hospital patients who are receiving Income Support, and who are not exempted from paying the community charge, are entitled to maximum community charge benefit.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated total number of carers looking after disabled, sick or elderly people in the
  865
  United Kingdom; how many carers claimed (a) invalid care allowance and (b) income support in 1989; and if he will launch a review of carers' incomes.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated total number of carers looking after disabled, sick or elderly people in Wales; and how many of these receive(a) invalid care allowance or (b) income support.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 17 October 1990]: The information is not available in the form requested.

  Any estimate of the number of carers of disabled people has to make certain assumptions on the amount of care provided. The 1985 general household survey suggested that there were 1·4 million adults in Great Britain caring for disabled people for at least 20 hours a week.

  The numbers of carers in Great Britain in receipt of invalid care allowance (which is intended for people who forgo work opportunities to care for an attendance allowance recipient for at least 35 hours a week) was 119,000 on 30 June 1989. On 31 May 1989, 23,000 people were receiving income support who were also receiving invalid care allowance, or whose partners were.

  A report based on research commissioned by the Department into the effectiveness of invalid care allowance as an income maintenance benefit is expected to be published in the next few months.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 October.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 October.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 October.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 October.

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

  Separate Assessment
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will now introduce legislation to ensure that husbands and wives are assessed separately for social security and community charge.

  The Prime Minister
  No. All the income-related benefits including community charge benefit, follow the principle that couples share their income and capital resources, and their claims for benefit are assessed jointly. The Government believe that it is right for couples to share the responsibility of running their homes and paying their bills. There is no good reason why community charge benefit should differ from other income-related benefits in this respect.

  Macclesfield
  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to visit Macclesfield.

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

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

  The Prime Minister
  I visited the United Nations earlier this month. I have at present no plans for a further visit.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will estimate what proportion of(a) the value of personal tax allowances of people under retirement age, (b) the value of mortgage interest tax relief of people under retirement age and (c) child benefit goes to individuals or families with incomes of more than £20,000 a year.

  The Prime Minister
  The latest estimates in respect of 1990–91 are as follows:

  Percentage benefiting single people or married couples with incomes over £20,000

  Percentage

  (a) Personal tax allowances1

  35

  (b) Mortgage interest tax relief1

  50

  (c) Child benefit

  35

  1 The percentages benefiting individual taxpayers with incomes over £20,000 are 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. for (a) and (b) respectively.

  Family Income
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will give updated estimates of the cost of achieving a £2 post-tax increase in the income of a two-child family by(a) increasing child benefit, (b) increasing the married man's allowance and (c) increasing the average level of male earnings.

  The Prime Minister
  Increasing the average level of earnings depends on the performance of the economy, as indeed does any general improvement in living standards. The estimated direct costs of increasing child benefit or the married couples' allowance to give an additional £2 per week to most two-child families are as follows, but it should be noted that the increase in income a family derives from them depends also on its individual circumstances.(a) an increase in child benefit of £1 a week would have a gross cost of around £630 million a year.
  (b) Increasing the married couple's allowance (together with the additional personal allowance) by £416 would have a gross cost of around £1,150 million a year.

  Child Allowance
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if it remains her policy that the level of the child cash allowance may still be dealt with in the Budget:

  (2) if, while retaining the Department of Social Security to administer the child allowance scheme, she will limit the responsibility for determining the level of the child cash allowance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and herself.
  867
  The Prime Minister
  The Social Security Act 1986 requires the Secretary of State for Social Security to review the level of child benefit each year having regard to the national economic situation and any other matters which he considers relevant. This duty is most appropriately discharged as part of the annual review of social security matters.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the current level of electoral registration; and what steps Her Majesty's Government proposes to increase the level of electoral registration before the closing date for entries.

  The Prime Minister
  The numbers of parliamentary elec tors on the 1990 electoral register for each part of the United Kingdom, together with the corresponding figures for 1989, are given in the table. The Home Office has continued to assist electoral registration officers in their statutory duty of preparing the electoral register in a number of ways. It has again this year conducted a nationwide advertising campaign designed to encourage people to complete and return the electoral registration form; and has produced publicity and an explanatory leaflet aimed at encouraging young people to register.

  Research into the working methods of electoral registration officers is undertaken annually, and the results are used to inform Home Office guidance on best practice. It also amends and improves the electoral registration form, form A, where necessary, and is producing revised and updated practice notes for electoral registration officers. The most recent of these covers the effective use, at each stage of the compilation of the electoral register, of the electoral registration officer's statutory right of access to the community charge register.

  Parliamentary electors

  1989

  1990

  England

  36,365,916

  36,388,575

  Wales

  2,194,625

  2,207,542

  Scotland

  3,932,911

  3,936,704

  Northern Ireland

  1,120,508

  1,130,602

  China
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to discuss with her European Economic Community counterparts the normalisation of relations with China; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Policy towards China has been regularly discussed within the Community and the measures adopted last year have been kept under review. We have been advocating for some time a steady resumption of normal relations. The subject is likely to be discussed again at the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 22–23 October.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to allow her Ministers to resume normal visits to China; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I hope that we can agree shortly with our Community partners on a steady resumption of normal Ministerial visits to and from China. Our partners have of course also always accepted our special need to maintain contact with China over Hong Kong.
  868
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to seek to persuade the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to resume normal lending to China; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  China has not sought recently to borrow from the IMF. We fully supported the decision taken at the Houston economic summit in July to consider World Bank loans to China that would contribute to the reform of the Chinese economy, especially loans that would address environmental concerns.

WALES

  Industrial Development
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will convene a conference at Mold, Clwyd, to consider future industrial development in north-east Wales with Clwyd local authorities, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and others.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No. Ministers held extensive consultations with local authorities and the representative bodies prior to the publication last December of the document "A55: The Road of Opportunity", which sets out a range of policies and proposals to ensure the future success of North Wales.

  Land Sales
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received opposing the sale of the Llwyn Mawr site owned by West Glamorgan county council.

  Mr. Grist
  Since he issued the direction to the county council on 22 August, my right hon. Friend has received 27 letters and one petition.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he received, and how many were from developers, asking him to require West Glamorgan county council to sell the Llwyn Mawr site; and on what dates these representations were received.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend received one representation from a private developer on 20 April 1988 requesting that a direction be served on West Glamorgan county council to sell the land.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in how many cases since June 1979 his Department has instructed an education authority to sell land being held for future school development.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  One.

  Health Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage of those waiting for non-urgent operations who wait longer than for one year, in each of the health authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The percentage of people who were waiting for non-urgent operations in hospitals in each of the Welsh district health authorities as at 31 March 1990, and had waited for a year or more, is given in the following table:
  869

  Per cent.

  Clwyd

  13·6

  East Dyfed

  10·0

  Pembrokeshire

  53·9

  Gwent

  26·0

  Gwynedd

  15·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  32·5

  Powys

  0·0

  South Glamorgan

  25·5

  West Glamorgan

  19·4

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to which hospitals have been able to reduce the number of patients waiting for non-urgent operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to table 6 of the Welsh hospital waiting list bulletin 1990, No. 2, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  In addition, the following hospitals also reduced the numbers waiting for non-urgent treatment:

  Maesteg general

  Talygarn

  Breconshire war memorial

  Machynlleth and district

  Children's ear nose and throat, South Glamorgan

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the rise in the number of people waiting for non-urgent operations, as a percentage and as a number; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  At 31 March 1990, the non-urgent waiting list was 42,685, a rise of 11 per cent. or 4,214 on the previous year. During 1989, in-patient and day case throughout increased by 7,549 to 534,478, a rise of 1·4 per cent.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning the need to cut down the waiting time for non-urgent surgery.

  Mr. Grist
  Health authorities are well aware of the importance which the Government places on the need to address the time people have to wait to receive treatment or diagnosis, whether urgent or non-urgent.

  Record resources have been made to the NHS in Wales in response to increased demand and to reflect higher activity levels. In addition, central funding continues to be available to support the initiative launched in 1986 to tackle the more problematic lists and three treatment centres have been set up to ensure speedier treatment for those who suffer from specific key disabling conditions.

  For the future, all health authorities will be expected to pay particular attention to waiting lists in the contracts which they negotiate with their providers.

  River Dee Crossing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet Alyn-Deeside council, Clwyd county council, Queensferry community council, Shotton town council, Connah's Quay town council and Hawarden town council to discuss matters relating to the need for a new crossing of the River Dee.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Dee crossing scheme was conditionally accepted for transport grant support in 1990–91. An application from Clwyd county council for 870
  continued conditional acceptance in 1991–92 is under consideration. Progress on the scheme is a matter for the county council.

  British Urban Development
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with British Urban Development concerning its proposed development project in Swansea.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I discussed progress on the Tawe Vale project with the deputy chairman of the BUD on 26 July and offered to meet him when specific detailed proposals were available.

  Young People (Secure Accommodation)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list for each facility in Wales providing secure accommodation for young persons for each of the years 1975, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1988 and 1989, the number of admissions and discharges according to the sex and age of young persons accommodated and according to the legal basis on which they were accommodated;

  (2) if he will list for each facility in Wales providing secure accommodation for young persons for each of the years 1975, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1988 and 1989, the number of places available; whether such places were available for boys and-or girls; and what was the age range for which such places were available.

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

  Educational Psychologists
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales why paragraphs 46, 47 and 48 of the Department of Education and Science circular "Grants for Education Support and Training" are omitted from the Welsh Office equivalent circular; what are the respective numbers of educational psychologists in relation to pupil numbers in Wales, England, Scotland and Ireland; what are the equivalent figures for each Welsh county; how many posts are unfilled; and whether any bilingual posts are unfilled.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Paragraph 47 of the Department of Education and Science circular is dealt with under activity 12(91) of the equivalent Welsh Office circular. The initial training of educational psychologists has not been classed as a national priority area within the Welsh Office programme for education support and training in 1991–92, because of the many and competing demands on available resources. Local authorities are free to train educational psychologists from their own resources for that year. The Welsh Office will be keeping the situation under review and will consider future support in the light of local demand and priorities.

  Details of the numbers of educational psychologists in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland are set out in the following table. No comparable statistics are available for Wales but, as part of the review mentioned above, the Welsh Office will be seeking specific information from local authorities.
  871

  England

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  January 1989

  September 1989

  October 1990

  Number of educational psychologists employed by local authorities

  11,400

  1318

  260

  Pupil numbers

  6,731,047

  744,061

  339,185

  1 Full time equivalent.

  2 Full time.

  IBM Contract
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to make use of the credit note issued by IBM UK to his Department in respect of its under-performance in completing the contract for the financial systems computer software installation.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Use has already been made of the credit note, and it is expected that it will be fully expended before the end of the current financial year.

  Clwyd Health Authority
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the new members of the Clwyd health authority giving any appropriate qualifications.

  Mr. Grist
  With effect from 17 September 1990, the memberships of Clwyd district health authority is as follows:

  Non-Executive Members

  Mrs. A. L. Roberts, (Chairman of DHA)

  Mr. T. J. McAllister, C Eng, MICE, MIWEM, MBIM

  Mr. T. G. Jones

  Mr. J. R. Slater, FCA

  Mrs. A. Waters, LLB

  Dr. T. M. Hayes, MB, Chb, FRCP

  Executive Members

  Dr. D. T. Jones, FFCM, FRCGP, FRSH

  Mr. B. F. Jones, FCCA

  Dr. A. L. J. Williams, JP, NBBF, SSCM, DPH, AKC,

  Name of scheme

  Total area of application (hectares)

  Area proposed for new planting (hectares)

  Area proposed for restocking (hectares)

  Current state of application

  Highland Regional Council Zone 1

  Lochinver Estate (1)

  2·3

  —

  2·3

  Under consideration

  Lochinver Estate (2)

  7·5

  —

  7·5

  Approved

  Meallan A Bhuic

  1·2

  1·2

  —

  Withdrawn

  Meallan A Bhuic

  7·3

  5·5

  —

  Withdrawn

  Loch Choire

  1,021·5

  947·6

  —

  Under consideration

  Scrabster Loch

  4·0

  —

  4·0

  Approved

  Halladale Birchwoods

  2·9

  2·9

  —

  Part approved (1·8 ha)

  Tongue Estate

  0·8

  —

  0·8

  Approved

  Forest Farms Estate (4)

  215·9

  135·5

  —

  EA* requested

  Forest Farms Estate (5)

  191·8

  191·8

  —

  EA requested

  Forest Farms Estate (7)

  422·4

  305·3

  —

  EA requested

  Forest Farms Estate (8)

  342·7

  314·2

  —

  EA requested

  Forest Farms Estate (9)

  458·9

  420·9

  —

  EA requested

  Eriboll

  34·6

  32·3

  —

  Under consideration

  Ledmore Lodge

  0·4

  0·4

  —

  Under consideration

  Highland Regional Council Zone 2

  Baledigle

  260·5

  32·7

  —

  Part approved (27·0 ha)

  East Halladale

  810·0

  810·0

  —

  EA requested

  West Halladale

  730·0

  730·0

  —

  EA requested

  Coille Nan Clach

  184·5

  59·5

  —

  Approved

  Crubag

  83·5

  83·5

  —

  Part approved (66·1 ha)

  The Cutting

  184·7

  184·7

  —

  Part approved (95·8 ha)

  872

  DRCOG, MSCH

  Mr. S. W. Jones, RGN, RMN

  Mr. W. J. Ravenscroft, BA, ACIS, MIPM

  Menai Straits (Sewage Discharges)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will order an investigation into the discharge of untreated sewage from the pathology laboratory at Ysbyty Gwynedd via Pen Rhos Garnedd into the Menai Straits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No. I am advised by Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig that the discharge from Ysbyty Gwynedd receives treatment at Treborth sewage works.

SCOTLAND

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the woodland grant scheme applications made since 1 June 1989 in respect of land in the study area covered by the Highland regional council's examination of forestry in Caithness and Sutherland, indicating into which of the four zones identified by the Highland regional council's report these applications fell and the result of the application in each case;

  (2) if he will list the woodland grant scheme applications made since 1 June 1989 in respect of land in the study area covered by the Highland regional council's examination of forestry in Caithness and Sutherland in cases where the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds had not been consulted, indicating the total land area of proposed forestry in each case.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the following tables, which cover the period 1 June 1989-1 October 1990.

  The Nature Conservancy Council and the Highland regional council—but not the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—have been, or will be, consulted directly by the Forestry Commission over each of these applications.
  873

  Name of scheme

  Total area of application (hectares)

  Area proposed for new planting (hectares)

  Area proposed for restocking (hectares)

  Current state of application

  Loch Choire

  425·0

  448·8

  —

  Under consideration

  The Brig

  72·2

  71·1

  —

  Approved

  Crubag

  5·1

  5·1

  —

  Approved

  Highland Regional Council Zone 3

  Hastigrow

  67·7

  44·6

  —

  Under consideration

  Phillips Mains

  262·7

  42·4

  —

  Approved

  Achlibster (1)

  177·5

  164·0

  —

  Under consideration

  Achlibster (2)

  54·6

  54·6

  —

  Approved

  Glebeland at Farr

  74·7

  38·6

  —

  Approved

  Ben Armine

  46·0

  46·0

  —

  Approved

  Navidale

  65·0

  —

  25·6

  Part approved (23·3 ha)

  Dunrobin

  1,080·2

  —

  87·8

  Approved

  Tacher

  247·0

  243·0

  —

  Under consideration

  Astle

  121·9

  121·9

  —

  Part approved (113·8 ha)

  Hilton Embo

  9·9

  9·9

  —

  Part approved (8·9 ha)

  Stroupster West

  121·4

  79·5

  —

  Approved

  Bilbster Mains

  115·8

  95·7

  —

  Under consideration

  Dunnet Bay Wood

  0·4

  0·4

  —

  Refused

  Morvich Oakwood

  16·2

  4·7

  —

  Approved

  West Greenland

  9·9

  9·9

  —

  Approved

  Roadside Woodlands

  12·5

  12·5

  —

  Approved

  Skitten Farm Woodlands

  1·2

  1·2

  —

  Approved

  Phillips Mains

  17·0

  16·0

  —

  Part approved (7·6 ha)

  Rhianacoil Croft

  14·6

  14·6

  —

  Under consideration

  Munsary

  1,271·7

  1,116·0

  —

  EA requested

  Flex Farm

  0·4

  0·4

  —

  Approved

  Pulrossie Farm

  2·8

  2·8

  —

  Approved

  Swiney House

  2·5

  2·0

  —

  Under consideration

  Murza

  3·8

  3·4

  —

  Under consideration

  Iryglass

  48·2

  41·1

  —

  Under consideration

  Brabster Farm 4

  6·7

  6·7

  —

  Under consideration

  Croiche Wood

  33·5

  7·0

  —

  Under consideration

  Inchnadamph, Inveroykel

  2·7

  0·9

  —

  Under consideration

  Highland Regional Council Zone 4

  Loubcroy

  461·6

  387·9

  —

  Approved

  Loubcroy (2)

  390·5

  295·0

  —

  Approved

  Braelangwell

  519·2

  486·8

  —

  Part approved (335·9 ha)

  Langwell

  0·9

  0·9

  —

  Approved

  Glencalvie

  34·2

  34·2

  —

  Approved

  Yellow Moss

  17·1

  11·0

  —

  Approved

  Borrobol

  1·7

  0·9

  —

  Part approved (0·5 ha)

  Langwell

  0·8

  —

  0·8

  Approved

  Forest Farms Estate (1)

  289·2

  233·9

  —

  EA requested

  Forest Farms Estate (2)

  484·1

  351·2

  —

  EA requested

  Forest Farms Estate (3)

  235·7

  235·7

  —

  EA requested

  Forest Farms Estate (6)

  396·1

  339·8

  —

  EA requested

  Akron

  306·0

  269·8

  —

  Part approved (178·8 ha)

  Achvarasdal House

  10·5

  —

  1·1

  Under consideration

  Dunrobin Glen

  440·5

  365·2

  —

  Under consideration

  Langwell by Lairg

  35·3

  —

  35·3

  Under consideration

  Sallachy Block (4)

  234·2

  131·0

  —

  Under consideration

  West Kinnauld

  5·8

  5·8

  —

  Under consideration

  Gledfield Estate

  12·5

  —

  12·5

  Under consideration

  Invercassley Farm

  2·0

  1·8

  —

  Under consideration

  Borrobol

  10·1

  —

  0·25

  Under consideration

  Alltan

  83·8

  5·3

  —

  Under consideration

  Rattar

  1·5

  1·4

  —

  Under consideration

  Gordonbush Estate

  81·3

  81·3

  —

  Under consideration

  Old Calder

  40·5

  40·5

  —

  Under consideration

  *EA = Environmental assessment.

  Children's Hearings
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the amount of money spent by his Department, separate from that employed by the regional councils and islands councils, on publicising the system of children's hearings in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Office has arranged and funded over the past nine years national press 874
  advertising to assist in the annual recruitment of new members to children's hearings system. Expenditure has been as follows:

  Year

  £

  1982

  25,000

  1983

  20,000

  1985

  22,000

  1986

  16,000

  1987

  26,000

  1988

  30,000

  875

  Year

  £

  1989

  45,000

  1990

  50,000

  There was no national publicity in 1984.

  Education Vouchers
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what consideration he has given to the introduction of vouchers into Scottish education;

  (2) whether he has any plans to introduce education vouchers into Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to introduce a voucher scheme in Scotland. A pilot scheme to provide students in further education with training credits is being tested in Grampian region.

  Education Policy
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the initiatives in education policy he has under consideration.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend gives high priority to the implementation of initiatives in education policy already in hand, such as curriculum assessment review, development of the effectiveness of school boards, staff development and appraisal; the development of Scottish vocational qualifications; wider access to post school education; and improvement in the management of further and higher education. New initiatives in education policy will be announced when it is appropriate to do so.

  Junior Doctors (Working Hours)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the actions of Greater Glasgow health board in seeking to require junior doctors at Southern general hospital, Glasgow, to work 115 hours per week; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 October 1990]: None. The employment of junior doctors at the Southern general hospital is a matter for Greater Glasgow health board. In two cases which have recently received extensive publicity, I understand that the junior doctors concerned had contracted to work from 1 August 1990 a one in three rota, with prospective cover. This meant that their normal period of duty of 88 hours a week rose to 115 hours, including time spent on call, when covering while their colleagues are on holiday and study leave, and they were paid accordingly from the start of their contract. Greater Glasgow health board is currently examining ways of reducing the hours of work of all its junior staff, including those at the Southern general hospital, who are on rotas more onerous than one in three.

  Self-employment
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the latest figures of self-employed people in Roxburgh and Berwickshire.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 October 1990]: The latest information on this is from the 1981 Census of population,
  876
  which shows that there were 1,314 self-employed residents in Berwickshire and 1,732 self-employed residents in Roxburgh in Spring 1981. Information on self-employment from the 1991 census of population is expected to become available in 1992.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many trees have been planted in Scotland under planting schemes aided by Her Majesty's Government; and what expenditure is involved;

  (2) how many trees have been planted in England and Wales under planting schemes financed by Her Majesty's Government; and what expenditure has been involved.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  (holding answer 17 October 1990): The areas grant-aided by the Forestry Commission in the ten years to 31 March 1990 are given in the table.

  hectares1

  New planting

  Restocking

  Scotland

  145,600

  14,400

  England

  14,700

  23,400

  Wales

  8,300

  2,500

  1 The figures have been rounded to the nearest 100 hectares.

  The Forestry Commission paid out £68·3 million in grants over this period; the breakdown of this figure by country is not available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Grand Metropolitan /Alders Deal
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to publish the results of his consideration of the Monopolies and Mergers Commissions investigation into the Grand Met/Alders deal.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 October 1990]: The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the merger situations between Elders IXL Ltd. and Grand Metropolitan plc was published on Tuesday 16 October.

ENERGY

  Hinkley Point C Inquiry
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he intends to publish the data on plutonium production set out in recommendation 3 of the Barnes report on the Hinkley C inquiry, detailed at page 960 in volume 3, to which he agreed in his decision letter; and if he will make it his policy to publish the said data in the Official Report.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is being published today and copies of the press release will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consideration he gave to seeking a parliamentary debate on the recommendations of the Barnes report on the Hinkley Point C public inquiry, before his statement granting consent which was issued in his reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson),Official Report, 6 September, column 604.
  877
  Mr. Baldry
  In fairness to all concerned with this decision. My right hon. Friend wanted to make a prompt announcement of his decision on the recommendations of the Barnes report on the Hinkley Point C public inquiry.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson),Official Report, 6 September, column 604 (i) how many copies of the full inspector's report of the Hinkley inquiry have been printed. (ii) to whom they have been distributed, (iii) what is the sale price of the full report; (iv) what has been the cost to date of printing the report and (v) how many copies of the summary report and decision letter have been (a) published and (b) distributed and to whom.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is as follows:

  (i) 1,800;

  (ii) Parliament, the relevant planning authorities, Government Departments, Nuclear Electric and all those objectors who appeared at the inquiry and requested a copy of the report;

  (iii) £80;

  (iv) £134,000. The final amount will be recovered from the applicant, Nuclear Electric plc; and

  (v)(a) 5,000 of the summary report and 1,100 of the decision letter; and

  (b) the same as in (ii) plus the media.

  Isle of Wight (Hydro-electric Barrage)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any public expenditure is involved in the proposed hydro-electric barrage between Hurst Castle and the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department has not been approached about this proposal and the project is not included in the renewable energy research and development programme.

ENVIRONMENT

  Brewers (Sports Sponsorship)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet the Fosters brewing company to discuss adherence to the British brewers' voluntary self-denial about sponsoring motor racing and racing cars.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have no plans to meet the Fosters brewing company.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the construction contracts entered into by the Property Services Agency since September 1988 in respect of which no competitive tenders have been sought.

  Mr. Key
  No. In the period referred to, the Property Services Agency placed in excess of 5,000 contracts for building and construction work in this category.

  Travellers
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance is given to local authorities on the criteria for deciding land suitable for use as residential gipsy traveller sites; and whether these or other criteria relate to land designated for housing purposes.
  878
  Mr. Key
  Circular 28/77 and the site design guide, which is currently being revised, give guidance to local authorities on the criteria which they should follow in selecting land as suitable for gipsy sites. The criteria do not refer to whether the land in question is designated for housing purposes.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent estimate has been made of the shortfall in the provision of residential sites for gipsy and traveller people; and in which ways local authorities are encouraged to meet their obligations to provide sites.

  Mr. Key
  A spot count of gipsy caravans is undertaken on behalf of my Department by metropolitan-district councils in England every six months. At the time of the count in July 1990 a total of 11,967 caravans were recorded, of which 4,610 (38·5 per cent.) were on unauthorised sites.

  The Caravan Sites Act 1968 placed a duty on county councils, metropolitan districts and London boroughs to provide sites for gipsies residing in or resorting to their area. The Government provide 100 per cent. grant aid towards the reasonable capital costs of construction of sites.

  Management Consultants
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 15 October, if he will name the consultants who have been employed to advise on the development of financial and management systems.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The names requested are as follows:

  KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock

  Mr. K. Worthy

  Spicers Consulting Group (now called Spicer Oppenheim)

  SPT Management Consultants

  Touche Ross

  Some of these have worked on more than one project.

  Public Rented Housing
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to turn public rented housing accommodation into a compulsory mortgage scheme.

  Mr. Key
  No.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table setting out the top 20 local authorities whose rent arrears are the greatest.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Noise Review Working Party
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the report of the noise review working party; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The report of the working party is being published today and copies are being made available in the Library.

  The working party was chaired by Mr. W. J. S. Batho and included representatives of local government, industry and voluntary bodies. I am most grateful for their efforts and pleased with the outcome.
  879
  The report is most timely in view of current public concern about noise pollution and I welcome the wide range of recommendations it contains. This is the most thorough review of noise control to take place since the Control of Pollution Act (COPA) was passed in 1974. Although we have no reason to believe that the framework of that Act is seriously defective, we are aware that the number of complaints about noise has more than doubled in the last decade.

  On the basis of current knowledge the Government are satisfied that adequate controls exist to ensure that people in their homes, workplaces and when travelling are not exposed to levels of noise which threaten their health. We are concerned to lessen the exposure of people to levels of noise which constitute a nuisance, but have to weigh reductions against feasibility and cost. The risk of exposure to high noise levels is increasing: we travel more, own more sound reproduction equipment, use more machinery. We also have better equipment to measure and control noise. So both the challenge and opportunity are there for us to improve our procedures.

  The Government have already acted on many of the report's recommendations. Local authorities' basic duties have been clarifed in the Environmental Protection Bill. The index for measuring aircraft noise has been changed. The working party's thinking is reflected in the noise chapter of the Environmental White Paper. The report contains a wide range of recommendations, many acceptable in principle, and they will all be seriously considered. The following paragraphs set out the Government's initial response to each chapter.

  Planning and Noise. The Government are committed to revising DOE circular 10/73 (Welsh Office 16/73). Scottish Development Department circular 23/73 will be also be revised. It is accepted in principle that all potentially noisy development activities should be taken into account, including road, rail and air transport, sport, entertainment and countryside recreation. It is already recognised that inevitably noisy short-term activities such as construction may need to be controlled under nuisance legislation as well as by conditions imposed on planning permission: the controls on mineral working sites are the subject of a minerals planning guidance note, and controls on oil and gas extraction and landfills will be reviewed. The principle of three action levels is accepted and guidance will be developed. Local authorities are already empowered to require applicants for potentially noisy development to supply relevant information which can include noise implications.

  Neighbourhood Noise. The Government are well aware of concern about neighbourhood noise from correspondence and debates as well as the increase in formal complaints to local authorities. The basic framework of control by abatement orders seems sound, but some improvements are needed. The need to clarify the duty on authorities to inspect their areas and investigate complaints was picked up at an early stage in the review and consulted on: an appropriate amendment has already been made to the Environmental Protection Bill. Many authorities already investigate complaints and operate an out of office hours service where appropriate.

  The Government are sponsoring a pilot "quiet neighbourhood" scheme. The first part of the pilot will involve establishing the scheme through local organisations and is likely to be in place by the end of the year. The second part will involve monitoring the scheme once it is
  880
  operating. Our aim is that if the pilot scheme is a success we will issue guidance to those interested in setting up schemes on how best to go about it. Discussions by the research contractor on where the pilot scheme is to be set up are at an advanced stage—it is likely to be a London borough—and a further announcement will be made shortly.

  The creation of new offences for allowing buildings and open spaces to be used for noisy activities will be considered in the context of entertainment noise. We aim to devise simpler and more practical procedures for noise abatement zones. Consideration will be given to improving control over noisy activities on the highway, such as car repairs, which may cause a nuisance but are not adequately covered by existing legislation. DoE will publish further material designed to encourage responsible attitudes to noise and its prevention, and is aware of others produced by voluntary bodies and local associations.

  Transport Noise. The Government are examining the feasibility of measuring vehicle noise in the annual MOT test and when inspecting vehicles at the roadside. We shall consider whether compensation in respect of road traffic noise should be paid on a sliding scale and whether it would be practicable to extend compensation to those affected by permanent traffic management schemes. We are concerned also to ensure parity of treatment for those who live near roads and those who live near railway lines. We have appointed a committee to recommend a national noise insulation standard for new railway lines, and we are considering an alternative to the private Bill procedure. We shall explore the idea of noise standards in the construction and use of trains.

  The Government agree that noise created by the take-off and landing of aircraft from airfields and flight according to the rules of navigation should continue to be controlled under aviation law rather than COPA. We will continue to encourage airfield managements and in appropriate cases to require them to consult local authorities and local people about the management or administration of their aerodromes, which includes operational measures to reduce exposure to noise. Further thought will be given as to whether a clearer framework is needed for controlling noise from light or recreational aircraft, low flying, ground running and helicopters landing outside airfields.

  Alarms. The Government propose to introduce mandatory controls for burglar alarms and will examine how car alarms can be improved.

  Entertainment Noise We will issue guidance on the application of current legislation to the control of large parties. The Government will consult organisers and local authority associations with a view to establishing a code of conduct.

  Noise within Buildings. The Government are aiming—for England and Wales—to extend the building regulations sound insulation requirements for new buildings, as far as practicable to cover flat conversions as they already do in Scotland. The need to ensure that insulation work can be properly inspected will be considered.

  Codes of Practice. The Government recognise the value of codes of practice and will work with interested parties to complete and issue the codes currently under discussion and to consider the case for further codes. The value of guidance leaflets is accepted, especially in the area of neighbourhood noise.
  881
  Research DOE will continue to sponsor a comprehensive programme of research on noise, which will include all the topics highlighted in the report—human response to noise, noise watch schemes, action thresholds, low-frequency noise and building insulation testing. The Department of Transport already has a major programme of research on transport noise, but will consider whether further research is necessary to formulate a common measure for the assessment of noise from all the main forms of transport. The Health and Safety Executive will sponsor research on noise in the workplace.

  A further statement will be made next summer on the progress made in our deliberations.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Government-owned empty properties there are in(a) Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde Region and (c) Scotland.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 16 October 1990]: There are no Government-owned empty properties in Glasgow. There are seven vacant in Strathclyde and a total of 15 throughout Scotland of which all but two are up for disposal.

  County Hall
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if any building or alteration works connected with the proposals made by the development group took place in county hall before 8 October.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 16 October 1990]: I have no knowledge of any such works.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the future of county hall.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 16 October 1990]: Following publication on 24 July of the inspector's report of an inquiry into planning appeals to the proposed redevelopment of county hall my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has invited the applicants to submit amendments to the planning application by 7 November. If there is occasion to do so he will reopen the inquiry before determining the application. It remains the responsibility of the London residuary body to dispose of the property in the interests of London charge payers.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has anything to add to his statement of 26 March,Official Report, column 116, about the conditions required to be met for entry to the exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Maude
  I have nothing to add to the statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made on 15 October at column 928–29.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement outlining the effect the decision to join the exchange rate mechanism of the 882
  exchange rate mechanism will have on the United Kingdom's trade balance with the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 17 October 1990]: Future movements in the United Kingdom's trade balance with the EC will be influenced by a number of different factors. ERM entry will reinforce counter-inflationary policy and provide a better framework for British industry to control costs.

  Tax Fraud
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present practice of the board of Inland Revenue with regard to instituting criminal proceedings in case of suspected tax fraud.

  Mr. Major
  The practice of the board of Inland Revenue in cases of fraud in relation to tax is as follows:

  1. The board may accept a money settlement instead of instituting criminal proceedings in respect of fraud alleged to have been committed by a taxpayer.

  2. It can give no undertaking that it will accept a money settlement and refrain from instituting criminal proceedings, even if the taxpayer has made a full confession and has given full facilities for investigation of the facts. It reserves to itself full discretion in all cases as to the course it pursues.

  3. Nevertheless, in considering whether to accept a money settlement or to institute criminal proceedings, its decision is influenced by the fact that the taxpayer has made a full confession and has given full facilities for investigastion into his affairs and for examination of such books, papers, documents or information as the board may consider necessary.

  The purpose of this statement is to clarify the former statement—given by the then Chancellor Sir John Anderson—and to bring its language up to date. It is not intended to make any substantive changes.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on voluntary organisations in England and Wales of any harmonisation of value added tax which would end the zero-rating concessions at present in force.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government recognise that the total VAT burden falling on the United Kingdom voluntary sector would have increased by about £500 million a year if the EC Commission's original proposals for tax approximation in the single market had been adopted. The Government therefore welcome the Commission's recent acceptance of zero-rating in certain circumstances after 1992 but is opposed to any proposals which interfere with our existing VAT reliefs.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the charities or types of charity that might be adversely affected by the removal of current zero-rating concessions as a result of harmonisation within the EEC.

  Mr. Ryder
  This information is not readily available. In any case, EC decisions in tax matters require the unanimous agreement of all member states and there is no question of the Government being forced to accept any proposals on VAT approximation which might adversely affect charities.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the meeting in Luxembourg on 8 October of the European Council of Financial Ministers.

  Mr. Maude
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 15 October at column 718.

  Hospital Radio
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received for zero-rating value-added tax on hospital radio broadcasting equipment.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations since the reply my predecessor gave to my hon. Friend on 6 July 1989 at columns 453–54.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was consulted by the European investment bank in his capacity as Chancellor and as a director of the bank over the decision to lend £1,000,000,000 and £300,000,000 to the channel tunnel project; and what advice he offered to the bank on behalf of the United Kingdom Government on each loan decision.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 17 October 1990]: The statute of the European investment bank (EIB) requires the EIB to seek an opinion on each loan proposal from the member states in whose territory the project will be carried out. The opinion represents the view of the Government concerned in their capacity as a shareholder in the EIB.

  The United Kingdom Government were duly asked for an opinion on the loans of £1 billion and £300 million to the channel tunnel project. These requests were made on 18 December 1986 and 3 May 1990 respectively. The EIB was informed by the Treasury that the Government had
  "no objection to the project's being assessed according to the EIB's normal criteria".

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Government has the power to withdraw sterling from the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 17 October 1990]: Yes, but we have no intention of doing so.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Research Equipment
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what representations he has received from higher education institutions about deficiencies in research equipment provision;

  (2) what plans he has to assess the adequacy of research equipment in higher education institutions.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend is generally advised in these matters by the Advisory Board for the 884
  Research Councils and by the higher education funding councils. Other representations relevant to equipment matters are received from time to time.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what funds have been made available by the research councils for the purchase of research equipment in universities and polytechnics in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90, the research councils made available £41,003,000 and £74,644,000 for the purchase of equipment in universities and polytechnics.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has about the finance which has been made available to universities and polytechnics for the purchase of research equipment by(a) charitable institutions and (b) industry in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This information is not available centrally.

  Higher Education Corporations
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many higher education corporations have been established under the provision of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Fifty-six higher education corporations have been established under the Education Reform Act 1988. Five have subsequently been dissolved and merged with other institutions, leaving a present total of 51.

  Under-fives
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the contents of the report recently submitted to him by the committee set up to deal with nursery education and the quality of child care for the under-fives will be published.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) on 17 October.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science from what date all primary schools will become eligible to seek grant-maintained status.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Primary schools with less than 300 registered pupils have in the past not been eligible to apply for grant-maintained status. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have now made an order which will enable all primary schools in England and Wales which are county or voluntary schools to apply for grant-maintained status. The order will come into force on 1 November 1990.

  Standard Assessment Tasks
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the standard assessment tasks to be used to assess seven-year-olds in English, mathematics and science in 1991.
  885
  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral statement that I made to the House earlier today.

HEALTH

  Training
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is proposing to improve the training of those involved in the food industry.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Food Safety Act 1990 contains an enabling power which allows regulations to be made requiring food handlers to receive training in food hygiene.

  The Government put forward their proposals on the subject in a consultation document which was issued to interested parties at the end of last year. It proposed that all food handlers should be required to receive an appropriate level of training in food hygiene. The Government intend that the method of training used to achieve this should be as flexible as possible, and should build on existing good practice in the industry.

  The consultation period ended on 30 June, and responses are currently being considered. Draft regulations will be published for a further round of consultation early next year.

  Travellers
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to the Maternity Alliance's report, "Traveller mothers and babies: who cares for their health"; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that traveller families receive adequate health care.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The report highlighted the obstacles which need to be overcome in providing adequate maternity and child health services to traveller families and suggested that they are best addressed through co-operation between local authorities, health authorities and the travellers themselves. The Department provides financial support to a travellers information and liaison unit run by the Save the Children Fund and will shortly be reviewing the progress of this project with the organisers to see if there are good practices or advice which could be disseminated more widely.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps have been taken to check whether any patients were infected by the Legionella outbreak at Queen's medical centre, Nottingham;

  (2) what action he has taken on the recent outbreak of legionnaire's disease at the Queen's medical centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  One patient in the medical block of Queen's medical centre has been diagnosed as suffering from Legionnaires' disease. The infection was discovered as a result of a continuing surveillance exercise in the centre. The following action was undertaken by local management:—all patients at risk in the centre were individually screened and have been found not to be infected;
  —the normal intensive surveillance of water supplies has been enhanced;
  886
  —the hospital's control of infection committee and the Health and Safety Executive have been informed.

  Since the Department's guidance on the control of Legionellae was published in 1988, the hospital have taken extensive measures to minimise the risk of Legionaires' disease: This includes.
  —substantial investment in cleaning and disinfecting water systems;
  —increased hot water circulation temperatures;
  —the removal of infrequently used water outlets;
  —the regular flushing of remaining water outlets;
  —the increased sampling of water supplies;
  —the investigation of any relevant clinical conditions.

  We are satisfied that everything is being done in accordance with guidance issued by the Department to minimise the risk to patient and public safety.

  Food (Temperature Controls)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had on the need for improved temperature control standards for the British food industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department consulted widely with interested parties including manufacturers, retailers, caterers, distributors, consumer groups and enforcement agencies on proposals for the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations which were laid before Parliament on 18 July 1990. The regulations require that the temperature of certain categories of food be contolled in order to reduce the risk of foodborne illness among the public. Officials in the Department and in MAFF have met with a number of interested parties both before the regulations were made and subsequently.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth might expect a response to his letter of 8 June in connection with Mr. B. E. Brown.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lords) replied to my hon. Friend on 28 August.

  Self-Governing Hospitals
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he intends to give approval to any application for self-governing status where the amount of medical support in the hospital concerned is minimal;

  (2) if he will state the level of support shown by the medical and nursing profession in a hospital which is the subject of an application for self-governing status before he will give his approval to the proposal.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In assessing applications for NHS trust status, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be looking at a number of matters, including evidence that senior clinicians and other professional staff are involved in the management of the unit. The issues involved are complex and cannot be reduced to simple propositions.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the criteria by which he will decide applications for hospitals to become self-governing.
  887
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The key criteria which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will use in assessing National Health Service trust applications are as follows:

  (i) tangible benefits to patients and improvements in the quality of the services it offers;

  (ii) strong leadership and effective management;

  (iii) involvement of senior professional staff, including clinicians, in management; and

  (iv) financial viability.

  Young Persons (Secure Accommodation)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each facility providing secure accommodation for young persons for each of the years

  Secure accommodation approved for use 31 December 1985

  Social Services inspectorate Region

  Name of Unit

  O&A2CHE

  Local Authority

  Places1

  B

  G

  M

  Northern

  Aycliffe (Royston House)

  O&A

  Durham

  —

  —

  14

  Aycliffe Special Unit

  CHE

  Durham

  —

  —

  36

  Clavering House

  O&A

  —

  —

  —

  3

  York and Humberside

  East Moor

  O&A

  Leeds

  9

  —

  —

  East Moor

  CHE

  Leeds

  18

  —

  —

  Keppel's View

  O&A

  Rotherham

  —

  —

  4

  North Western

  Blackbrook House

  CHE

  Liverpool

  —

  5

  —

  Briars Hey

  CHE

  Lancashire

  —

  8

  —

  Derwent House

  O&A

  Liverpool

  —

  4

  —

  Dyson Hall

  O&A

  Liverpool

  8

  —

  —

  Fylde (Dales House)

  CHE

  Lancashire

  8

  —

  —

  Meadowcroft

  CHE

  Lancashire

  —

  6

  —

  Park House

  O&A

  Salford

  —

  —

  6

  Red Bank (Special Unit)

  CHE

  Lancashire

  26

  —

  —

  Red Bank (ICU Vardy House)

  O&A

  Lancashire

  8

  —

  —

  St. Joseph's1

  CHE

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  8

  West Midlands

  Danescourt

  O&A

  Wolverhampton

  —

  —

  4

  St. John's

  CHE

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  4

  Stoke House

  O&A

  Coventry

  —

  —

  6

  East Midlands

  Amberdale

  O&A

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  8

  Greenacres

  O&A

  Derbyshire

  2

  —

  —

  Kesteven House

  O&A

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  4

  Moorfields

  CHE

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  2

  South Western

  Atkinson Unit

  O&A

  Devon

  —

  —

  12

  Kingswood

  CHE

  Avon

  20

  —

  —

  Sedbury Park

  CHE

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  4

  Thames/Anglia

  Salters

  O&A

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  6

  Oxendon House

  O&A

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  6

  Woodside

  O&A

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  2

  Heathercroft

  CHE

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  3

  —

  London

  Cumberlow Lodge

  O&A

  Lambeth

  —

  6

  —

  Frant Court

  CHE

  Greenwich

  —

  3

  —

  Little Heath Lodge

  O&A

  Newham

  6

  —

  —

  Melanie Klein House

  CHE

  Greenwich

  —

  6

  —

  Middlesex Lodge

  O&A

  Hillingdon

  —

  8

  —

  Orchard Lodge

  O&A

  Southwark

  8

  —

  —

  Pear Tree House

  O&A

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  2

  Redhill

  O&A

  Wandsworth

  8

  —

  —

  Stamford House

  O&A

  Hammersmith

  16

  —

  —

  Southern

  Beechfield

  O&A

  West Sussex

  —

  —

  6

  Landsdowne Children's Centre

  O&A

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  5

  The Oaks (Formerly Woodrough)

  O&A

  Surrey

  —

  —

  2

  Fairfield Lodge

  O&A

  Hampshire

  —

  3

  —

  Glen House

  O&A

  Hampshire

  8

  —

  —

  1 (B) Boys; (G) Girls; (M) Mixed sex.

  2 O and A—Observation and Assessment. CHE—Community home with education.

  888
  1975, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1988 and 1989, the number of places available; whether such places were available for boys and/or girls; and what was the age range for which such places were available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information in the form requested is not available for the full period. The tables provide information about the number of approved secure facilities provided by local authorities as at 31 December in each of the years 1985, 1987, 1988 and 1989. All the facilities listed would accommodate children in the age range 10 to 18 years.
  889

  Secure accommodation by Social Services Inspectorate region

  Location

  Local authorities

  O and A or CHE2

  Number of places1

  30 DECEMBER 1987

  Northern

  New Aycliffe (Royston House)

  Durham

  O and A

  14M

  Clavering House

  Newcastle

  O and A

  3M

  Aycliffe Special Unit

  Durham

  CHE

  36M

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Keppels View

  Rotherham

  O and A

  4M

  East Moor

  Leeds

  O and A

  9B

  East Moor

  Leeds

  CHE

  18B

  North Western

  Red Sands

  Cheshire

  CHE

  6M

  Derwent House

  Liverpool

  O and A

  4G

  Red Bank (Vardy House)

  Lancashire

  O and A

  8B

  Red Bank Special Unit

  Lancashire

  CHE

  26B

  Fylde (Dales House)

  Lancashire

  CHE

  8B

  Liverpool

  Blackbrook House (Labore House)

  Catholic SSVA

  CHE

  5G

  Briars Hey (Orchard House)

  Lancashire

  CHE

  8G

  Meadowcroft Lindle Unit

  Lancashire

  CHE

  6G

  Flyde Assessment Centre

  Lancashire

  O and A

  4B

  Dyson Hall

  Liverpool

  O and A

  8B

  West Midlands

  Stoke House

  Coventry

  O and A

  6M

  St. Johns

  Birmingham

  O and A

  4M

  East Midlands

  Moorfield

  Derby

  O and A

  2M

  Kesteven

  Lincoln

  O and A

  4M

  Amberdale

  Notts

  O and A

  8M

  Greenacres

  Derby

  O and A

  2B

  Thames/Anglia

  Salters

  Cambs

  O and A

  6G

  Oxenden House

  Beds

  O and A

  6M

  Woodside Young People's Centre

  Herts

  O and A

  2M

  Heathercroft

  Bucks

  CHE

  3G

  Brookside

  Berks

  O and A

  4M

  London

  Cumberlow Lodge

  Lambeth

  O and A

  6G

  Stamford House

  Hammersmith

  O and A

  8B

  Middlesex Lodge

  Hillingdon

  O and A

  2G

  Little Heath Lodge

  Newham

  O and A

  6B

  Orchard Lodge

  Southwark

  O and A

  8B

  Redhill

  Wandsworth

  O and A

  8B

  Frant Court

  Sussex

  CHE

  3G

  Melanie Klein House

  Greenwich

  CHE

  6G

  Southern

  Lansdown

  East Sussex

  O and A

  5M

  Beechfield

  West Sussex

  O and A

  6M

  The Oaks

  Surrey

  O and A

  2M

  Fairfield

  Hants

  O and A

  3G

  Glen House

  Hants

  O and A

  8B

  South Western

  Atkinson Unit

  Devon

  O and A

  12M

  Kingswood

  Avon

  CHE

  20B

  31 DECEMBER 1988

  Northern

  New Aycliffe (Royston House)

  Durham

  O and A

  14M

  Clavering House

  Newcastle

  O and A

  3M

  Aycliffe Special Unit

  Durham

  CHE

  36M

  890

  Location

  Local authorities

  O and A or CHE2

  Number of places1

  Netherton Park

  Northumberland

  O and A

  5M

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Keppels View

  Rotherham

  O and A

  4M

  East Moor

  Leeds

  O and A

  9B

  East Moor

  Leeds

  CHE

  18B

  North Western

  Red Sands

  Cheshire

  CHE

  6M

  Derwent House

  Liverpool

  O and A

  4G

  Red Bank (Vardy House)

  Lancashire

  O and A

  8B

  Red Bank (Special Unit)

  Lancashire

  CHE

  26B

  Blackbrook House (Labore House)

  Liverpool SSVA

  CHE

  5G

  Briars Hey (Orchard House)

  Lancashire

  CHE

  8G

  Dyson Hall

  Liverpool

  O and A

  8B

  West Midlands

  Danescourt

  Wolverhampton

  O and A

  4M

  St. Johns

  Birmingham

  O and A

  4M

  East Midlands

  Moorfield

  Derby

  O and A

  2M

  Kesteven

  Lincoln

  O and A

  4M

  Amberdale

  Notts

  O and A

  8M

  Greenacres

  Derby

  O and A

  5B

  Thames/Anglia

  Salters

  Cambridgeshire

  O and A

  4G

  Oxenden House

  Bedfordshire

  O and A

  6M

  Woodside Young People's Centre

  Hertfordshire

  O and A

  2M

  Thornbury House

  Oxfordshire

  O and A

  3B

  Brookside

  Berkshire

  O and A

  4M

  London

  Middlesex Lodge

  Hillingdon

  O and A

  9G

  Little Heath Lodge

  Newham

  O and A

  6B

  Orchard Lodge

  Southwark

  O and A

  8B

  Frant Court

  Greenwich

  CHE

  3G

  Melanie Klein House

  Greenwich

  CHE

  6G

  Southern

  Lansdown

  East Sussex

  O and A

  5M

  Beechfield

  West Sussex

  O and A

  6M

  The Oaks

  Surrey

  O and A

  2M

  Fairfield

  Hampshire

  O and A

  3G

  Glen House

  Hampshire

  O and A

  8B

  South Western

  Atkinson Unit

  Devon

  O and A

  12M

  Kingswood

  Avon

  CHE

  20B

  30 DECEMBER 1989

  Northern

  New Aycliffe (Royston House)

  Durham

  O and A

  14M

  Clavering House

  Newcastle

  O and A

  3M

  Aycliffe Special Unit

  Durham

  CHE

  36M

  Netherton Park

  Northumberland

  O and A

  5M

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Kepples View

  Rotherham

  O and A

  4M

  East Moor

  Leeds

  O and A

  9B

  East Moor

  Leeds

  CHE

  18B

  North Western

  Red Sands

  Cheshire

  CHE

  6M

  Derwent House

  Liverpool

  O and A

  4G

  Red Bank (Vardy House)

  Lancashire

  O and A

  8B

  Red Bank (Special Unit)

  Lancashire

  CHE

  26B

  891

  Location

  Local authorities

  O and A or CHE2

  Number of places1

  Blackbrook House (Labore House)

  Liverpool SSVA

  CHE

  5G

  Briars Hey (Orchard House)

  Lancashire

  CHE

  8G

  Dyson Hall

  Liverpool

  O and A

  8B

  Barton Moss (Park House)

  Salford

  O and A

  4B

  West Midlands

  Danescourt

  Wolverhampton

  O and A

  4M

  St. Johns

  Birmingham

  O and A

  4M

  East Midlands

  Moorfield

  Derby

  O and A

  2M

  Kesteven

  Lincoln

  O and A

  4M

  Amberdale

  Notts

  O and A

  8M

  Greenacres

  Derby

  O and A

  5M

  Thames/Anglia

  Salters

  Cambs

  O and A

  4G

  Woodside Young People's Centre

  Hertfordshire

  O and A

  2M

  Thornbury House

  Oxfordshire

  O and A

  3B

  Brookside

  Berks

  O and A

  4M

  London

  Middlesex Lodge

  Hillingdon

  O and A

  9G

  Little Heath Lodge

  Newham

  O and A

  6B

  Orchard Lodge

  Southwark

  O and A

  8B

  Frant Court

  Sussex

  CHE

  3G

  Stamford House

  Hammersmith

  O and A

  16B

  Southern

  Lansdown

  East Sussex

  O and A

  5M

  Beechfield

  West Sussex

  O and A

  6M

  Fairfield

  Hants

  O and A

  3G

  Glen House

  Hants

  O and A

  8B

  South Western

  Atkinson Unit

  Devon

  O and A

  12M

  Kingswood

  Avon

  CHE

  20B

  1 (B) Boys; (G) Girls; (M) Mixed sex.

  2 O and A—Observation and assessment. CHE—Community home with education.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each facility providing secure accommodation for young persons for each of the years 1975, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1988 and 1989, the number of admissions and discharges according to the sex and age of young persons accommodated and according to the legal basis on which they were accommodated.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Statistical information about the use made of secure facilities provided by local authorities was not collected centrally prior to 1984.

  The information requested for the years 1984 to 1988 is given in the annual publication "Children Accommodated in Secure Units During the Year Ending 31 March", copies of which are available in the Library. The figures for 1989 will he published shortly.

  Vitamin A
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department is giving to pregnant women about the consumption of vitamin A.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Our Department, together with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods, has been considering evidence which suggests that high levels of vitamin A may cause birth defects.
  892
  The Chief Medical Officer, Sir Donald Acheson, is cautioning women who are, or who may become, pregnant not to take vitamin A supplements except under medical supervision, and as a matter of prudence, not to eat liver or liver products because the high levels of vitamin A found in some samples of animal liver may be harmful.

  The Chief Medical Officer has sought expert advice on this question and he has issued the following advice:
  "While there is, at present, no positive evidence that any birth defects have arisen as a result of Vitamin A intakes within the United Kingdom, there have been a small number of case reports from abroad of birth defects in children of women who have taken supplements containing Vitamin A greatly in excess of the recommended daily amount. Worldwide, there has been only one case reported of birth defects in a baby born to a woman who had consumed large quantities of liver every day during her pregnancy.
  Vitamin A is essential for good health. Pregnant women and nursing mothers have always been advised to make sure they get enough of it in their diet.
  However, it has recently been suggested that an excess of Vitamin A may cause birth defects."
  "This is why the Committee on Toxicity, reinforced by other experts, has been considering all the available information about the toxic effects of Vitamin A in the diet, how much of it people consume as supplements or in their food and whether these intakes may be harmful to unborn babies.
  "They have now given me their advice and as a result I must caution women who are, or who may become, pregnant against taking any dietary supplements—including tablets and fish-liver oil drops—containing vitamin A, except on the advice of a doctor or ante-natal clinic. The vitamin supplements currently prescribed as part of ante-natal care for pregnant and nursing mothers contain a safe amount of vitamin A and should continue to be taken.
  "I am also advising women who are pregnant, or who could become pregnant that as a matter of prudence they should not eat liver or products made from it such as liver pâte and liver sausage.
  "Other women, men and children are not affected by this advice.
  "Vitamin A is an essential nutrient but it is not essential to eat liver to acquire it. A balanced diet provides sufficient for healthy living. Apart from liver the main sources of vitamin A in the diet are carrots, margarine, dairy products, eggs, all green vegetables, tomatoes and other fruit. Eating such a diet poses no risks from any harmful effects of vitamin A, and women should continue to eat these foods as part of a balanced diet. Women who stop eating liver would however need to maintain, and preferably increase, their iron intakes by consuming more lean red meat and meat products, fortified breakfast cereals, bread and vegetables.
  "The cause of high vitamin A levels in animal liver is being investigated as a matter of urgency with a view to seeing whether changes in current animal feeding practices and in the use of veterinary vitamin A supplements could reduce those levels.
  "These investigations will take some time and, as high levels of Vitamin A have been reported in liver from a number of countries which export it to the United Kingdom, any effective action would have to be in concert with other countries. It is not yet clear how far levels of vitamin A in liver could be reduced but the situation will be closely monitored and fresh advice issued if the position changes."

  The CMO's statement, together with further information, has been placed in the Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Extradition
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the case of prisoners held on remand for the purposes of extradition, the requesting country pays the cost of imprisonment so incurred should they oppose bail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is established international practice in extradition cases for the requested country to bear the cost of the fugitive's detention.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the progress made by the working party studying reform of the Data Protection Act; what recent relevant international developments there have been; and whether any new legislation is envisaged in the near future.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We are currently considering the report of the interdepartmental committee appointed to review the Data Protection Act 1984. The Government have also received recently a draft of a directive on data protection, and associated measures, from the European Commission. Legislation is unlikely before the directive has been adopted.

  Visas
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the changes to visa requirements since 26 July.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 15 August we withdrew from nationals of Somalia the concession under which the visa requirement is waived for transit passengers who are booked on an onward flight within 24 hours. The same concession was subsequently withdrawn from Iraqi nationals with effect from 23 August. Under rules changes which took effect on 22 September Iraqi nationals are to be refused student visas and Iraqis already issued with such visas may be refused admission. Under an immigration rules change which took effect on 1 October visas are no longer required by nationals of Czechoslovakia and Hungary; this change is subject to the usual parliamentary procedure.

  Travellers
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will announce his conclusions on the outcome of the review of section 39 of the Public Order Act; and whether he has plans to ensure that eviction powers take account of the needs of pregnant and newly-delivered traveller women.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We hope to announce the results of the evaluation of section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 by the end of the year. There is already a defence in the section for an accused person to show that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to leave the land, which he had been directed by the police to leave, as soon as 894
  reasonably practicable. As part of the evaluation we are considering whether specific account should be taken of the health of trespassers before a direction to leave the land is given.

  Police Records
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has issued any guidance or instruction to police forces on the length of time for which internal written or computer records should be preserved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department has in the past asked forces to keep various records for a variety of reasons but details are not available and a comprehensive record could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The weeding of police records, where there is not a statutory requirement to keep them for a specified period, is a matter for chief officers. The code of practice for police computer systems issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers contains guidelines for the review and removal of personal data. A copy of the code of practice is in the Library. The guidelines are currently under review.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will seek a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis listing and describing all the notebooks and other written records that are required by standing orders, instructions or guidance to be personally kept or compiled by individual Metropolitan police officers for operational purposes(a) in the uniformed branch, and (b) in the CID;

  (2) if he will seek a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis listing and describing all the written records that are required by standing orders, instructions or guidance to be kept for operational purposes at Metropolitan police stations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Metropolitan police require police officers to compile many different kinds of written records and it is not possible to list them all except at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those police forces in England and Wales which do not have central command and control computers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Nearly all forces make some use of computers in the handling of incidents and the deployment of resources. I understand, however, that the following forces do not have an integrated centralised command and control computer system which provides both these facilities:

  Cumbria Constabulary

  Durham Constabulary

  Dyfed Powys Police

  Gloucester Constabulary

  Greater Manchester Police

  Gwent Constabulary

  Humberside Police

  Lancashire Constabulary

  Leicestershire Constabulary

  Norfolk Constabulary

  Northamptonshire Police

  North Yorkshire Police

  Nottinghamshire Constabulary

  Thames Valley Police

  895
  The following four forces have decentralised computer systems which provide both command and control:

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary

  Dorset Police

  Surrey Constabulary

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Police National Computer contains a particular code for recording or indicating that an individual has made a false complaint or false complaints against the police.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 15 October at column 725.

  Suicide
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates young offenders have committed suicide while(a) in prison and (b) in secure

  Deaths of Young People in HM Prison Service establishments since 1981 (until 16 October 1990)

  Establishment

  Age

  Date of death

  Date of inquest

  Verdict

  Aylesbury

  18

  20 September 1981

  —

  Misadventure

  Rochester

  16

  30 December 1981

  —

  Suicide

  Canterbury

  18

  20 January 1982

  —

  Suicide

  Ashford

  18

  7 July 1982

  —

  Lack of Care

  Stoke Heath

  19

  11 October 1982

  —

  Suicide

  Lewes

  18

  23 November 1982

  —

  Suicide

  Canterbury

  20

  21 October 1982

  —

  Suicide

  Thorp Arch

  19

  3 February 1983

  —

  Misadventure

  Manchester

  16

  15 March 1983

  —

  Suicide

  Leeds

  20

  13 July 1983

  —

  Suicide

  Winchester

  20

  7 April 1984

  —

  Misadventure

  Swansea

  17

  19 May 1984

  —

  Suicide

  Pentonville

  19

  20 June 1984

  —

  Suicide

  Swansea

  19

  9 October 1985

  —

  Suicide

  Swansea

  19

  24 March 1985

  —

  Misadventure

  Portland

  20

  26 September 1985

  —

  Open

  Risley

  18

  12 October 1985

  —

  Suicide

  Exeter

  19

  13 January 1986

  —

  Suicide

  Ashford

  19

  20 March 1986

  —

  Suicide

  Liverpool

  19

  9 June 1986

  —

  Open

  Lewes

  19

  25 August 1986

  —

  Accidental death

  Risley

  20

  17 September 1986

  —

  Suicide

  Canterbury

  20

  8 January 1987

  —

  Suicide

  Ashford

  20

  7 March 1987

  —

  Suicide

  Stoke Heath

  20

  5 April 1987

  —

  Suicide

  Rochester

  17

  14 July 1987

  —

  Suicide

  Risley

  18

  23 August 1987

  —

  Suicide

  Stoke Heath

  19

  28 August 1987

  —

  Suicide

  Camp Hill

  20

  19 December 1987

  —

  Suicide

  Rochester

  18

  24 March 1988

  21 July 1988

  Open

  Risley

  20

  11 May 1988

  24 November 1988

  Suicide

  Leeds

  17

  28 May 1988

  24 August 1988

  Suicide

  Leeds

  18

  29 June 1988

  19 October 1988

  Suicide

  Manchester

  20

  22 September 1988

  11 January 1989

  Open

  Shrewsbury

  19

  19 October 1988

  24 January 1989

  Suicide

  Leeds

  19

  19 October 1988

  9 November 1988

  Suicide

  Glen Parva

  17

  24 October 1988

  7 December 1988

  Suicide

  Leeds

  19

  30 November 1988

  25 January 1989

  Suicide

  Castington

  19

  11 January 1989

  1 September 1989

  Accidental death

  Wellingborough

  19

  12 January 1989

  11 May 1989

  Accidental death

  Leeds

  18

  16 February 1989

  26 April 1989

  Suicide

  Risley

  19

  25 March 1989

  1 February 1990

  Open

  Lewes

  19

  28 April 1989

  21 June 1989

  Suicide

  Manchester

  18

  15 May 1989

  8 November 1989

  Suicide

  Rochester

  18

  1 October 1989

  26 March 1990

  Suicide

  Hindley

  19

  31 October 1989

  26 March 1990

  Suicide

  Swansea

  18

  4 November 1989

  3 May 1990

  Suicide

  Manchester

  19

  23 December 1989

  8 May 1990

  Suicide

  Glen Parva

  19

  24 December 1989

  28 February 1990

  Suicide

  Winchester

  19

  14 February 1990

  24 July 1990

  Open

  Hindley

  18

  18 February 1990

  25 May 1990

  Suicide

  Hindley

  18

  25 June 1990

  —1

  —

  896
  accommodation in the last 10 years; on what date each inquest took place; what was the average time between suicide and inquest (i) for those who committed suicide while in custody and (ii) for those not in custody; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The dates on which persons under the age of 21 (both convicted and unconvicted) have died at their own hand while in prison custody in the last 10 years, and the details of the inquests into those deaths, are set out in the table. The dates on which inquests were held prior to 1988 are not readily available and I shall write to the right hon. Member. For the years for which the information is available the average time between death and inquest is 134 days. Information about deaths in local authority secure accommodation is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Information about the average time between death and inquest for people who commit suicide while not in prison custody is not available.
  897

  Establishment

  Age

  Date of death

  Date of inquest

  Verdict

  Hindley

  18

  25 June 1990

  —1

  —

  Swansea

  15

  13 July 1990

  —1

  —

  Leeds

  17

  12 August 1990

  31 October 1990

  —

  Hull

  20

  29 September 1990

  —1

  —

  1 Dates have not yet been fixed for the inquests in these cases.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the support to bereaved parents of prisoners who commit suicide in prison.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Where an inmate dies in prison custody the governor is required, under prison and young offender institution rules, to inform at once the inmate's spouse or next of kin and also any person whom the prisoner may reasonably have asked should be informed. Governors are expected to exercise care and sensitivity in notifying relatives and responding to their questions and concerns.

  We are currently preparing new guidance on the making of visits to bereaved relatives. The purpose of such visits would be to convey sympathy, to follow up matters of concern to the family and to provide information, where appropriate, about specialist bereavement services which are available in the community. We are also exploring the possibility of providing special training for selected members of prison staff by way of preparation for such visits.

  Armley Prison
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently housed in Armley prison(a) on remand, (b) under 18-years-old, (c) for debt and (d) in total.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is as follows:

  Prisoners held in Armley prison as at 17 October 1990

  Number

  (a) Held on remand

  200

  (b) Under 18-years-old

  46

  (c) Held for debt offences

  7

  Total inmate population on 17 October 1990

  895

  Ethnic Minorities (Grant)
  Mr, Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made for the future administration of grant to ethnic minorities under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have today issued the new arrangements for section 11 grant following the consideration of the responses received to the consultation document published on 14 March this year. The grant will in future be administered under both the Local Government Act 1966 and by means of a grant to be newly established and known as ethnic minority grant (EMG). The new arrangements will come into effect from April 1992.

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  It is important that the considerable contribution that our ethnic minorities make to the life and work of this country is fully recognised. The new arrangements will focus grant on supporting the Government's prime
  898
  objectives to break down barriers experienced by members of the ethnic minorities. They are designed, in advance of legislative change, to ensure that the areas of greatest need are identified—both in the local authority and voluntary sectors. The grant will in future not be open ended and the continuing need for it will have to be shown. Workable proposals with identifiable objectives set, monitored and evaluated will be a means to ensure those ethnic minorities can take a full and active part in the life of this country.

  There will be greater scope to pursue a larger number and wider range of more innovative projects; in particular by the increased involvement of the voluntary sector. This will be achieved by requiring local authorities to identify suitable voluntary sector projects for the placement of local authority staff and at the same time by specifically devoting a proportion of the grant directly to the voluntary sector through the new training and enterprise councils (TECs).

  The TECs are becoming firmly established and by the time the new grant arrangements come into effect they will largely cover the whole country. Voluntary sector organisations, in particular those from the non-Commonwealth areas that have previously been unable to apply for such funds, will be able to make application for the new ethnic minority grant through the TECs.

  The Government recognise that legislation will be required for fundamental reform of section 11, but believe that much can be done in advance to improve the administration of the grant.

  The response to the consultation process from local authorities, the voluntary sector and individuals was considerable and the Government are grateful for the scale and scope of the comments made on their proposals. Where possible, comments and suggestions have been incorporated in the new arrangements. In response to specific requests from both local authorities and the voluntary sector it was announced on 5 September that the start date for the new arrangements would be deferred until 1 April 1992. This has allowed more time for the consideration of the comments and suggestions made. The grant has been subject to an overall cash limit (as recommended by the scrutiny report) since 1 April 1990; the other main changes in the funding arrangements set out in the draft circular are:
  the emphasis of the grant in future will be on practical projects working to identified needs, such as a lack of English language or low achievement in schools, and local authorities will in future bid for funding for projects to be judged against such specific criteria;
  all projects will therefore have to fall within the new criteria for grant as laid down in the statement of policy which accompanies the circular;
  all projects will have to be regularly monitored and reviewed against recognisable performance targets;
  in advance of formal legislative change arrangements are being made for some section 11 funding to be redirected to innovative projects that tackle ethnic minority need, to be sponsored by the new training and enterprise councils (TECs), with task forces and city action teams in suport;
  local authorities will need to work closely with voluntary organisations and identify a proportion of projects for the

  899
  voluntary sector;
  new administrative arrangements will come into effect on 1 April 1992. Bids for funding will be invited on an annual basis to a fixed timetable.

  The new arrangements will allow for wider and more innovative proposals, but existing projects will still be able to continue if they are brought within the new criteria. To increase effectiveness, all projects, whether local authority or voluntary sector based, will need to set clear objectives for achievement. They will on the one hand encourage, in advance of legislative change, the take-up of grant by the widest range of ethnic minority groups while on the other ensure that those seeking grant do not become wholly dependent on such funding. By this means I believe we shall enable more people to gain better access to all mainstream services and to thereby become full and effective members of our society.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

  German Unification
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the agreement signed by the four occupying powers, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and France, with the two Germanies to enable unification to take place is a de facto peace treaty with Germany or whether a separate peace treaty will be signed to re-establish the legal status, responsibilities and liabilities of the new German state; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The treaty on the final settlement with respect to Germany settles definitively matters arising out of the Second World War as between the parties to the treaty. There will be no separate peace treaty.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if during his official visit to Argentina in early October, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), raised with ministers or officials of the Argentine Government the conditions under which Argentina would sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My hon. Friend did raise nuclear non-proliferation with President Menem and Foreign Minister Cavallo during his visit to Argentina, and they discussed Argentine attitudes towards the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards a nuclear test ban treaty following the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our position remains that, for the foreseeable future, the United Kingdom's security will depend on deterrence based, in part, on possession of nuclear weapons. This will mean a continuing requirement to test to ensure our weapons remain up to date and effective.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official
  900
  Report (a) the remarks of the President of the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference concerning article VI and (b) preambular paragraphs 8 to 12 of the treaty; and if he will make a statement outlining Her Majesty's Government's response to President de Rivero's remarks.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A record of the remarks of the President of the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference will be placed in the House of Commons Library when it becomes available. We share President de Rivero's assessment that agreement would have been possible on the final document proposed by the President but for the objections of one delegation.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the reasons and the policy basis upon which Her Majesty's Government submitted annex A to section I of the non-proliferation treaty document MC I/I at the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference; and if he will list the countries that supported annex A.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This text, on the nuclear capabilities of certain countries not party to the treaty, was one of several working papers put forward by various countries at the non-proliferation treaty review conference for discussion. The text was supported by a number of countries.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the texts of the proposals put by Her Majesty's Government to committees I, II and III at the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. Most of our proposals were put forward as the conference unfolded, often orally. It would be meaningless to publish texts in isolation.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the reasons why the United Kingdom Delegation submitted the document on final language to main committee III at the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The United Kingdom delegation was one of a number of delegations to put forward suggestions on which the review conference secretariat drew in preparing a first draft of language for the final document for circulation in main committee III.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline any changes made in Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the enforcement of full scope safeguards on all nuclear exports during 1990 and publish the response of the United Kingdom delegation to documents NPT/CONF IV/DC/I/ ADO 3(B) presented to the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There have been no changes during 1990 in our long-standing position on the desirability of requiring full-scope safeguards as a condition of nuclear supply.

  The conference achieved consensus language on this matter, which reads as follows:
  "The Conference further urges the nuclear supplier States to require as a necessary condition for the transfer of relevant

  901
  nuclear supplies to non-nuclear-weapon States under new supply arrangements, such a commitment and acceptance of such safeguards."

  We will be discussing the question with other states concerned.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the response of the United Kingdom delegation at the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference to the comments of the Nuclear Control Institute on the implementation of safeguards.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The United Kingdom delegation did not respond at the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference to any comments of the Nuclear Control Institute on the implementation of safeguards.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the main points of and Government reaction to, article VI and preambular paragraphs 8 to 12 set out at the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Article VI and preambular paragraphs 8–12 of the non-proliferation treaty primarily concern the responsibilities of states to work towards nuclear and general disarmament and to cease nuclear testing. Although these are long-term goals, considerable progress has been made since 1985 in arms control, in particular through the INF treaty and strategic arms reduction talks, and with the prospect of a treaty on conventional forces in Europe. But we do not believe that a cessation of nuclear testing is possible while we depend upon nuclear weapons for deterrence and in the absence of completely reliable means of verification.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that copies of all the documents submitted to the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference and its three main committees by Her Majesty's Government are deposited in the Library.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Copies of the following documents submitted to the Conference are being placed in the Library of the House:

  (a) a paper on United Kingdom implementation of the treaty;

  (b) the speech which I gave to the conference on 22 August.

  (c) a paper jointly submitted with the other two NPT depositary powers about a combined review and extension conference in 1995.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the response of Her Majesty's Government to(a) document NPT/CONF IV/M E II/WP 10 and (b) document NPT CONF IV/MC II/wpio/REV I contained in annex 4 and 5 of the main report and presented at the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Document NPT/CONF IV/MC II/WP10 was a working paper presented by the three depositary powers of the NPT and proposed language for the final document relevant to article X of the treaty concerning a conference in 1995 to extend the treaty document NPT/CONF Iv/MC 11/WP10/REV 1 was introduced by the depositary powers as a revision to their original working paper, in an effort to achieve consensus.902
  Consensus could not be reached. Accordingly, the second main committee of the conference decided to annex these papers to its report.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish Her Majesty's Government's response to the proposals on the extension of applications for nuclear safeguards to cover peace orientated nuclear facilities in non-proliferation treaty signatory states, outlined in the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The conference achieved consensus language on this point, which reads as follows:"The Conference reiterates the calls for the continued pursuit of the principle of universal application of IAEA safeguards to all peaceful nuclear activities in all States".
  The United Kingdom joined the consensus.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts were made by the United Kingdom delegation to achieve the adoption of a joint declaration at the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference; and if he will make a statement on the reasons why the conference failed to adopt such a declaration.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The United Kingdom made every effort to achieve a consensus final document. In the end, consensus was blocked by one delegation.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish Her Majesty's Government's response to the comment in paragraph I in article 3, of the report of main committee II at the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference about the proliferation dangers posed by unsafeguarding nuclear activities in non-nuclear weapons states.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We fully endorse the statement in the report of main committee II to the effect that unsafeguarded nuclear activities, which could lead to the spread of nuclear weapons capabilities in non-nuclear weapon states, pose serious proliferation dangers. This highlights the importance of the application of IAEA safeguards.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list of all documents submitted in the name of Her Majesty's Government to the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference; how many copies of each document were produced; and what was the response of conference participants to the documents.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The following documents were submitted formally by us to the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference:

  (a) a paper on the United Kingdom's implementation of the treaty;

  (b) the speech which I delivered to the conference on 22 August.

  We do not know precisely how many copies of each document were produced. Conference participants welcomed a number of the ideas and statements in the documents.

  In addition, our delegation put forward several suggestions for language for the final document.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish Her
  903
  Majesty's Government's response to the proposals outlined in the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference to offer any nuclear materials installed for verification by submission to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The proposals resulting from the fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference are currently being considered. Our policy will continue to be that all civil nuclear material held in the United Kingdom should be subject to Euratom safeguards under the treaty of 1957 establishing the European Atomic Energy Community and to the terms of the UK/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement of September 1976.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the reasons for the United Kingdom delegation's reservation of judgment on paragraph 20 of the report of main committee II concerning safeguards, at the recent fourth non-proliferation treaty review conference.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We reserved our position on this paragraph because we had an alternative formulation. Consensus language was eventually achieved.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will investigate the role of the Astra company of Ramsgate, and its Belgian subsidiary PRB, in exporting anti-tank rocket launchers to the armed forces of the Khmer Rouge operating in Cambodia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no evidence to substantiate these allegations. A licence is required to export such equipment under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989, as amended, and any breach of the controls would be carefully investigated.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy at the next European Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers to ask his counterparts from France and Germany whether any military equipment and offensive armaments have been exported from manufacturers in their respective countries to the armed forces of the Khmer Rouge operating in Cambodia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  These are matters for the Governments concerned.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to secure the release of Mr. Ian Richter since his imprisonment in Abu Ghraid gaol, near Baghdad, on 7 February 1987.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are doing all we can to bring Mr. Richter home safely as soon as possible.

  We have raised his case with the Iraqis at every opportunity throughout the last four years. Her Majesty's ambassador in Baghdad also raises Mr. Richter's case at every possible opportunity, most recently on 20 August.

  Although our task has become more difficult during the present crisis in the Gulf, Mr. Richter's case remains very much in our mind in our dealings with the Iraqis.
  904
  We are in touch with Mrs. Richter regularly about her husband's case.

  Lebanon
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with Lebanon.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We will continue to give strong support to President Hrawi and the legitimate government of Lebanon. This is a time for reconciliation not recrimination. Following General Aoun's surrender we look for early and substantial progress on the basis of the Taif agreement towards a fully sovereign, independent Lebanon, free of foreign troops and armed militias.

  Syria
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with Syria.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Syria is an important regional power with whom we would like to have normal relations, but this does depend on resolving the problems which led to the breach in relations in 1986. We welcome President Assad's decision to send troops to the Gulf in support of the international effort to defend Saudi Arabia and help restore the legitimate government of Kuwait.

  International Atomic Energy Agency Conference
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the issue of nuclear weapons funding safeguards was raised by(a) the United Kingdom delegation or (b) any other delegation at the International Atomic Energy Agency conference at Vienna during September.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Spanish Government about the position of British lorry drivers and their vehicles held up in Spain by the current Spanish road haulage dispute; and what help can be offered through consulate arrangements to assist those suffering hardship or financial difficulties.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made representations to the Spanish central and regional authorities about their responsibility for the safety of British lorry crews and vehicles held up near the Irun border post for several days.

  Assistance, including financial, is being given by the Consular staff to all who are in need of help. The local authorities are providing food and drink.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the responsibilities of Mr. Dennis Rupert Gallwey in relation to Cambodia and the forces of the Cambodian resistance during his recent posting to Bangkok.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Mr. Gallwey was engaged in general duties in support of the defence section at the British embassy in Bangkok.

  Tibet
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement outlining the Government's policy towards Tibet.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Successive British Governments have always regarded Tibet as autonomous while recognising the special position of the Chinese authorities there. This remains our view. Against this background, we continue to call for dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetan people. We have also told the Chinese authorities on every possible occasion of our concern about the human rights situation in Tibet.

  Mr. Dennis Gallwey
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the current responsibilities of Mr. Dennis Rupert Gallwey.

  Mr. Lenox-Boyd
  Mr. Gallwey retired from Her Majesty's diplomatic service in April 1990.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact there was between his Department and Messrs. Anthony de Normann and Christopher Edward Mackenzie Giedt(a) before and (b) after their recent visit to Cambodia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  At his request, Mr. Mackenzie Geidt was briefed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the situation in Cambodia before he and Mr. de Normann visited Indochina in 1989 at the invitation of the Institute for International Relations in Hanoi and the present regime in Phnom Penh. There was no subsequent contact between this Department and the two men on their visit. Within the last few days, there have been exchanges with officials in this Department about allegations against the two men in the media.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the National Farmers Union to discuss bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am in regular discussion with the National Farmers Union on a wide range of issues, including BSE.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to take any further measures to control BSE; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to take further measures to control BSE; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to take further measures to control BSE; and if he will make a statement.
  906
  Mr. Gummer
  Legislation has, from 25 September, prohibited the use of certain bovine offals in all animal feedstuffs, including pet food.

  In addition, legislation came into force on 15 October which will require cattle owners to maintain breeding records of their herds and to keep both these and animal movement records for 10 years. As well as tightening general disease control measures, this will enable the offspring of BSE cases to be traced more easily, should if prove necessary to do so.

  National Consumer Council
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the National Consumer Council to discuss food issues.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the National Consumer Council to discuss agricultural issues.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the National Consumer Council to discuss food issues.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the National Consumer Council to discuss food issues.

  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the National Consumer Council to discuss agricultural issues.

  Mr. Maclean
  Representatives of the National Consumer Council were present on 12 July 1990 at the periodic meeting between my right hon. Friend and the office holders of consumer organisations.

  Consumer Panel
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what items were discussed by the Consumer panel at its last meeting.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what items were discussed by the consumer panel at its last meeting.

  Mr. Maclean
  The consumer panel met on 17 October 1990 and discussed a wide range of issues including food safety research and development, food surveillance, risk assessment, the food hazard warning system and freedom of information. The papers and minutes of this meeting are publicly available and have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The next meeting of the panel will take place on 16 January 1991.

  Farming and Wildlife Trust
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what form of support his Ministry has been able to offer to the Farming and Wildlife Trust.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department supports the work of the Farming and Wildlife Trust both by financial contribution and by provision of services locally to the trust's farm conservation advisers.

  Research
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to co-ordinate his Department's research with that in other European Community countries.

  Mr. Curry
  The main vehicle for the co-ordination of research within the European Community has been the series of framework programmes for R & D, the most recent of which was agreed on 23 April 1990. The Department has taken, and is taking, an active part in development of the relevant individual programmes under these frameworks which include provision for research into agriculture, fisheries and food. In addition, we maintain a range of other contracts, formal and informal, between MAFF scientists and their EC counterparts.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department is spending on food research in the current year.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department plans to spend £20 million on food research in the current year.

  Beef
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the beef sector of the agricultural industry.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am in frequent contact with the President of the National Farmers Union about all aspects of the agriculture industry, including the beef sector.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met European Community Agriculture Ministers to discuss trade in beef.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have regular contacts with Agriculture Ministers from other Community countries, in particular during meetings of the Agriculture Council. Matters related to the trade in beef are discussed as the need arises.

  Food Irradiation
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what scientific evidence is available to him on the safety or otherwise of food irradiation; and what weight he accords to such evidence.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what scientific evidence he has on the safety or otherwise of food irradiation; and what weight he gives to such evidence.

  Mr. Maclean
  The safety of food irradiation has been confirmed in the report of the independent Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods entitled "The Safety and Wholesomeness of Irradiated Foods".

  This includes reports from other independent scientific committees dealing specifically with toxicology, nutrition, microbiology and radiology.

  Many other national and international scientific committees, including the EC Scientific Committee for Food, have also concluded that food irradiation can safely be permitted.

  The Government has accepted the conclusion on the many scientific evaluations that have been made world wide.
  908
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the legislative measures he will have to introduce prior to the introduction of food irradiation into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  On 6 August the Ministry and the Department of Health jointly published for public consultation the draft Food (Control of Irradiation) Regulations 1990. These regulations, which draw on new powers in the Food Safety Act 1990, would lift the current general prohibition on the sale of irradiated foods in Great Britain and introduce a plant-specific, product-specific licensing system for food irradiation facilities. The regulations are intended to come into force on 1 January 1991.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to introduce the legislative measures to permit food irradiation in the United Kingdom prior to a decision being taken on its use in the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Government proposals for regulations that would lift the current general prohibition on the sale of irradiated foods and introduce a licensing system for food treatment facilities were published on 6 August. Irradiated foods have been accepted as safe by the World Health Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and many national and international scientific committees including our own Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods. There is no justification for continuing to deny consumers and industry the option of benefiting from this process, which can enhance food safety and extend choice. But no one will be forced to buy irradiated food if they do not want to.

  Houston Protocol
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the steps he is now proposing to further the aims of the Houston protocol in relation to the reduction of agricultural support.

  Mr. Curry
  The Houston summit stressed the importance of a successful conclusion to the GATT round. The United Kingdom is playing a leading role with the Community to ensure that the EC contributes constructively to discussions on reducing agricultural support.

  Eggs
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many eggs were imported into the United Kingdom in the last 12 months for which figures are available; what was their value and what was the percentage change in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Curry
  Six hundred and eighty five million eggs were imported into the United Kingdom between September 1989 and August 1990 at a value of £29 million.

  This represents an increase of 148 per cent. in volume and 211 per cent. in value over figures for the equivalent period in 1988–89.

  Food From Britain
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussion he has held with the chairman of Food From Britain on its objectives for 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Gummer
  Since his appointment on 1 May 1990, I have met the chairman of Food From Britain on a number of occasions to discuss this and other issues.

  Scottish Fishing Industry
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet with representatives of the catching sector of the Scottish fishing industry; and what assistance he is making available to that sector.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet with representatives of the catching sector of the Scottish fishing industry; and what assistance he is making available to that sector.

  Mr. Curry
  I have no plans to do so but my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Minister for Fisheries are in regular contact with them. Aid is available for the modernisation of fishing boats and provision of port facilities for the fishing industry. In addition there are schemes for assisting the marketing and processing of fish and shellfish products which benefit the industry.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what matters he proposes to raise at the next meeting of the Agricultural Council in order to further develop the effectiveness of the CAP.

  Mr. Gummer
  The agenda for the next Agricultural Council on 12 and 13 November has yet to be decided; I will decide nearer the time whether to raise any matters that would not otherwise be discussed.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met his colleagues in the Council of Ministers to discuss reform of the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the European Community Agriculture Ministers to discuss the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  This week, on 15 and 16 October. Issues discussed included the EC's proposed GATT offer on agriculture, the agricultural aspects of German unification and the reform of the olive oil regime.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet his European Community counterparts to discuss further amendments to the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Curry
  In November—12 and 13. The agenda is not yet fixed.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector.

  Mr. Gummer
  I meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss a wide range of issues including the dairy industry.

  North Sea Conference
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his implementation of the agreements from the last North sea conference.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his implementation of the agreements from the last North sea conference.

  Mr. Curry
  The targets and timetables set by Her Majesty's Government for implementation of the agreements reached at the 3rd North sea conference in March of this year were published in the United Kingdom guidance note on the ministerial declaration on 6 July 1990. This publication is available in the Library of the House.

  Footpaths
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the effect of new legislation on the ploughing up of footpaths.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Rights of Way Act 1990 has removed previous uncertainties as to the legal rights and responsibilities of farmers when cultivating land crossed by public rights of way. All farmers have been sent a booklet explaining the new law and providing practical guidance. The act also provides for stronger powers of enforcement. Its provisions have been widely welcomed and the public should benefit from the use of paths which are free from obstruction and clearly marked.

  UK Fishing Industry
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give an assessment of the prospects for the United Kingdom's fishing industry.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the prospects for the United Kingdom fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  So far this year the value of landings has been 9 per cent. higher than in 1989 despite the volume being down by 2 per cent. The conservation of fish stocks to safeguard the future of the fishing fleet remains an urgent priority.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the role of veterinarians in promoting animal welfare.
  911
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the role of veterinarians in promoting animal welfare.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) earlier today.

  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what role state veterinary service vets play in enforcing animal welfare standards.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what role state veterinary service vets play in enforcing animal welfare standards.

  Mr. Maclean
  Veterinary officers of the state veterinary service monitor welfare whenever they visit livestock farms. In addition, they carry out specific visits for welfare purposes. They promote the maintenance and improvement of welfare by advising farmers to follow the recommendations in the welfare codes. When necessary, they will not-hesitate to initiate prosecution proceedings. Indeed, a ministerial prosecution was concluded this month in which a farmer was convicted on more than 150 counts, sentenced to five months' imprisonment and fined £3,500 for cruelty to sheep. In addition, he has been banned for keeping sheep for five years.

  Livestock Exports
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress of negotiation with the European Community on welfare standards for live horses for export after 1992.

  Mr. Gummer
  There has been little progress and only one Community meeting has been held to discuss the Commission's proposals on the protection of animals during transport. When the discussions resume we shall be pressing to retain our controls on the export of horses and ponies.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the numbers of live sheep exported for slaughter in the first three months of 1990 and 1989.

  Mr. Maclean
  The figures are as follows:

  Live exports (numbers)

  1989

  1990

  January

  43,845

  88,835

  February

  31,543

  61,731

  March

  30,117

  127,992

  Total

  105,505

  178,558

  1 Provisional Data

  Relocation
  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he plans to relocate any of the divisions of his Department.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he plans to relocate any of the divisions of his Department.
  912
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the possible decentralisation of staff in his Department.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department is currently planning to relocate its central science laboratory and part of its headquarters work away from the south-east. I announced on 1 May that the intervention board was to move part of its operations from Reading to Newcastle on Tyne and the first steps to transfer the work permanently have already been taken.

  Fishing Agreements
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that European Community agreements on fishing are not flouted by other member states.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave him on 22 June at columns 748–49 on measures to deal with quota-hopping. Since then the House of Lords Appellate Committee have ordered that interim relief should be granted to applicants in the Factortame case. The relief is restricted to the requirement on owners and shareholders to be resident and domiciled in this country and affects only 53 vessels. The requirement that vessels should be managed and their operations directed and controlled from the United Kingdom remains. The registrar of shipping will ensure that only eligible vessels are registered. To date 12 of the 53 vessels have qualified.

  As I said in my earlier reply, the question whether the fishing vessel registered requirements of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 are compatible with Community law was still to be considered by the European Court of Justice. We will argue strongly before that Court that these provisions are right and necessary to protect the interests of our fishing communities.

  To resume fishing against United Kingdom quotas, all these vessels must also obtain a licence. Licensed vessels will be required to make regular visits to United Kingdom ports where it is expected that they will take on supplies land fish and change crews and thereby create some economic activity of benefit to the local community. Such visits will also enable officers of the sea fisheries inspectorate to board and inspect the boats to ensure that the conditions of their United Kingdom fishing licence are met and national and EC fisheries regulations are complied with. The inspectorate will continue to take firm action against any fisherman who flouts the law.

  Scientific Evidence
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what weight he accords to scientific evidence in reaching his Ministerial decisions.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what weight he accords to scientific evidence in reaching his Ministerial decisions.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is a science-based department. Our policies rest on are guided by scientific knowledge and advice. For example, policies on food safety, the environment, animal health and welfare, and fish stock management, all depend heavily on scientific input.

  Beer
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the balance of trade in beer and lager products.

  Mr. Maclean
  Net imports of beer and lager were valued at just under £75 million in 1989.

  Young People
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives from the National Union of Farmers to discuss opportunities for young people entering the agricultural industry.

  Mr. Curry
  The NFU has not requested a meeting to discuss opportunities for young people to enter agriculture. We are in regular touch on a wide range of other issues.

  Countryside Preservation
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has recently discussed the maintenance of the countryside with the president of the National Farmers Union.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Minister meets the president of the National Farmers Union on numerous occasions to discuss various issues. Their last meeting was on 6 September.

  Sea Defences
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has met the National Rivers Authority to discuss a national strategy for sea defences.

  Mr. Curry
  I meet the chairman of the National Rivers Authority on a regular basis to discuss implementation of the Government's flood defence policy and there are also frequent contacts between our officials on all flood defence matters.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of British farmers to discuss farm incomes.

  Mr. Gummer
  Ministers in this Department frequently meet representatives of the British farming community to discuss a wide range of issues, including farm incomes.

  Dolphins
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to safeguard dolphins.

  Mr. Curry
  Dolphins are already strictly protected under United Kingdom law including against deliberate capture. We are playing a leading role in work with countries bordering the North Sea and the Baltic for arrangements to further conserve small cetaceans, including dolphins. We also continue to press for wider international protection where this is needed and have 914
  supported the United Nations resolution to curtail large scale oceanic drift netting which has presented a threat to dolphins and other marine life particularly in the South Pacific.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress towards the introduction of compulsory food labelling.

  Mr. Maclean
  The directive on Nutrition Labelling Rules was finally agreed by the council on 24 September and was published in the Official Journal of 6 October. It lays down the statutory format for the giving of nutrition information on food labels. It provides for a two stage approach with energy, protein, carbohydrates and fat in the first group plus sugar, sodium, saturates and fibre in the second. The giving of information remains voluntary, although when given it must be comprehensive and in the agreed format. The exception to this is where a nutrition claim is made when the provision of the information in the agreed format is compulsory.

  The first stage of the approach comes into final effect in three years; the second stage comes into effect two years later. There remain some detailed provisions still to be agreed but I anticipate these issues will be resolved within the three year run-in period. We are disappointed that we did not achieve earlier implementation dates and I know that consumer and health groups will be similarly disappointed. It was however not possible to rally majority support in Brussels for an earlier implementation date and we thought it best to enable this important directive to be agreed without further delay and possible dilution. We shall be making the necessary changes to United Kingdom food labelling legislation, but in the meantime we shall now actively encourage the United Kingdom food industry to provide comprehensive nutrition information to the level of both first and second stages as we do already in the United Kingdom Government guidelines on Nutrition Labelling of Food.

  The second directive giving powers to require selected nutrients to be the subject of compulsory labelling has not been agreed, but we have ensured that it remains on the table in Brussels. There is a general support amongst a majority of member states for the principles behind this proposal, but it is felt that decisions about compulsory labelling will best be considered after experience has been gained with the voluntary system. Because the science of nutrition is relatively new and ideas and knowledge are still developing, the United Kingdom Government are prepared to go along with the majority view whilst wishing to ensure that the issue of compulsory nutrition labelling does not disappear from view.

  Animal Health Directives
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress towards animal health directives within the European Community.

  Mr. Maclean
  Progress continues to be made within the Community in harmonising animal health controls as part of the process of the realisation of the single market. Within the last 12 months a number of key measures have been agreed, as follows:
  915
  Directive 89/556 of 25 September 1989 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species.

  Directive 89/608 of 21 November 1989 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of member states and co-operation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of legislation on veterinary and zootechnical matters.

  Directive 89/662 of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market.

  Directive 90/422 of 26 June 1990 amending directive 64/432 as regards enzootic bovine leukosis.

  Directive 90/423 of 26 June 1990 amending directives 85/511, 64/432 and 72/462 as regards from foot and mouth disease. Decision 90/424 of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field.

  Directive 90/425 of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market.

  Directive 90/426 of 26 June 1990 on animal health conditions governing the movement and import from third countries of equidae.

  Directive 90/429 of 26 June 1990 laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in and imports from third countries of semen of domestic animals of the porcine species.

  All these measures represent important steps toward completion of the single market. I should like particularly to refer to directive 90/423 which provides for a uniform policy for the control of foot and mouth disease (FMD). From January 1992, and in line with current United Kingdom policy, the practice of vaccination against the disease is to be discontinued throughout the Community. Thereafter the main protection against the disease will be the slaughter and destruction of animals from affected herds with compensation being paid to the owner. Once implemented this new policy will contribute significantly to liberalising controls on the movement of FMD-susceptible animals.

  In addition to the measures listed above, two directives (89/662 and 90/425) have now been adopted concerning the veterinary and documentary checks that are currently conducted at points of entry to ensure that animals and animal products are healthy and comply with Community rules. Both directives provide for the eventual elimination of veterinary checks at frontiers and their substitution with a system of checks at points of origin and destination. However, as a transitional measure the directives provide us with considerable scope for maintaining frontier checks until at least the end of 1992 when both directives have to be reviewed. We are satisfied with both since they reflect our key contention that the dismantling of controls should not lead to an increased risk of the spread of disease.

  Much remains to be done, however, before the end of 1992, and we still await formal proposals from the Commission for post-1992 controls. In the meantime, although we fully support the overall objective of harmonising Community health standards at the highest attainable level, and look forward to the eventual removal of barriers to trade where possible, we have no intention in the negotiations to come of jeopardising our current high animal health status.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made on the review of pesticides; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Considerable progress has been made on the review of pesticides and I will be making a statement shortly.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a Statement on the use of pesticides on agricultural land.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave today to the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek).

  Research and Development
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the research and development priorities for his Department.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food funds research essentially for three reasons:(a) to guide the formulations, appraisal and evaluation of policy and to support statutory functions; (b) to protect the consumer and the environment; (c) to support strategic research which takes scientific opportunities to the point where it is appropriate for industry to fund further development prior to exploitation.

  I see research in all three areas as essential in both the short and long term, although the emphasis may change. Current priorities include lower chemical inputs, improved pest control techniques and the relationship between public health and zoonoses.

  In setting research priorities full account is taken of the independent advice of the Priorities Board for Research and Development in Agriculture and Food. Food safety and nutritional quality are areas recently recommended by the priorities board as needing a higher priority. Among the subjects which are likely to become more important are climate change, lower input sustainable farming systems and cleaner technologies.

  Meetings
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times during 1990 he has met representatives of(a) consumers and (b) producer interests.

  Mr. Gummer
  Since 1 January 1990 I have met consumers' representatives on 10 occasions and producers' representatives on 12 occasions to discuss food safety issues, on 16 occasions to discuss production issues and on six occasions mainly to discuss problems connected with the export of live sheep to France.

  Salmon
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about the report on east coast salmon fisheries prepared under the terms of the Salmon Act.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave on 15 October.
  917
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which independent bodies provide advice to his Department on food matters.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department receives advice on food matters from a number of independent bodies notably the Food Advisory Committee, the consumer panel, the advisory committee on novel foods and processes, the advisory committee on pesticides and the veterinary products committee. In addition this Department and the Department of Health receive advice from three further independent bodies. These are the committee on the microbiological safety of food, the committee on medical aspects of food policy and the committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment. Finally, the spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee has advised these two Departments on, among other matters, the implications of BSE for human health through the consumption of certain food products.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has had any discussions with local authorities about the implementation of the Food Safety Bill.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has had any discussions with local authorities about the implementation of the Food Safety Bill.

  Mr. Maclean
  Local authorities are being consulted on the draft orders and regulations that will bring the Food Safety Act into force. Local authority officers are serving on the Implementation Advisory Committee which advises the Government on the codes of practice to be made under the Act. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food addressed the first of a series of seven seminars aimed at helping enforcement officers to understand how the new Act will work.

  Sea Fish Industry Authority
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish in the Official Report the names of the chairman and members of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, the organisations, agencies and associations whence they were recruited, their tenure of office and their remuneration.

  Mr. Curry
  The chairman and members of the authority were appointed on 1 October 1990. Appointments are normally for a three-year period, but Ministers may, under certain circumstances, terminate an appointment at any time during that three-year period.

  The board comprises of 12 members appointed by Ministers. The chairman and deputy chairman and two other members are independent members who have no direct financial or commercial interest in the fishing industry. The other members are drawn from various sectors of the fishing and fish processing industry and the industry is consulted on their appointments. These members represent the industry as a whole rather than
  918
  their own particular sector. The chairman receives £25,490 and the board members £5,330 per annum for their services.

  Names of the authority's board members and their position are as follows. Further biographical details were given in the MAFF news release 321/90 of 25 September, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. An announcement on the appointment of a deputy chairman will be made shortly.

  Independent Members

  Mr. John MacKay (Chairman)

  Professor Mike Haines

  Mr. Frank Ledwidge OBE FCA

  Industry Representatives

  Mr. John Adams

  Mr. John V. Cradock

  Mr. William Hay CBE

  Mr. Duncan Macinnes JP

  Mr. Ian McFadden

  Miss Elizabeth Stevenson

  Mr. David Vickers

  Mr. Colin Warwick

DEFENCE

  Military Hospitals
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the numbers of(a) civilian outpatients and (b) civilian inpatients treated at the Princess of Wales RAF hospital, Ely under the national health service in each medical and surgical department during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested cannot be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those military hospitals which provide an accident and emergency service to the national health service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following service hospitals currently provide a consultant-led specialist accident and emergency service to the national health service:

  Royal Naval Hospital Haslar;

  Royal Naval Hospital Plymouth;

  Cambridge Military Hospital, Aldershot.

  In addition, casualty departments run by a medical officer are provided for use by national health service patients in the following service hospitals:

  Duchess of Kent Military Hospital, Catterick;

  Princess Alexandra Royal Air Force Hospital, Wroughton;

  The Princess of Wales Royal Air Force Hospital, Ely.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the surgical and medical disciplines provided at each RAF hospital.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The table provides a guide to all the surgical and medical disciplines normally provided at the three RAF hospitals in the United Kingdom. These may be subject to alteration or reduction in the light of future service requirements.
  919

  Table of Hospital Details

  Specialities

  The Princess of Wales Royal Air Force Hospital Ely

  Princess Mary Royal Air Force Hospital Halton

  The Princess Alexandra Royal Air Force Hospital Wroughton

  Anaesthetics

  yes

  yes

  yes

  Casualty

  yes

  no

  yes

  Coronary Care

  yes

  yes

  yes

  Dermatology

  visiting consultant

  visiting consultant

  visiting consultant

  Ears Nose Throat

  yes

  yes

  yes

  Gastroenterology

  no

  no

  no

  General Medicine

  yes

  yes

  yes

  General Surgery

  yes

  yes

  yes

  Gynaecology

  yes

  yes

  yes

  Intensive Care

  yes

  yes

  yes

  Neurology

  visiting consultant

  visiting consultant

  yes

  Nuclear Medicine

  no

  yes

  no

  Obstetrics

  yes

  yes

  yes

  Oncology

  no

  yes

  no

  Ophthalmics

  yes

  yes

  yes

  Oral Surgery

  yes

  yes

  yes

  Orthopaedics

  yes

  yes

  yes

  Paediatrics

  yes

  no

  visiting consultant

  Pathology

  yes

  yes

  yes

  Plastic Surgery

  visiting consultant

  yes

  visiting consultant

  Psychiatry

  yes

  visiting consultant

  yes

  Radiology

  yes

  yes

  yes

  Renal Medicine

  no

  yes

  no

  Rheumatology

  visiting consultant

  yes

  visiting consultant

  Thoracic Medicine

  no

  no

  no

  Urology

  yes

  yes

  yes

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the district health authorities which have had civilian patients treated under the national health service at the Princess of Wales RAF hospital, Ely during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The principal district health authorities which have referred NHS patients to the Princess of Wales RAF hospital during the last five years are Cambridge, West Norfolk and Wisbech, West Suffolk and Huntingdon. Additionally, health authorities from all areas of the United Kingdom may on occasion refer patients for a specific treatment. A list of those authorities which have done so over the last five years could not be produced without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to permit military hospitals to enter the national health service internal market.

  Table A—Inpatient Admissions—United Kingdom Service Hospitals

  85

  86

  87

  88

  89

  Hospital

  Service

  Dependants

  Service

  Dependants

  Service

  Dependants

  Service

  Dependants

  Service

  Dependants

  Woolwich

  4,974

  1,025

  4,240

  1,238

  4,679

  1,129

  3,752

  930

  3,947

  901

  Aldershot

  8,585

  39,655

  2,628

  2,333

  2,691

  2,293

  2,952

  2,242

  2,877

  1,781

  Catterick

  5,389

  2,378

  2,252

  1,119

  2,134

  845

  2,405

  775

  2,428

  729

  Wroughton

  5,502

  2,561

  5,103

  2,522

  4,758

  2,663

  4,779

  2,602

  4,459

  2,062

  Ely

  4,976

  2,156

  2,692

  1,408

  2,612

  1,310

  2,647

  1,185

  2,562

  1,022

  Halton

  4,025

  1,616

  2,661

  1,396

  2,541

  1,393

  2,517

  1,066

  2,763

  1,112

  Plymouth

  9,008

  1,538

  1,933

  246

  1,752

  171

  1,902

  229

  1,741

  212

  Haslar

  9,139

  3,006

  3,303

  1,109

  3,138

  954

  2,853

  891

  2,853

  742

  Table B—Total Outpatient Attendance—United Kingdom Service Hospitals

  85

  86

  87

  88

  89

  Hospital

  Service

  Dependants

  Service

  Dependants

  Service

  Dependants

  Service

  Dependants

  Service

  Dependants

  Woolwich

  18,674

  3,839

  16,035

  2,858

  14,483

  2,497

  14,124

  2,429

  10,970

  1,998

  Aldershot

  14,698

  10,445

  17,002

  9,921

  14,503

  7,989

  18,016

  7,170

  20,171

  8,210

  Catterick

  8,635

  3,946

  9,711

  4,763

  10,659

  4,723

  11,832

  4,776

  11,296

  4,381

  Wroughton

  17,106

  8,608

  11,896

  8,162

  11,481

  7,274

  11,932

  6,931

  13,691

  7,509

  Ely

  11,769

  6,533

  11,134

  6,465

  10,789

  5,479

  11,745

  5,637

  11,072

  4,133

  Halton

  10,277

  4,929

  10,159

  4,521

  10,020

  4,365

  8,161

  3,573

  8,098

  4,509

  920
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no current plans for service hospitals to compete in the NHS internal market.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the numbers of servicemen, women and dependants from each service treated at each military hospital as(a) inpatients and (b) outpatients for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The tables show the total number of service personnel and dependants for(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients at each military hospital in the United Kingdom for each of the last five years for which figures are readily available. It is not currently possible to provide a breakdown of these figures according to service or sex without incurring disproportionate cost.
  921

  85

  86

  87

  88

  89

  Hospital

  Service

  Dependants

  Service

  Dependants

  Service

  Dependants

  Service

  Dependants

  Service

  Dependants

  Plymouth

  15,383

  2,667

  13,618

  2,021

  12,894

  1,714

  14,628

  1,748

  12,166

  1,445

  Haslar

  23,483

  7,688

  24,033

  7,462

  28,500

  7,047

  25,233

  7,278

  20,916

  6,240

  British Forces (Malaysia and Thailand)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British service men have served in(a) Malaysia and (b) Thailand for each year since 1980; and in what capacity.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since 1980 British service men have served in both Malaysia and Thailand in a number of capacities including attaché posts, the provision of military training assistance, and on exercise. Further details could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many representatives of his Department were in communication with the chairman of the Civil Service Appeals Board regarding Mr. Colin Wallace's appeal;

  (2) what was the content of the communication that took place between representatives of his Department and the chairman of the Civil Service Appeals Board regarding Mr. Colin Wallace's appeal;

  (3) what were the Civil Service grades of the representatives of his Department who were in communication with the chairman of the Civil Service Appeals Board regarding Mr. Colin Wallace's appeal;

  (4) what was the purpose of the communication that took place between the chairman of the Civil Service Appeals Board and representatives of his Department regarding Mr. Colin Wallace's appeal.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to my letter of 13 September to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall), a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he first became aware of the fact that representatives of his Department had been in private communication with the chairman of the Civil Service Appeals Board regarding Mr. Colin Wallace's appeal.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend and I were informed in September 1989 of the private communications which took place in 1975 and to which Mr. Calcutt has referred.

  Environment Council Conference
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he or officials of his Department have been invited to attend or participate in the conference on "Going Green, Benefits Versus Costs", organised by the Environment Council, to be held in London on 22–23 November.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Secretary of State has not received an invitation and I am not aware of any invitations being received by officials of the Ministry of Defence.

  Territorial Army
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the amount of money spent in each of the past 10 years on publicising the Territorial Army in Scotland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Other than a small number of local publicity and recruiting initiatives, funding for Territorial Army publicity is not allocated to any particular region. It is not, therefore, possible to provide figures in the form requested.

  Royal United Services Institute
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of Government funding for the Royal United Services Institute and describe the Royal United Services Institute's relationship with his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) is an independent academic institute with charitable status. It is the professional association of the armed forces and one of many academic institutes with which the Ministry of Defence maintains contacts.

  For the current financial year we expect MOD funding for RUSI to be around £130,000. The sum of £10,000 is a grant in aid towards expenses of the institute in support of its academic activities. The remainder is a contribution towards the cost of rental and maintenance of its accommodation.

  Low Flying
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many complaints have been received by the Royal Air Force of low flying military aircraft over towns which are listed to be avoided over the past two years;

  (2) how many complaints received by the Royal Air Force within the last two years relating to low-flying aircraft over towns listed to be avoided have resulted in action other than simple reprimands being taken against pilots.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I regret that such complaints are not recorded separately and it would not be possible to provide the information requested without disproportionate cost and effort.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will introduce tough penalties on pilots who fly military aircraft low over towns listed to be avoided, by way of a substantial fine, equivalent to their annual salary.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I am satisfied that an adequate range of penalties, including fines, is available to deal with cases where pilots are found to have breached low flying regulations.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in the Official Report the names of those towns which are to be avoided by low-flying military aircraft.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It remains our policy not to release this information.

  Warheads
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has made any representations to his counterparts in the United States concerning the safety of(a) W79 artillery warheads, (b) W88 warheads and (c) W89 warheads; and what communications he has received on this subject.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As I said in my answer of 18 June to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) at column 436, we are satisfied with United States assurances on the safety of its nuclear weapons. We have received a small number of communications from hon. Members and others on this subject.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contact there was between his Department and Messrs. Anthony de Normann and Christopher Edward Mackenzie Geidt(a) before and (b) after their recent visit to Cambodia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The visit of Messrs. de Normann and Mackenzie Geidt to Indochina was at the invitation of the Hanoi Institute for International Relations and the current Phnom Penh regime. The only contact with the Military of Defence in relation to the visit that has been traced was a routine inquiry by Mr. de Normann prior to departure to check on the regulations governing visits by ex-service personnel to communist countries. Within the last few days, there have been exchanges with officials in the Ministry of Defence about allegations made in the media against the two men.

  Forces Cuts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what United Kingdom forces' cuts he proposes and over what time scale in the draft CFE agreement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The proposed CFE treaty provides, in general, for limits on the holdings of certain 924
  equipments by the two groups of states, rather than for specific national limits. The overall NATO totals permitted by the treaty will, therefore, have to be allocated to individual nations and, although work on this is well advanced, national ceilings have still to be decided finally. The precise reductions that the United Kingdom will have to make to comply with the treaty will also depend on continuing negotiations on definitions and counting rules. Implementation of reductions is envisaged over a three-year period.

  The Gulf
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the pay and allowances for servicemen deployed to the Gulf.

  Mr. Tom King
  The basic pay of service personnel remains the same wherever they are stationed and includes an X-factor, currently 10·5 per cent. for men and 9·5 per cent. for women, which recognises the disadvantages of service life, including the liability to serve in difficult and dangerous conditions. Entitlement to allowances and liability to charges varies according to individual circumstances.

  The effect of this for those deploying to the Gulf is that the great majority of service personnel will in fact receive more in their pay packets. However, there are some for whom the changes would result in a possible loss. I have therefore decided that there should be an abatement to part of the charges paid by married personnel from Germany and from other overseas locations while they are serving in the Gulf. This will benefit most of those otherwise adversely affected. In addition, I have instructed that arrangements be made to recompense any individual who would still otherwise experience a net reduction in pay and allowances.

  These measures are intended to fulfil my assurance that no one would suffer financially as a result of service in the Gulf.

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

Runway Capacity in the South East
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in the establishment of a working group to explore issues involved in decision making on additional runway capacity in the South East as announced by the Secretary of State on the day the Civil Aviation Authority presented its advice to Her Majesty's Government.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we have been making progress during the Recess towards determining membership and terms of reference for the group. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport expects to be able to make a further announcement soon.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the Minister realise that a widespread belief exists that this group was announced so that the Government would not have to take any decision on the matter before a general election? Therefore the delay of about 12 weeks in naming the personnel does not greatly matter. Can the Minister inform the House whether I am correct in thinking that when the original announcement was made of the groups to be consulted no mention of the consumer was made? I shall be grateful if the Minister can answer my question today, but if not perhaps he will write to me. Can the Minister tell the House the names of the groups which are being consulted?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this is an important matter. Great care is required in finding the right membership for the group. We envisage that about 20 organisations from both within and outside government will be represented on the group. We have had representations from considerably more organisations than that which feel that they should be represented. It is important that consumers should be represented on the group. The final list of those to be represented will be available, as I have said, fairly shortly.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the majority of people in the South East believe that we need additional runway capacity as much as we need a hole in the head? I ask him to bear that group of people in mind. Can the Minister tell me whether representatives of the groups opposed to additional runways as well as those in favour of them will be in the group?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there will be those who are opposed to additional runways and who will wish to make their views known. I am not
1030
sure how many people are opposed to an additional runway in the South East; I know that a great number do not want an additional runway in their own back yard.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that I am one of those who is awaiting the report of this working group with great interest? We are not committing ourselves one way or the other to the CAA's advice. Does he further appreciate that I fully concur with the Secretary of State's statement that he is aware of the effect of airport development on the environment, employment and local infrastructure. Also taken into consideration will be the possible importance of regional airports. Therefore, the work of the working group is of great importance. I also concur with what the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said about an early decision.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in saying that the CAA's advice was mainly concerned with air space capacity. It produced a number of alternative sites for a possible new airport. The group will be looking in particular at environmental and surface access considerations which need to be taken into account. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in his announcement that we very much see the value of the regional airports. He also said:
"I shall be asking the working group to assess this conclusion most carefully and to gauge the extent to which regional airports can play a part in meeting the overall growth in demand into the next century".
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether this working group is concerned solely with the South East? Does it also recognise the value and importance of airports throughout the whole length of these islands?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the group is mainly concerned with the South East. That is where a shortfall in capacity is expected in the next century. As I just said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, it will take into account what can be offered by regional airports.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind the importance of including a representative from the general aviation community in the working group? Whether its machines are allowed to use this runway or not, the positioning and approaches to the runway will have a profound effect on general aviation machines.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords. I am aware of the importance of general aviation in this matter. I cannot yet say whether it will be represented on the group. If it is not, it will certainly have the opportunity to make its views clear.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am not a candidate, but I am interested in the consumer aspect of this matter. Is the noble Lord aware that I believe the original statement contained no reference to consumer groups? Will he let me know which groups are to be consulted? Will he write to me with the answer or, alternatively, publish it in the Official Report so that the House may know the outcome?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in my right honourable friend's original statement he made reference to representatives from bodies representing local and environmental interests, from airport and airline operators, from the tourism and travel industry and from government departments. I shall of course take into account, as I have already said, the interests of the consumer.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, surely air travellers are consumers. Does the Minister not agree that they should have been mentioned with reference to the group? That is the point I am making.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is the point I have answered.

HIV-Infected Haemophiliacs: Compensation
3.8 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make a statement on the question of compensation for the 1,215 haemophiliacs infected by blood products contaminated with the AIDS virus, in the light of the recommendations by Mr Justice Ognall.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government have already recognised the moral and compassionate arguments mentioned by Mr. Justice Ognall through their ex-gratia payments totalling about £34 million. This money has been made available help all HIV-infected haemophiliacs and not just those involved in litigation. We are committed to keeping the needs of all those infected haemophiliacs and their families under review.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. But he was not talking about compensation, as those are relatively small sums. Is he aware that there is growing anxiety and deep feeling among Members on all political Benches and also among the general public that the Secretary of State is showing so little sensitivity to a group of people twice smitten—first, with haemophilia and, secondly, with HIV and AIDS through no fault of their own? Does he accept that if these unfortunate people are obliged to press their claims for compensation through the courts many of them may well be dead by the time the result is made known? Does the Minister agree that it is not a matter of cash but of honour?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord. It is an appalling tragedy that so many haemophiliacs were affected by HIV as a result of their treatment. That is why the Government came forward with the money which I mentioned in my original Answer. It amounts to about £20,000 for every affected haemophiliac and more for those whose needs are greater. The principle of paying full compensation only when negligence is proved applies generally and not just to haemophiliacs. There would be grave consequences for the practice of medicine and the
1032
funding of the National Health Service if compensation were to be paid whenever a patient suffered harm as a result of treatment but when no one was at fault.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if these cases are taken to court, can the Minister say how much the cost will be to the health service in legal costs and in medical time?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot give an estimate of the full costs of litigation. Obviously such costs would be great and we recognise the argument that the resources likely to be taken up by such litigation would be better used on services for National Health Service patients. However, the point I made earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, still applies: care for patients would not benefit if, as the likely outcome of compromising the present legal action, this were to encourage other expensive litigation.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, would not some of these problems have been avoided if the Government had pursued with greater vigour the lines of inquiry suggested by the Pearson Royal Commission on compensation for personal injury in this very difficult area of medical accidents?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my understanding is that the Pearson Committee did not recommend a general system of no-fault compensation for medical accidents in this country. The Royal Commission considered the matter very carefully but came down against it in 1978. I do not think that circumstances have changed since that time.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I did not say that the commission made a recommendation to that effect; I said that it suggested further lines of inquiry. Is it not therefore disappointing that the Government have done so little in following them up?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not accept what the noble Lord has just said. Further, I do not think that this is necessarily an appropriate moment for a general debate on the possible advantages or disadvantages of the recommendations made by the Pearson Committee.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I do not agree. In my view, this is the best possible time for such a debate. Is it not appalling that people who quite clearly could only have contracted HIV and AIDS because of the blood they were given (which they were required to have) should have to argue their case before a court in all these circumstances? Surely it is at this time, when the public and the Government are aware that the case for no-fault liability would deal with this and many other cases, that the matter should seriously be considered.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry; I simply do not accept what the noble Lord said. I repeat: it is the most appalling tragedy that so many haemophiliacs have been affected. However, I do not feel that no-fault compensation would be the answer to the problem. The Government have responded to this appalling tragedy by means of payments through the two Macfarlane Trusts. As the noble Lord knows. flat-rate payments of £20,000 have been made to every

1033
single haemophiliac infected by HIV and further payments, according to need, will be made to the others.

Manufacturing Output
3.13 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to promote manufacturing, and particularly to increase manufacturing output.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government continue to pursue policies intended to improve the climate for business activity, including manufacturing, and to reduce the burdens on business. In addition, the Department of Trade and Industry continues to operate a range of specific schemes to improve business performance under the enterprise initiative.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Viscount confirm that manufacturing production in the three months to August fell by 1 per cent. and is likely to fall even further during the present quarter? Will he also agree that Britain is now suffering from a proliferation of economic evils including high inflation, high unemployment, recession at home and a severe and worrying balance of payments abroad? What are the Government going to do about these evils, instead of relying on the single weapon of high interest rates? Further, will they do something to improve manufacturing industry and indeed help exports?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, manufacturing productivity in the three months to August was 1 per cent. higher than a year earlier. The fall to which the noble Lord quite rightly drew attention reflects the necessary slowdown in the economy, but not a long-run trend. Manufacturing productivity growth in the 1980s was faster than that in all other major industrialised countries, whereas over the two previous decades the UK was at the bottom of the league.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what is the reduction in productivity of the other countries in Europe and also in the United States of America and in Japan?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not have the figures for those areas. However, I can say that the output of manufacturing industry in the three months to August 1990 was one-half of 1 per cent. higher than a year earlier.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that investment in manufacturing industry has shown a worrying turndown and that investment intentions suggest that the situation may be even worse in the future? Are the Government concerned about this and, in particular, are they looking at measures which could be taken to counteract this trend?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, manufacturing investment was at a record level in 1989 and a recent
1034
CSO investment intention survey indicates a further increase this year and next. After a decade of rising productivity and profitability, the industry is far more able to handle the inevitable slowdown and beyond that to face the decade with confidence.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell the House what are the present figures of manufacturing output for this year in comparison to those when the Government took office in 1979? Can he also say how those figures compare with those of our major competitors; namely, Germany, France, Japan and the rest of the OECD countries?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the indices which I have at my disposal show that the manufacturing output is some 20 per cent. higher than it was about five years ago. Therefore the output has been rising, as has productivity.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sorry to press the matter but I asked the Minister for a comparison between now and 11 years ago in 1979, not between now and five years ago.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thought I had already said that I did not have such figures at my disposal. I shall ascertain the information and write to the noble Lord accordingly.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it still government policy that the present balance of payments deficit will be in some manner rectified by redressing the visible trade deficit? If that is still the policy, will the noble Viscount please reiterate it firmly and clearly for your Lordships? If he does so, will be also explain how this can be achieved by falling output in manufacturing, falling output in other production industries of the economy and a reduction in manufacturing investment to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the underlying trends remain favourable. In the three months to August, non-oil export volume, excluding erratics, was 10 per cent. higher than a year earlier while imports grew by only one half of 1 per cent. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that under Labour in the 1970s manufacturing output fell.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government should now start a campaign to make people buy British goods? I always make a point of asking whether an item has been made in this country. Such a campaign would encourage people to buy British rather than always buying imports.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Baroness has said. Goods made in this country are of a very fine quality. In my view, everyone should consider purchasing them before they purchase any others.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the overall state of the nation so far as concerns economic development is not wholly dependent upon manufacturing industry but is also dependent on the considerable contribution from the service industries and from the invisible sector, to

1035
which reference has already been made, which play a major part in balancing our payments and indeed in creating considerable services?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. It is unfortunate that we should concentrate upon one aspect of industry.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the public have done far better and have had a far better standard of living under this Conservative Government? Is my noble friend aware that I once had a factory? Tourism has to a great extent taken over from manufacturing industry in raising the standard of living.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes, I agree with my noble friend. The workforce in employment in the United Kingdom is increasing and is over 500,000 more than it was in June a year ago.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the increasingly acute anxiety felt throughout the country about the increase in the number of bankruptcies of small and medium-sized manufacturing companies which are, after all, the seedcorn of industry in the future? What are the Government doing about that? Furthermore, what steps are the Government taking to ameliorate the problem and prevent the closure of Cammell Laird in Birkenhead which will result in the loss of 2,000 jobs in an area where unemployment is high?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in a dynamic economy there will always be firms ceasing to trade and new firms starting up. The figures for 1990 show that VAT registrations continue to exceed VAT deregistrations. As for Cammell Laird, it is sad that a shipbuilding firm such as that has found itself in difficulties, but that reflects the nature of the industry.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does the Minister still recommend people to buy British goods even where the imported equivalents are much cheaper because of the present exchange rate?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is a long way from the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Gregson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in his speech to the Conservative conference the Chancellor of the Exchequer stressed the importance of the manufacturing sector above all others? Is he aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer also stressed that reducing our overseas negative trade balance was the most important way of steering this country's economy?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes, I have drawn attention to the increase in productivity of manufacturing industry, and to the fact that without an increase in productivity we shall never be able to compete.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House why, if the economy is as rosy as he has made out from the Dispatch Box today, the CBI is so worried about the future economy of the country?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no, I cannot answer for the CBI, but I can answer for the Government. The future prospects for inflation and jobs are good.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the people of this country are more likely to listen to businessmen than the nonsense that he has been talking today?

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 106 as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
20 After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of law relating to termination of pregnancy.

'.—(1) For paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 (grounds for medical termination of pregnancy) there is substituted—

"(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or

(b) that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or

(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or

(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped."

(2) In section 1(2) of that Act, after "(a)" there is inserted "or (b)".
(3) After section 1(3) of that Act there is inserted—

"(3A) The power under subsection (3) of this section to approve a place includes power, in relation to treatment consisting primarily in the use of such medicines as may be specified in the approval and carried out in such manner as may be so specified, to approve a class of places".

(4) For section 5(1) of that Act (effect on Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929) there is substituted—

"(1) No offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 shall be committed by a registered medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

(5) In section 5(2) of that Act, for the words from "the miscarriage" to the end there is substituted "a woman's miscarriage (or, in the case of a woman carrying more than one foetus, her miscarriage of any foetus) is unlawfully done unless authorised by section 1 of this Act and, in the case of a woman carrying more than one foetus, anything done with intent to procurer miscarriage of any foetus is authorised by that section if—

1037

(a) the ground for termination of the pregnancy specified in subsection (1)(d) of that section applies in relation to any foetus and the thing is done for the purpose of procuring the miscarriage of that foetus, or

(b) any of the other grounds for termination of the pregnancy specified in that section applies".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. I shall speak also to Commons Amendment No. 26.
The new clause added to the Bill by the Commons amendment would amend the Abortion Act 1967 in a number of respects. I should like to remind the House that the Government's position on abortion remains neutral, as has been the case for all governments of whatever complexion since the subject was first discussed. My role therefore during today's consideration of the Commons amendments on this subject will be to Provide, as best I can, an impartial assessment of the practical effects of the new clause that has been added to the Bill and of the amendments to it that noble Lords have put down for consideration today. In addition we shall seek to provide advice and whatever information may be helpful to the House in reaching a workable decision.
On 24th April, in another place, it was agreed by a large majority, on a free vote, that the Abortion Act 1967 should be amended to introduce a 24-week time limit for the principal ground of risk to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman and also that for similar risk to her existing children in line with the clearly expressed and recently confirmed view of the main medical and professional bodies involved. It was also decided that the 1967 Act should be amended in a number of other respects, principally by introducing as a ground grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, and by removing any time limit for fetal handicap cases.
A decision was also taken that the 1967 Act should no longer be subject to the presumption of fetal viability in the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. Those decisions were reaffirmed on 21st June when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill completed its passage through the House of Commons and have been welcomed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
I should like to remind the House that the provisions which seek to amend the law on abortion were added to the Bill in another place as a result of a free vote after lengthy and considered debate. As it now stands the bulk of the new clause closely resembles, in its effects, the provisions of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill which, your Lordships will recall, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his usual skilful manner, took through all its stages in the House earlier this Session. I should also remind the House that the noble Lord's Bill in turn reflected the conclusions of the Select Committee of this House chaired by my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman which inquired into the Infant Life (Preservation) Act and which reported in 1988.
While the Government have neither supported nor resisted the amendments, the Government have a responsibility, through the Great Britain health
1038
departments, to advise the House on whether any particular set of amendments will result in a workable and enforceable set of provisions. That I shall try to do both in relation to this clause and the amendments to it which we are due to debate.
First, however, your Lordships may find it helpful if I say something about the way in which the Department of Health and the health departments in Scotland and Wales monitor compliance with the Abortion Act. That is done in three main ways. First, all private sector nursing homes and clinics approved by health Ministers under the Act are subject to periodic, unannounced inspections by the departments' medical, nursing and investigative officers. Any irregularities are followed up and the appropriate action taken. In the public sector, individual health authorities take responsibility for the way in which abortion services are provided in their own area, just as they do for other forms of medical care.
Secondly, all operating practitioners are required to notify the relevant chief medical officer, within seven days, of each abortion they perform. The notification forms contain many details including the grounds for abortion and certifying doctors, the estimated gestation and the method of operation. Those forms are scrutinised by staff authorised by the chief medical officer to ensure that they do not indicate any contravention of the abortion law.
Thirdly, the department investigates any specific complaints and allegations of abuse. That control machinery is not currently revealing, I am informed, any abuse of the Act, although there have been problems in the past which have been dealt with.
In the private sector, nursing homes must be specially approved administratively by the Secretary of State to carry out abortions after the 20th week of gestation. Specially approved homes are required to give patients considered to be over 20 weeks' gestation an ultrasound dating scan and to make the report on the scan available for inspection in the patient's medical notes. They are also required to maintain a separate register of these cases showing the results of the scan and estimation of gestation, together with details of the termination.
In the light of a 1985 report by a working party of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the then Department of Health and Social Security initially reached voluntary agreement with the proprietors of eight - there are now only seven - nursing homes approved to carry out abortions after 20 weeks that they would not perform abortions after 24 weeks. Subsequently, in February 1986 this voluntary agreement was made a condition of approval. In other words, no abortions over 24 weeks are allowed in private nursing homes.
The department also issued guidelines on the estimation of gestational age. On its inspection visits to nursing homes, the department's medical and nursing teams carefully monitor the records of cases over 20 weeks and I am informed that arrangements are working satisfactorily. From this I hope that it is clear that the departments involved take with

1039
considerable care and seriousness their responsibilities for monitoring the operation of the present abortion law.
Before I turn to the effects of Commons Amendments Nos. 20 and 26, I should like to put these amendments in context. They address the important and sensitive issue of abortion time limits which has been widely debated. Since 1969, four Private Peers' Bills dealing with that issue have been introduced in this House and a further eight Private Members' Bills have been introduced in another place. In particular, in recent years two Private Members' Bills were extensively debated in another place and both failed to make progress because the time available for debate ran out.
This new clause was introduced and a number of amendments to it were moved in another place in the interests of achieving an orderly debate on the subject. I intend to return to this at the end of my speech, but I should like at this stage to point out that the effect of this clause as regards time limits reflects very closely indeed the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, which passed through your Lordships' House and was sent to another place earlier this Session.
Your Lordships may find it helpful if I explain that in one of the three categories where the proposed upper time limit will not apply—terminations to save the pregnant woman's life—there is already under the present law no time limit and no specific limitations. The provisions in the new clause do not alter this position in any way as concerns the time limit under the abortion law.
An additional category already specified in the 1967 Act as a ground for emergency abortion on the opinion of one doctor is that of preventing grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the woman. The use of the words "grave" and "permanent" suggest that there is a stiff legal test to cover special situations where termination might be contemplated primarily in the interests of the pregnant woman. An example of this might be where she has severe hypertension and continuation of the pregnancy might result in permanent kidney, brain or possibly heart damage. In those circumstances the method of termination used would be selected in the best interests of the woman, but the intention would be to deliver a living baby where possible.
The final category is usually referred to as "serious fetal handicap" and permits termination where,
"there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped".
The application of this test is a matter of clinical judgment for decisions by the two doctors who sign the abortion certificate. The position is that under Section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967 legal abortions can only be carried out in National Health Service hospitals or in private nursing homes approved by the Secretary of State for that purpose. I explained to the House a little time ago that no abortion can be carried out in the private sector after the 24th week of
1040
pregnancy. National Health Service hospitals alone are permitted to carry out the very few abortions undertaken after 24 weeks. I can confirm that this position would not change under the proposals now before the House. Although this is not a statutory requirement, I cannot see any future government seeking to alter the arrangement.
During the final stages of the abortion debate in another place, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health gave an assurance that in the case of all abortions after 24 weeks the operating practitioner will be required to provide on the notification form sent to the chief medical officer of the relevant Great Britain health department some statement of the nature of the clinical condition or handicap in respect of which the abortion has taken place. I understand that it is his intention that regulations will be brought forward as soon as practicable after the Bill is enacted, assuming that it goes forward in its present form.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is considering also how the information so provided might be made available to the public, bearing in mind the confidentiality problems over release of detailed information about such a small number of cases. Your Lordships can take it that my right honourable friend is undertaking to do his best to provide, if this legislation were to be passed in its present form or in a similar form, that public statements of what is taking place, as far as possible consistent with the need for confidentiality to which I referred, will be made as appropriate.
It may be worth putting the late abortion question in a statistical context. There were only 24 abortions after 24 weeks in England, Wales and Scotland in 1989. Of that small number 23 were on the grounds of risk of serious fetal handicap and none was carried out after the 27th week. As a pregnancy progresses the bond between the woman and her unborn child strengthens. If late in the pregnancy a serious fetal handicap is detected the woman faces an agonising decision: should she proceed with the pregnancy or seek a termination? The natural fact is that she has been hoping for a healthy child. It must surely be the case that any decision to seek a termination in these circumstances will never be taken lightly. The woman who is carrying the child must be the person who ultimately decides, assuming that the doctors in their opinion consider the necessary conditions to have been fulfilled.
In addition to the proposed changes on time limits, the new clause would amend the 1967 Abortion Act in two respects. It would amend Section 1(3) of the 1967 Act to give the Secretary of State for Health the power to allow non-surgical abortions using abortifacients to be carried out in classes of authorised places as well as those individually authorised and to specify what materials may be used in places falling within that class and in what manner. This would enable the Secretary of State to authorise the use of specified drugs for this purpose, if they were licensed and available in this country in places other than a National Health Service hospital or a place approved

1041
under Section 1(3) of the Abortion Act. When the 1967 Act became law the methods of termination used were essentially surgical and the legislation was drawn up wit h that in mind. But advances in medical science mean that the alternative of non-surgical abortion using drugs is now a reality. One such drug, RU486, has been authorised for use in France where for some 30,000 women it has been the chosen method of abortion. There has been much speculation in the media and elsewhere about the possible use of the drug in the United Kingdom. The position here is that the criteria for regulation of medicines are set out in the Medicines Act 1968 and in EC directives. Further rigorous scrutiny of evidence from clinical trials is needed before a product licence could be considered to allow RU486 to be marketed in this country. The Committee on Safety of Medicines needs to be satisfied, in considering an application for a licence, that the drug is safe, efficacious and of good quality when used by doctors for the purposes set out in the product licence application.
The main British trials of RU486 have been based on the use of the drug up to nine weeks of pregnancy, and abortion up to nine weeks makes up about one-third of the total number of abortions in England and Wales at present. Whatever view we may take about abortion, I am sure we would all agree that any abortion that is to be performed should be carried out as early in the pregnancy as possible. Any new safe and effective method of early termination which would avoid the use of surgery and general anaesthetic therefore merits serious consideration.
Under the current Abortion Act particular medicines like RU486 could only be administered in an NHS hospital or an individually approved place. To terminate a pregnancy the drug RU486 is given orally Forty-eight hours later a prostaglandin pessary or injection is given. The medical advice I have is that there is no medical need for a woman to attend an NHS hospital, or a nursing home approved by the Secretary of State for surgical termination of pregnancy, simply to receive the RU486 pills; and it is safe for her to be at home for the following 48 hours. She should, however, be under supervision for a few hours after the prostaglandin has been given because pain is common at that time and in a small number of cases there may be troublesome bleeding. Abortion normally takes place within 10 days of the prostaglandin being administered. If such drugs were licensed and marketed in this country there would of course need to be strict controls over their distribution and use and that would be our intention.
The new clause also amends the 1967 Act to make it clear that selective reduction of a pregnancy may be performed if the requirements of the Abortion Act are fulfilled, but not otherwise. Selective reduction, which has been carried out in the United Kingdom since about 1982, is the destruction of one or more fetuses in a multiple pregnancy. Some selective reductions are done because one or more of the fetuses have been diagnosed as having a seriously handicapping condition. Another situation where it might be used is where the woman is carrying to term a higher order
1042
multiple pregnancy which may jeopardise the lives of all the fetuses, or put the pregnant woman at increased risk. The use of the procedure and the gestational age at which it is performed are matters for the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned having regard to all of the circumstances of the particular case and subject to the conditions of the abortion legislation.
I turn next and briefly to the practical effects of Amendment No. 26. As I explained at the beginning of my speech, this is a consequential amendment to the new clause. Subsection (1) of Clause 42 provides that the terms of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill shall extend to Northern Ireland. As the Bill stands, this means that the new clause, which amends the Abortion Act 1967, will also extend to Northern Ireland. However, as that Act does not itself extend to Northern Ireland it is not possible for an amendment to it to extend to Northern Ireland. This amendment removes this inconsistency by providing that the new clause on abortion shall not extend to Northern Ireland.
I should perhaps remind your Lordships that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on abortion time-limits completed its passage through the House earlier this year unamended. The main issues were the moral questions connected with abortion, the capacity of a fetus to be born alive, fetal abnormalities and late abortions. The Bill was debated in your Lordships' House for a total of six and a half hours, including two Divisions, one on Second Reading and the other during Committee on the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, which sought to give the Secretary of State for Health power to make an order to specify the time-limit for abortion in the 1967 Act. That amendment was not carried and the Bill itself was then approved by the House. In effect, Commons Amendment No. 20 before us today as regards time-limits for abortion accepts the contents of the Bill we approved and sent to another place on 7th March, and adds to it the specific provisions on non-surgical abortion and selective reduction which I have just described.
The subject of abortion is no less a matter of conscience for this House than it is in another place. It was clear to us all when we considered the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that abortion is a subject on which many people hold, with equal sincerity, very strong and widely differing views. Successive governments, while taking a neutral stance, have accepted responsibility for ensuring that the provisions of the Abortion Act are properly applied. Whatever the changes made to the Abortion Act 1967 as a result of this Bill, the Government will ensure that the amended law is subject to the same stringent controls as are applied under the current legislation.
Whatever view one takes on these highly sensitive and controversial issues being debated today there is, I believe, a broad consensus about the need for legislation on embryo research so that it can be properly brought under statutory control. Noble Lords need no reminder from me that a condition for a Bill to reach the statute book is that this House and another place agree on the content of the Bill on the

1043
basis of the procedure which has been followed. If there were to be any persistent disagreement between the two Houses on Amendment No. 20, and on any of your Lordships' amendments thereto, that process would be put in jeopardy. If that occurred and there were no Bill, there would be no legislative control at all over embryo research and related subjects and no change in the time-limits applicable under the 1967 Act.
Although I am sure noble Lords know this procedure perfectly well already, I should point out that I shall put the Question on Amendment No. 20 immediately after I have finished speaking and then I shall call immediately the first amendment to Amendment No. 20. Each of the amendments to Amendment No. 20 will be discussed by your Lordships in order. We shall come back eventually, whatever may happen to those amendments, to Amendment No. 20, which I have sought to reply to.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 20
20A Subsection (1), at end insert:

("Provided that, if the grounds for terminating the pregnancy are those specified in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above and the child is capable of being born alive, the medical practitioner terminating the pregnancy takes all reasonable steps to secure that the child is born alive.").

3.45 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I rise to move this amendment with considerable trepidation born of an awareness that there are those in your Lordships' House, for whom I hold very deep respect, who are hostile to any attempt to reopen the whole question of the profoundly complex and sensitive matters of abortion and termination of pregnancy. However, many of us feel compelled to do so, however unpopular we may become, because the situation has changed radically while the Bill was in another place. We believe that it would be wrong for the implications of those changes not to be considered by your Lordships' House today.
I rise in some trepidation also because I and my noble friends and colleagues who support these amendments to the Commons amendments are aware that feelings on these matters run high among various groups outside your Lordships' House. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, warned me that I,
"would be torn limb from limb by women's organisaions".
But such intimidation does not seem a good reason for refraining from discussing these matters, which are of ultimate significance, in a democratic way. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that our concerns are directed to trying to prevent unborn children from being torn limb from limb. That has sometimes happened in some forms of late abortion where an infant who is old enough to feel pain and to respond to stimuli may be dismembered in utero.
1044
Before I commence my brief introduction to this first amendment I wish to thank my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, and those who agree procedures for your Lordships' House, for arranging today's business so that these important discussions can take place at this time. I give thanks also for the advice we have received concerning the implications of our endeavours.
In that connection I must begin by emphasising one fundamental point. I and my colleagues have been accused with some virulence by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, of attempting to wreck the entire Bill. That is not the case. Although some of us have previously expressed reservations about the ethics of embryo research, we strongly agree with and support the need for legislation to control the care of human embryos and to monitor and regulate embryo research. We therefore have no wish whatever to wreck the Bill.
In another place it was decided to insert into the Bill a whole new clause on the subject of abortion. That new clause is far-reaching in its implications. We believe that it is the right, and indeed the duty, of this House to face up to its responsibility to make its views known on the new clause.
We have been advised that if your Lordships were to support any amendments to the Commons amendments that would not wreck the Bill. We are aware, of course, that the Government are very pressed for time to complete the remaining stages of the Bill. However, we have been advised that it should not be impossible to take those stages into account if your Lordships were to amend the Bill. If it were to be impossible that would make a farce of today's proceedings for there would be an implicit assumption that your Lordships' House was being asked to act as a rubber stamp on a matter which it has not discussed and which many people throughout the nation believe is one of the most fundamental, moral and legal issues of our time.
I now turn to the substance of the first amendment to Commons Amendment No. 20. I shall set the scene with a broad brush. Other noble Lords who support the amendment will add other points of substance and detail. The essential purpose of the amendment is to return to the position on which widespread consensus had been reached—that there should be a limit of 24 weeks for induced abortions except in cases where the mother's life is at risk or where the child is so handicapped that it could not live.
We welcome the reduction to 24 weeks. However, we believe that our amendment is necessary because in the Bill as now amended in another place the grounds for late abortion have been widened to such an extent that termination of pregnancy for the purpose of killing the baby, which is abortion, includes such a range of justifications as in some cases to allow for late abortion on questionable social grounds right up to birth.
Those questionable grounds are spelt out in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of Amendment No. 20. We cannot emphasise strongly enough that we do not oppose the principle of termination of

1045
pregnancy if the mother's life, health or well-being are at risk. Indeed, our proposed amendment before your Lordships would still allow termination of pregnancy at any stage after 24 weeks, right up to birth, on any of the grounds listed in paragraphs (a) to (c) of the Commons amendment. Therefore, arguments which have frequently been put as a justification for late abortions, such as the fact that the mother is suffering from high blood pressure or toxaemia, do not stand as arguments against our amendment. All they do is confute the distinction between abortion and termination of pregnancy. Because there has been some confusion over that distinction it may help if I were to clarify the definitions.
Abortion refers to the termination of a pregnancy with a deliberate destruction of the fetus. Termination of pregnancy refers to measures taken to bring about the end of a pregnancy, but in ways which usually involve every effort being made to preserve the life of the baby. Therefore, arguments such as those used by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that late abortion, for example, after 24 weeks, which may be necessary to save the mother from, say, permanent damage as a result of toxaemia or high blood pressure, do not apply as arguments against our amendment. In those circumstances her pregnancy could be terminated in the interests of her health, while simultaneously every effort was made to save the life of the baby. In other words, we respect the fact that there may well be circumstances such as those identified in the Commons amendment where a pregnancy should be terminated but we do not believe that they also justify the deliberate destruction of a child old enough to sustain independent life.
The Commons amendment specifically allows and makes provision for abortion—killing of a baby in its mother's womb—from the age of 24 weeks, when it is usually capable of sustaining life. It is now often possible to sustain life even at 22 weeks. It also provides that abortion can take place right up until the time when it is a mature baby, at full term.
By contrast our position is this. We believe that after 24 weeks, when the baby is capable of sustaining independent life, it deserves protection at law as an infant human being. The separation of the Bill, however, from the Infant Life (Preservation) Act in the Commons amendment removes that protection and makes the child legally vulnerable. In future, unless the Commons amendment is amended, a medical practitioner will no longer be liable to prosecution for destruction of a child when a child mature enough to survive is killed during the process of terminating a pregnancy after the 24th week. Indeed, as we understand it, that child will have no legal protection for its life right up to full term at 40 weeks. The wording of the new clause is such that it could be interpreted by certain practitioners so liberally as to constitute, in effect, the killing of a viable, healthy baby on dubious social grounds. I hasten to say that I do not wish to impugn the integrity or the compassion of the overwhelming majority of professional practitioners.
1046
It is important to note that current termination of pregnancy in its later stages usually involves methods such as those spelt out by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. For example, there is the use of prostaglandin, a drug which induces premature birth. In such cases a normal child will usually be born alive. Moreover, the quality of care in special care baby units is so sophisticated that very small and very premature babies can now survive and develop into healthy children in ways that would have seemed miraculous only a decade or so ago.
However, on a more sinister note, in the private sector one favoured method of abortion has been and remains dilatation and evacuation of the uterus in which the baby's head may be crushed and the baby may be literally dismembered and removed piecemeal. There is thus a danger that the law as it would stand under the present Commons amendment could be a licence for such practitioners to kill normal children of mothers who decide or may need to have pregnancy terminated after 24 weeks. Sometimes that has happened in ways which I believe that all your Lordships would agree are horrific.
If, as has been stated by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, regulations will require all such terminations to be carried out in National Health Service hospitals, which would therefore be more open to scrutiny and accountability, that would obviously be warmly welcomed. However, that provides no adequate, permanent legal safeguard. Such provisions would not, as I understand it, have the force of law; they are not on the statutory list of amendments for our consideration and could be changed overnight by a future government of any political complexion.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, circulated a paper to many of your Lordships in which he made a number of points which I know other noble Lords will address. I merely take up one of them. The noble Lord argues that,
"abortion has existed since the beginning of human life".
But so have murder, torture and other forms of cruelty. That is no good reason for legalising such practices.
I conclude by emphasising that we are addressing the most fundamental, ethical and legal problem. The numbers involved, as has been said, may not be very large although they are likely to increase if the Commons amendment stands as Britain will become unique in offering legal abortion up till birth. Hence one may expect to attract people from other countries for this procedure. Even if the numbers are small, the risk of the deliberate destruction of even one living child in its mother's womb, a child capable of sustaining independent life, is one too many.
The more we learn about the ability of an older fetus to feel sensations and to respond to stimuli, the more we must feel deeply disturbed by the prospect of a law which will allow such children to be subject both to being killed, maybe on very vague social grounds, and possibly to being killed in ways which could be described as barbaric. If any Members of your Lordships' House have not had the opportunity to

1047
familiarise themselves with the extent to which a baby in utero is a feeling, responsive being, I should like to draw their attention to an excellent article in the Sunday Times which I shall place in the Library and which shows the extent to which a human fetus is a feeling, responding being.
It is children such as those which are the substance of our concern. We know that many people in the country, including many professional colleagues with direct experience of these matters, are deeply worried about the proposed new legislation. We feel honour bound to put these issues before your Lordships' House for your consideration. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 20A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 20, be agreed to.—(Baroness Cox.)
4 p.m.
The Archbishop of York: My Lords, I realise how difficult it is at this late stage to question the wisdom of this amendment which has come from another place. I am conscious too, as we all are, that this House has spent a great deal of time on the issue. I have carefully studied both the Select Committee's report and the debates which followed it. I should like to apologise that, for a variety of reasons, I was unable to attend any of those debates.
I am aware of the small number of cases affected by the crucial choice which lies before us in today's debate. I am also aware of the strong desire among many eminent obstetricians and gynaecologists to maintain some kind of loophole for late abortions after 24 weeks, given the fact that the women who present in such circumstances are often in great distress. I accept that there are already stringent regulations about such late abortions—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave us a description of them—and that there is every incentive to keep such abortions to an absolute minimum. We all accept that the integrity of the medical profession is not in question.
Members of your Lordships' House may recall that at an earlier stage in our debates on the Bill I spoke up vigorously in favour of allowing research on embryos under carefully specified conditions. They may wonder why I am now siding with those whom I then opposed. It is because I believe that if we pass Commons Amendment No. 20 without further amendment we shall have crossed a moral dividing line which we ought not to cross.
There are three converging lines of argument which lead me to that conclusion. The first concerns the nature of what we are dealing with. In earlier debates I tried to make the point that the development of human life is a process from almost imperceptible beginnings, when it makes little sense in my view to ascribe full human value to an embryo which has just been conceived, right up to the stage when we begin to acknowledge the independent existence of a new person.
Because it is a process, the debate about the morality of abortion changes its character at different
1048
stages in that process and our present practice and laws implicitly acknowledge that. To think in those terms, however, forces on us the question: At what stage should we begin to treat the developing fetus as no longer a completely dependent being whose life is wholly bound up with the life of its mother and inseparable from hers but begin to treat it as an independent person in its own right?
It seems to me that the capability of being born alive marks that transition, despite the inevitable ambiguities which surround it both in theory and in practice. Legally we have to define sharply, in terms say of a 24-week criterion, what medically is blurred. But that is no new problem. We are always having to do it as we try to pass legislation. What we are talking about, therefore, as we go beyond what is now recognised as, broadly speaking, the age of viability is a moral watershed. We need to be aware of that.
I know that some noble Lords in previous debates have said that they do not like to decide such complex, personal and practical matters on the basis of a moral principle. But we all decide such things on the basis of principle, even if the principle that we adopt is a thoroughly pragmatic one or even if the principle is to avoid at any cost distress to potential mothers. The question that faces us is not "Are we going to act on principle or not?" but "What principle are we going to act on?" I submit that the principle of respect and care for viable human life is one of the pillars of Christian civilisation.
The second strand in my argument concerns the need to have that principle enshrined in legislation. I have already paid tribute to the integrity of the medical profession, the vast proportion of which deserve it. But if we thought that the strong desire to avoid late abortions was itself enough to provide the protection that we seek, we should not be legislating to set a limit on the normal operation of the law at 24 weeks. The doctors would reduce the limit by themselves without any need for us to set it down in words in law if we were simply relying on their integrity.
No doubt the fixing of the 24-week limit in law may deter a small minority of cowboys, if they exist at all, but far more important than that, it seems to me that the fixing of that limit in law says something about our valuation of human life. It is a public signal about where the limits of toleration of abortion lie. That is why a confused signal such as that coming from Commons Amendment No. 20 is so damaging. It seems to say that even after the age of viability a human person may be destroyed for reasons which are less than adequate, if any such reasons exist.
Indeed, subsection (1) (c), which so far as I can recall echoes the words of the 1967 Abortion Act, would seem on the face of it to open the door as wide as that section in the Act has done because the risk of proceeding to full term in any pregnancy is in almost any circumstances higher than the risk of terminating it.
Perhaps for a moment I may look ahead from this present amendment in front of us. Paragraph (d)

1049
seems to say that seriously handicapped people may be destroyed simply because they are seriously handicapped. I know that it does not feel like that to those who are struggling with terrible personal dilemmas whether as expectant mothers or as doctors. It does not feel like that at the sharp end of medical practice. But that is what the paragraphs seem to say. That is why I welcome the first two proposed amendments, Amendments Nos. 20A and 20B.
The third strand in my argument concerns the distinctions that need to be made if the principle of protecting viable human life is to be maintained. I believe that there is a major distinction between abortion to protect the life of the mother and abortion on the grounds of potentially severe handicap. Abortion to protect the life of the mother can be justified on the grounds that, morally speaking, the potentially viable fetus in such circumstances is playing the role of an aggressor—a totally innocent aggressor of course—but when it is a question of one life or the other or neither, the destruction of an aggressor is not morally wrong.
In the case of handicap, the equation is different. The handicapped fetus is not generally an aggressor. It is a misfortune. It seems to me that deliberate destruction of a viable, albeit handicapped, human being in order to avoid distress in the mother devalues life in a way that we ought not to accept. In a word, it is wrong.
The same dilemma has for a long time faced doctors when severely handicapped infants are born alive. Some 15 years ago in the northern region I had the privilege of chairing a working party on that very topic. It seems to me that basically the same moral principles should apply in both cases: we do nothing to destroy life, knowing that life may be short anyway, but neither are we to go to extraordinary lengths to preserve it. Ordinary love, care, nurture and letting death come when it may is a much more human and humane approach to an agonising problem than the attempt to remove it by abortion or termination, with all the guilt and trauma that those may imply. I believe too that that is more human than unnecessarily heroic efforts to repair damage after birth with little hope of real success.
I hope that I have said enough to indicate why I am unhappy with the Commons amendment as it now stands and why I shall support Amendments Nos. 20A and 20B.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, perhaps I may first apologise to the House for the fact that I may not be able to remain throughout the debate since in just over an hour and a half from now I am due to deliver the Harveian Oration at the Royal College of Physicians in London.
I have given Commons Amendment No. 20 and the Lords amendments now tabled and before the House the most careful and earnest consideration. I fully appreciate the total sincerity of the views of those who wish to oppose or amend that Commons amendment. Most doctors and nurses, not least those who are
1050
required to perform the procedure, dislike abortion. But the great majority nevertheless regard the procedure as being infinitely preferable to the prospect of allowing serious permanent damage to occur to the physical or mental health of the mother or to the likelihood of a child being born with severe physical or mental handicap, with malformation or with a progressive, disabling and ultimately fatal disease.
I am of course wholly in favour of subsection (1) (a) of the proposed clause to be inserted after Clause 33 if the Commons amendment were passed, which is to impose the normal statutory 24 week limit. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, last year in this country only 24 abortions were performed after the 24th week, 23 of them on the basis of severe fetal malformation and none later than the 27th week.
I have to say that I felt some concern at first sight about paragraph (b), while being strongly in favour of paragraphs (c) and (d). However, after taking advice from colleagues working in obstetrics—I recently received a compelling letter signed by some of the most distinguished obstetricians and gynaecologists in the country whose views I greatly respect—and after consulting the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, I now wish fully to support paragraph (b) in the clause from the Commons amendment. I am advised that there are rare circumstances when even after 24 weeks a pregnant woman may develop, for example, severe hypertension or kidney disease sufficient to cause grave permanent injury to her physical health but without immediately threatening her life. That is injury which can be prevented only by terminating the pregnancy. Similarly in very exceptional circumstances, a severe mental illness, a psychosis, can also endanger a pregnant woman's long-term mental health. That too may be prevented, or at least alleviated, by termination.
I have listened with great care to the arguments adduced so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I am confident that the doctors, the obstetricians and gynaecologists of this country who may under the most exceptional circumstances wish to carry out terminations after the 24th week if the amendment were passed, would make every conceivable effort with regard to those cases referred to in subsection (b) and (c) to make sure that the baby was capable of living, and living a normal and independent existence.
I am sure that it is an issue which is best left to the good sense of the obstetricians and gynaecologists. On the advice of their royal college I find it difficult— although of course I defer to legal opinion on the matter—to understand just how the wording of the Lords amendment that we are now debating could be implemented in a legal sense. I am sure that others much better qualified than I am will comment upon that later in the debate.
I turn now to paragraph (d). Some of the most distressing developmental abnormalities of a fetus cannot invariably be diagnosed by 24 weeks. Most can, but a few may not be. They may include occasionally anencephaly and microcephaly. That is a

1051
fetus with a beating heart and a functioning circulation but either without a face and brain or with a tiny brain. It may also be true of severe degrees of spina bifida. I freely admit that many people born with developmental abnormalities such as spina bifida live very happy and fruitful lives despite their disability. But if the parents of such infants are asked whether they would prefer to have had a physically intact or a severely disabled child, very few would choose the latter despite the loving care and devotion which many of us recognise are lavished upon most such disabled children when born alive.
We surely must remember that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, embodying the very provisions which are the substance of Commons Amendment No. 20 was passed in this House some months ago by a substantial majority. It was based upon the unanimous report from a Select Committee of this House chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. Surely in all conscience we cannot contemplate allowing a situation to arise in which a doctor, terminating a pregnancy after 24 weeks in the most exceptional circumstances envisaged in the clause, might be at risk of being accused of manslaughter. Therefore, I support Commons Amendment No. 20 in its entirety. It was passed in another place by a large majority after most careful consideration. I urge the House to support it.
I wish to comment upon the enabling amendments tabled by the Government relating to the possibility of bringing GIFT within the terms of the Bill. I trust that they will be approved and that the regulations allowing that to be licensed in the future will also be approved. I support Commons Amendment No. 20.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, spoke as though Amendment No. 20A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, would ban some late abortions. Can he tell me where that appears in the amendment, because I do not believe that it does?
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I understand that paragraph (d) of the amendment might make it impossible for a severely malformed infant to be aborted.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should point out that at the moment we are not discussing that point, which is the substance of the second amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, this is a personal matter. I do not speak from this Bench on behalf of my colleagues but only for myself. However, I do not speak only for myself when I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the clarity with which he opened the debate. It was a magisterial statement and he did not deviate from the impartiality to which he has held throughout the debates on the Bill. I hope that no one will object if I pay my tribute to the noble and learned Lord.
I wish to emphasise a point that was made by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord
1052
Walton, who I am glad to see here. The House is now discussing issues that were considered earlier. I believe that it has dealt well with the principles of the Bill and with the abortion issues that we are now discussing. I wish to remind noble Lords that we go back to 22nd July 1987 when the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill received a Second Reading in this House and was referred to a Select Committee. It was appointed on 9th November 1987, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, as chairman. As was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, he did a good job. It was a thorough report and brought together Members of this House who hold a variety of views. The committee produced a unanimous report.
I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Houghton, who seized the report when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was first before us. He took into his Bill —which was passed by this House without opposition and sent to another place —precisely the recommendations of the report. At that time the House not only accepted the recommendations of the Brightman Report but also the Bill that we dispatched to another place.
I do not suggest that it is not proper, right, sensible and moral that at any stage we should doubt the wisdom of what we did but I believe that we should know what we are now doing. Of course it was right that we should have given our advice to another place. It was interesting to note that the other place took our advice after a great deal of concentrated debate and discussion and a series of votes. It has sent back to us a Bill that contains the recommendations that we sent to it. Perhaps with full justification on an individual basis this House is now asked to look again at recommendations which it made to another place and which were accepted.
I remember speaking in the first debate on the Bill. I advised the House that we should keep separate the issues of human embryology and abortion. I argued that they were separate issues, as of course they are. It was because of the wisdom of this House and the opportunity given to it by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, with his Bill that we were able to debate purely human embryology. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York made a distinguished contribution. We then debated quite separately the abortion Bill. It would have been nice had the most reverend Primate been able to join us; whenever he speaks his views are welcome. However, let it be understood that we sought to keep the two issues separate and we sent two separate recommendations to another place.
I believe that those who now wish to change the consensus that was established between this House and another place have miscalculated not only the attitudes and views of your Lordships but those of Members of another place. They have also miscalculated the attitudes, views and moral sensibilities of the general public. I shall deal with the main issues, but I first wish to express my horror at some of the publicity material sent to me about the

1053
supposed implications of the Bill. The fact that they do not come from individuals but from organisations suggests to me that it is a calculated contribution.
I wish to quote from a letter sent to me on 7th October from Mrs. Mearns of 28 Wilburn Street, Walton, Liverpool:
"Dear Lord Ennals, I am absolutely horrified that abortions are still going to be allowed up to 24 weeks and that handicapped unborn children could be given no legal protection. What we are talking about is murder, first degree murder, premeditated, cold, calculated murder. People used to be he hung for murder for taking the lives of innocent human beings".
She goes on to say that in a civilised country it is unbelievable that we can even dream of removing further legal protection from unborn children simply because they are handicapped. She says it is unbelievable that being handicapped will become a crime punishable by the death sentence. I could continue, but clearly the letter comes from a woman who is wrought up, and who, I am afraid, has been misled. However, her letter has been circulated by those who favour a reversal of the consensus that was achieved.
I hope that we shall not make a change. I was delighted that another place accepted your Lordships' recommendations. I thought that paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Amendment No. 20 contained the provisions that should be made. I was also glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Walton, refer to the obstetricians and gynaecologists. It is well that we should look at their situation. They are the people who have to take action on the basis of decisions taken by Parliament. Before me I have a letter from Professor Bearn and David Pantin signed by over 20 of the most distinguished people whose names we know and respect, including Sir Malcolm Macnaughton, Dame Josephine Barnes. I could go through the list. Those people are of the highest integrity.
I wish to quote the first paragraph from that letter because we must understand the dilemma faced by those who are called upon to carry out abortions. It is very easy for some of us to speak but it is the people who must perform the operations of whom we must think. The letter says:
"The gestation limit should be 24 weeks for abortions that are necessary because there is a risk to the physical or mental health of a woman. There are occasional circumstances in which abortion is necessary after the 24 weeks. There were only 23 cases"—
as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said—
"notified in England and Wales in 1989. Most such abortions are performed because the fetus has been shown to have an abnormality that would prevent sustained life after birth and it would result in gross handicap. A small number of such abortions are induced because the woman is gravely ill and her health would be so permanently harmed or she might die if the pregnancy continued. In such cases the fetus is usually so immature or so affected by the illness in the woman that it would not survive. If the fetus is mature enough to have a reasonable chance of survival with intensive care, all possible steps are taken to optimise the survival of both mother and fetus. Delivery then is usually by Caesarian section".
There are two personalities at stake in this great argument. One is the life and the future of the fetus,
1054
and obviously at a certain stage we are entitled to think that that fetus is the beginnings of human life. But there is the other person, and that is the mother. All the publicity which I have seen ignores the position of the mother who might die —that is the first instance —or whose health would be greatly impaired—that is the second instance—or who might give birth to a gravely handicapped child who might live for a week, a month, or who knows how long. How do we make the choice? Surely the decision must be in favour of the mother, the living human being who, with the help of the husband, has created the child she will soon bear. The mother must take priority in these circumstances.
I believe that the amendments approved by the House of Commons provide a welcome clarification of the law. At present, obstetricians are uncertain of the legality of abortions after the 24th week even where there is grave fetal abnormality because of the possibility that the courts might consider the fetus to be a child capable of being born alive. I believe that the exclusion of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act from the operation of the Abortion Act will enable women and doctors to make appropriate decisions in these very difficult circumstances without fear that the law is being broken.
We should recognise that in Scotland the situation has been exactly as it will be if this Bill becomes the law of the whole land. There is no suggestion that in Scotland people have been going around murdering babies and killing fetuses right up to the last moment. They have behaved with the same sense of responsibility with which doctors and nurses have behaved in this country. The number of terminations after 24 weeks in Scotland was very small. In 1989 it was as low as five, and in 1988 it was only seven.
Looking at what I know and what we all know about the quality of the doctors and nurses who have the responsibilities, and looking at the experience, including that of Scotland that we have had, I believe that it would be folly for us now to decide not just to overturn what the House of Commons is saying to us after its considerations but also to say that we got it wrong when we made our recommendations. It does not matter if that makes us look absurd, as it surely would do. We must be absolutely certain that we have good reason for making ourselves look absurd. I do not believe that we have. I plead with your Lordships to approve the Commons amendments.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, in supporting the amendment to the Commons amendment—my name is attached to it—I should like to point out that I have supported the clauses in this Bill which permit experiments on embryos. Secondly, having seen the tragedies of back street abortions in the 1950s and 1960s, I recognise that abortion up to 24 weeks is the lesser of two evils.
However, I am greatly alarmed that the Bill as it stands allows abortion up to the moment of birth. I should like to point out that that alarm is shared by many of my colleagues in the medical profession who

1055
simply cannot understand how on earth the provision ever found its way into the Bill in the first place. There is absolutely no need for it, and indeed, as our opponents have argued, no reasonable doctor would ever dream of making use of it. That is perfectly true.
However, we are not worried about reasonable doctors. We are worried that unreasonable mavericks will be able to kill a child at any time up to birth at 40 weeks. Is it not a strange law which permits the killing of a child just before its birth while it is a criminal offence to kill it the day after it is born?
Professor John Finnis, Professor of law and legal philosophy at the University of Oxford, in discussing the four grounds for abortion in the amendments passed in another place, said that if abortion results in the delivery of a living viable fetus it will be lawful to destroy it during birth for any reason at all, including relatively minor handicaps such as hare lip or cleft palate. Is that the kind of signal which your Lordships should be giving to the countless thousands of disabled people?
I understand that if this Bill becomes law this will be the only country where abortion up to full term will be legal. Inevitably that will attract countless thousands of women from far and wide, reminiscent of the early days of the Abortion Act when London, as your Lordships will recall, became the abortion capital of Europe. Your Lordships will no doubt remember that we were assured in those days that that legislation did not permit abortion on demand and that such provision was unthinkable in view of the regulations provided. In the event, abortion on demand became widespread, and your Lordships will remember the disgraceful treatment meted out to those obstetricians who refused to carry out abortions on demand but insisted on acting within the law.
I may be mistaken but a little while ago I understood my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack to say that the same stringent rules will be enforced in the case of this provision as in the case of the present abortion law. That does not fill me with confidence. Contrary to what our opponents have put about, it is not the purpose of these amendments to wreck the Bill; nor is this the time and place to attempt to unravel the reasons for the confusion which occurred when Members in another place were faced with a very complex set of amendments. Suffice it to say that many people were completely unaware of the disastrous effects that their amendments would have. I submit that now is the time to correct those mistakes by accepting our amendments.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I should like briefly to comment upon the argument recently set forth by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. He suggested that we were debating issues which we had thoroughly debated before; which had been decided and passed to another place. I suggest that we are looking at a different issue. We are looking at an issue which has been brought to our attention and presented to us by the amendments made in another place and which we are considering today.
1056
In the debates—I attended most of them and read Hansard —the phrases "abortion" and "termination of pregnancy" were used fairly indiscriminately. I cannot recall any real attention being given to the difference between the two or what should happen to the fetus when the pregnancy was terminated. That is the issue we are discussing today.
As has been said by supporters of the amendment, the general thrust of the Bill, whether we liked it in the past or not, is not in question. It is a question of one issue which we have every right to consider. It has been brought to our attention by the effects of the amendments in another place. That is why I believe that no apology is needed for raising the issue again at this stage.
The issue is this. If, under strict conditions, with all the careful scrutiny which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor described, a late abortion is deemed to be right, what is to be the attitude of we, who are legislating, and the attitude of the country to the child then born? Is the assumption to be in favour of the preservation of that life or the destruction of that life?
As I see it, that is the point of these amendments. It is no more and no less than that. I fully support all that was said by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. His arguments were compelling. But I ask your Lordships to accept that the issue is not one we have discussed before. It has been brought to our attention by the amendments we are debating this day. Further, the question is a simple one. Where is the presumption to lie? Is it to lie in the preservation of life, given all the complications and conditions we have heard about? Or is it to lie in the destruction of life when, to a greater or lesser extent, it is inconvenient to ourselves?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the right reverend Prelate suggesting that those in this House who support the amendment from another place, and those in another place who carried those amendments after long hours of debate and consideration, were saying that they were in favour of the destruction of the embryo? Surely he will accept that the argument is that of course we want to keep both the mother and the embryo. But if that terrible choice must be made, then it must be the mother's life and health that is vital.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I have not raised the question of the mother's health at all. I do not want to be anecdotal in any way. I could speak at some length of godchildren and friends of mine who are gravely handicapped, yet who are doing marvellous work in our society. I do not want to be anecdotal. I am simply asking where the presumption lies; on which side of the issue?
There will be occasions, as the Bill will provide if passed in its present form, when the mother's health will take first place. There will be other cases when it will not, and rightly so. We are not making that judgment today. In taking all the factors into account —the rights and needs of the unborn child and of the mother—we are saying that the presumption must lie

1057
in the preservation and not the destruction of life. If we all say that then we should vote for the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, in listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, I was reminded yet again that there is a simple issue before the House. Another place inserted a clause which completely changed what was hitherto before this House when the Bill left us. Another place decided to insert a clause which, I am advised, would have the effect of ending the link with the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, the severing of which by the Commons means that abortion is available until birth. If that is true, then it cannot be denied that an abortion, when a living creature is waiting to emerge, is no less than murder. For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone can suggest that the House is considering the same issue as it considered previously.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York referred to a moral watershed. I honestly ask the House to think carefully of what we are doing to the standards of life in this country. I ask the House to give further thought to whether we would be justified, merely on grounds that it would be inconvenient to amend the Commons amendment, to say that we will close our eyes to the other major issue. It is not often that such a heavy responsibility falls upon Members of your Lordships' House. It has been my privilege to serve in this House for seven years, and I have learned to love it. I have never been in a debate where we could more literally say that it was a matter of life or death, and we decide.
I was very moved by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who is a doctor, and also the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who balanced the debate. But I want to say to the House that we should not listen to the beguiling appeal, "Leave it to the doctors". Of course the great majority are honourable. We are not legislating on the conduct of the honourable. We are guarding against the conduct of people who do not share those high standards, and to whom money is a great attraction. We all know that these are days when different standards prevail, but, even so, what is right and wrong will always be clear and on this issue it is clear that we should tell the Commons, "No, we do not agree with taking away the protection of the unborn child right up to the day of birth". It staggers me to think that it could be done.
Two distinguished Members of another place held a press conference after the Division there. They were the right honourable Michael Alison and Sir Michael McNair-Wilson who are greatly respected and honoured Members of another place and, no one could say, men of straw. They are men of considerable judgment. Both said at the press conference that they had been misled during the debate in another place. They voted for the amendment as it is without realising what is now commonly accepted; namely, that abortion can take place right up until the birth is due.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, although the confusion in the House of Commons occurred at the Committee stage, the House had another chance at Report stage to vote with due consideration and the same amendment was carried.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, both the right honourable Member and the honourable Member made clear at the press conference that they were misled. I want no one in this House to be misled. I want no one at all to be able to say, "Well, I did not realise that we were giving to some doctors a right to behave as though they were God Almighty with the gift of life or death". That is not the right of any calling or profession. I hope and pray that the House will realise that, although, as the noble Baroness made clear, we want an emphasis on saving the life of the mother, where a perfectly viable baby can be born, we shall not give authority to anyone to put it to death.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, in speaking on the possible effects on the law which could result from the abortion amendments passed in another place, I feel that I can do no better than quote a very old and, I am sure, greatly honoured friend of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I refer to Professor Glanville Williams, QC, FBA, one of the finest academic lawyers we have in this country and one of the leading advocates in favour of liberal abortion and euthanasia, to which I do not necessarily agree in any way.
In the second edition of his Textbook of Criminal Law, published in 1983, Professor Williams explains that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act was introduced in 1929 because lawyers realised that our laws on homicide protected the child after birth and the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 protected the child before birth from abortion, but that there was no legislation in England and Wales which protected the child during the actual process of birth.
In his book, Professor Williams tells us:
"accordingly the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 created the additional offence of child destruction".
He stresses that the only situation for which that Act was required at the time was where a baby was killed after being partially extruded, but that later it was given a wider ambit overlapping the crime of abortion.
Put simply, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 defined as the crime of "child destruction" the killing in the womb of a child capable of being born alive. It gave as prima facie proof of life the fact that the mother had been pregnant for 28 weeks or more. However, I must stress that, at the meeting with the Lord Chancellor during this week, the noble and learned Lord took great pains to explain to me, to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, that the real test of the Act is not 28 weeks, but the phrase
"capable of being born alive".
The figure of 28 weeks is merely an illustration of the time at which babies in 1929 were presumed to be capable of surviving for some length of time. It was, as the Lord Chancellor explained to us, a "rebuttable presumption" in that, if evidence could be produced

1059
showing that a baby of younger gestational age than 28 weeks was capable of living, the Act would protect that child.
However, in referring to the working of the Abortion Act and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, Professor Glanville Williams stated:
"When a live fetus is removed in the course of an intended abortion, the fetus upon being removed becomes a legal person and is fully protected by law … The abortion may have been performed because the woman was overburdened and would be affected in health by having to bring up another child; yet, having produced a live child, the obstetrician is required to try to keep it alive, because it is live extraction from the woman that endows the fetus with legal personality."
In other words, in applying the Abortion Act 1967, it is important to kill the child before it is extracted in order to avoid problems under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. Those are important words. For the fact is that, if a baby of fewer than 28 weeks is destroyed in the womb during an abortion, actually proving that that particular child is capable of being born alive can be extremely difficult.
It was as a result of that dilemma that in 1986 Bishop Hugh Montefiore, the then Bishop of Birmingham, decided to introduce his Infant Life (Preservation) Bill which sought to lower the rebuttable presumption from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. Noble Lords will recall that reference has been made to that fact. The Bill received its Second Reading in the House, but unfortunately it ran out of parliamentary time and coincided with the retirement on age grounds of Bishop Montefiore as Bishop of Birmingham.
The whole episode is best described in a short letter that he wrote to me quite spontaneously after reading that a group of us intended to try to amend the Commons amendments when they were brought before this House. His letter is dated 17th August 1990 and reads as follows:
"I am delighted to hear that you are going to try to amend the Bill which would make abortion legal in certain cases until birth. I am writing to remind you that my Infant Life (Preservation) Bill, which passed its Second Reading in the Lords, was supported by the Government and under that Bill abortion would only have been possible until birth when the life of the mother is threatened (as is now the case). The Government therefore has reneged on its earlier decision and it should be made to explain why it has done this. You may remember that I only agreed to send the Bill to a Select Committee under great pressure from Lord Whitelaw and that the Select Committee was 'packed—.
It was totally packed. There was no representative of the Pro-Life group in this House except for a Bishop who kindly, in order to help the committee, resigned in the end. There was not one lay representative from our group. Who chose the Committee? I leave that up to your Lordships to decide.
The letter continued:
"Indeed, the Bishop of St. Albans resigned from it and it was only in this way that a unanimous decision was possible. I wish you good success. You have a cast iron case. It cannot be right to kill a baby in the womb when it could sustain life outside it.
Yours sincerely, Hugh Montefiore".
1060
I should like to repeat Bishop Montefiore's last words:
"It cannot be right to kill a baby in the womb when it could sustain life outside it".
Here I should like to interject with a personal experience. I have a thriving, rumbustious granddaughter who was born at the 27th week of pregnancy. She is called "Shrimpy" by her sisters. She was born very tiny. When I visited her in the hospital premature baby unit where she was being cared for, I saw a number of tiny babies in incubators who had been born in some cases considerably earlier than she had. This brings home to me most forcefully that what we are dealing with here is human life—babies—and surely we must not deprive them of all protection from the law.
I must ask your Lordships to consider what are the upper limits for abortion in Europe and, indeed, throughout the world. If one examines the legislation country by country, one finds that the vast majority allow abortion up to 12 to 14 weeks. No country allows abortion—killing as opposed to inducing a birth—of the viable child on the grounds of handicap or on social grounds. Virtually every country allows up to birth termination of pregnancy—that is, induced by birth;—not abortion—on those grounds where the mother's life or health are in genuine danger; but in every country the doctor is required by law to do everything possible to save the life of the child. That is the position in Britain today as the law now stands. However, if the Commons amendments become law, that will no longer be the case.
In this country we will then allow doctors to carry out after 24 weeks pregnancy social abortions under the guise of saving the mother from "grave permanent damage" up until the time of birth. We will also allow abortion for "serious" handicap to term. Indeed, if noble Lords recall the statement which I quoted from Professor Glanville's book, they will realise that it will be possible to destroy the child up to the severing of the link between the mother and the child, when the umbilical cord is cut.
As other noble Lords have already stated, we are confident that the majority of doctors in this country would not adopt any such course of action. However, one has only to read the report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on Premature Birth and Abortion to learn that, in recommending a change of the rebuttable presumption from 28 weeks to 24 weeks, it pointed out that more than 60 per cent. of late abortions—abortions after 18 weeks—were carried out by 11 doctors who were operating for money. That is an indictment not of gynaecologists as a whole but of the manner in which our law is being manipulated, twisted and exploited by a tiny minority killing for profit.
I accept the Government's promise that they will allow abortion after 24 weeks to take place only under NHS rules. But we could have another government, next year or the year after, who could reverse such a decision. We as legislators have a duty to consider the effects of legislation on society. Just as passing the Abortion Act in 1967 has reduced respect for the

1061
unborn child with the result that we see 11 doctors carrying out 60 per cent. of late abortions for money, so gynaecologists have told me of their fear that allowing abortion up to birth will lower ethical standards of medicine in late pregnancy, so that while we now revere the child before birth, it will become an object which can be destroyed if it is not perfect or if there are social grounds which it is easier to overcome by eliminating the baby.
There is a free vote in this House. The Whips are not applied on this clause. I unhesitatingly support this amendment and the other two amendments. I draw noble Lords' attention to the fact that we are a revising Chamber. That is our main function. It is our duty to send this back to the other place for them to consider it and for them to give it another look.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, everything I was going to say in my speech has already been said. Noble Lords will therefore be glad that I can put my speech away and not weary them by going over the same points. I should like to say one thing. If the Commons amendment goes through unamended there will be more —perhaps not very many more—late abortions. As a result one will see in hospital, in the same ward as a woman being nursed very carefully and kept extremely quiet in the hope of prolonging her pregnancy long enough for the child to be born capable of living, a woman coming in for a late abortion of a healthy fetus. In the same wing of the hospital there will be children born prematurely in intensive care and healthy fetuses—or what were healthy fetuses—on their way to the incinerator. That is absolute madness. I believe that the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, would ameliorate the position. I therefore hope that it will be supported.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I want to support the Commons amendments and to speak against the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others. I do so for two reasons. First, this House has considered the matter on a number of occasions and has come to very clear decisions on it. Secondly, I happen to believe that the Commons amendments provide the right circumstances for dealing with what can be very distressing situations, situations which do not occur very frequently. We have already heard from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and others that in the last year for which we have figures 23 late abortions took place. There is no evidence to conclude that by passing these amendments we shall increase that number.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York stated quite rightly that we reach a watershed in the development of the human fetus. This Bill recognises that watershed. It is at 24 weeks. Once we go beyond the 24 weeks we are dealing with a different situation and different circumstances. Again, I underline that we are dealing with circumstances that occur in only a few cases. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London asked: where do we put the presumption? I say that in principle we must put it on the continuation of life. Again, it is not always possible for us to apply that principle.
1062
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York outlined one circumstance where it would not be possible to apply it in favour of the child or the fetus; that is where the life of the mother is at stake. There are other circumstances. The most reverend Primate spoke about the viability of life. However, to the mother the viability of life is not necessarily just a question of the child being born and living for a few hours or days. To the mother, the viability of life is the future health and welfare of the child. That is something which we have to take into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, outlined some of the very difficult circumstances that can arise where the child is likely to suffer from abnormalities. He was asked how those circumstances would be affected by the noble Baroness's amendment. The amendment would apply in those circumstances. If the mental and physical health of the woman was being so affected by the fact that she might be carrying, or was carrying, a child that was going to be born with very real abnormalities, that could affect her mental and physical well-being. There are other circumstances which can arise. There may be late diagnosis of problems or the health service may not have been as efficient as it might have been in drawing the attention of the mother to the circumstances.
I should like noble Lords to consider this: no woman would carry a fetus to 24 weeks and then have it aborted just because it was inconvenient. No woman would carry a fetus to 24 weeks and then have it aborted unless there were circumstances which were very compelling. We have to take into account the views of the women who are to be put into this very difficult situation. We have talked about the moral judgment that the doctors have to make. We must remember that the women will also be making a very real moral judgment and that not only their interests but the interests of their families will be at stake when they make that judgment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, the Commons amendment reflects precisely the recommendations of the Select Committee. It may be of some assistance to your Lordships in making up your minds in this debate if I explain briefly how the committee reached its unanimous conclusion. There were two issues before it. The first was whether the maximum gestational age for an abortion should be reduced below 28 weeks. If so, the question was whether any allowance ought to be made for emergency situations.
The committee's approach is set out in paragraph 53 of its report, which I can summarise as follows. It is the woman's health and her needs which must be in the forefront of any discussion of abortion. She has to undergo the physical trauma of childbirth. She is primarily responsible for the child in its early days and often for much longer. She may not have the support of the child's father. So the mother's needs must be placed on one side of the scales. On the other is the duty of society to protect the unborn child. But neither the natural desire of the mother to protect her own health nor the duty of society to protect the unborn child is unqualified.

1063
The question is where the balance rightly lies between mother and unborn child if the mother wishes to terminate her pregnancy. The committee examined this problem in depth over a period of 11 months. It received representations from more than 60 persons and organisations. It considered over 300 pages of written and oral evidence. The committee concluded that the existing maximum gestational age for abortion of 28 weeks was too high. A child removed from the womb after 26 or 27 weeks has a good chance of survival and of being capable of living in a meaningful sense.
Late presentations for abortion are unavoidable. They are invariably associated with youth, low intelligence and social deprivation. Consultants repeatedly told us that patients seeking an abortion when they were 20 weeks pregnant or more were the most distressed they saw. The overwhelming burden of medical opinion was that late abortions should be allowed in order that discretion can be exercised in necessitous cases. After considering all the evidence the committee unanimously concluded that an abortion on statutory grounds should be available in most cases down to but not after the 24th week of pregnancy.
The committee then had to consider what exceptions there ought to be to that timetable. There was one obvious exception; namely, to avoid the risk of the mother's death. In such a case the pregnancy may be terminated at any time. That had always been the law. The committee considered it logical to extend that exception to cover a termination which is necessary to save the woman from permanent ill health. The example has, I believe, already been given of a case of high blood pressure leading possibly to a stroke which may or may not prove fatal.
There is no clear dividing line between an illness which may lead to death and one which may lead to permanent harm. So the committee recommended that there should be no maximum limit for abortion in the case of threatened death and if the termination is essential to the mother's health; that is, to prevent grave permanent injury to her health or to prevent her becoming a permanent invalid.
The only other exception to the 24-week rule recommended by the committee and adopted by the Commons amendment arises where there is a substantial risk that the child if born would suffer from such abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped—not a hare lip or a cleft palate which can be mended by an operation.
The justification for permitting a termination without a time limit in this case is that serious abnormalities cannot necessarily be discovered by week 24; indeed, they may not be discovered until a later date. If an unborn child were diagnosed as grossly abnormal and unable to lead a meaningful life, there was in the opinion of the committee no logic or humanity in requiring the mother, against her will, to carry the unborn child for full term merely because the diagnosis was made too late to enable the termination to be carried out within a fixed timetable. If it is found
1064
late in the day that the pregnant woman is carrying a child which has no brain (an anencephalic) and is therefore only going to live for a matter of minutes or hours, or has some other devastating handicap, it is lacking in humanity to require the mother, against her will, to suffer the agony of carrying the child to full term.
I should add that if one brings down the time limit for abortions on the ground of serious handicap one is liable to increase the number of abortions. But if you have no time limit in the case of suspected abnormalities doctors can carry out their tests to fruition, which may be after 24 weeks. They may discover, to the delight of the mother, that the child is normal. If you cut down the time limit for abortions, you encourage a mother who is bearing a merely suspected deformed child to have an abortion at an early stage which, had the gates been open for a longer time, would never have been necessary.
In the committee's recommendations and in the Commons amendment there are only three exceptions to the 24-week rule: to save the mother's life; to saver from becoming a permanent invalid; and to saver from carrying a grossly abnormal child to full term. Therefore, to say, as has unfortunately been said in propaganda literature, that these exceptions open the door to abortion until birth is a gross travesty of the truth.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I should like to put a question to the noble and learned Lord. If the intention was to save the life of the mother, why did the committee not recommend that in its recommendations, rather than adopting the woolly and ambiguous formula in Commons Amendment No. 20 under subsection (1) (c)?
Lord Brightman: My Lords, speaking from memory, I believe that subsection (1) (c) exactly repeats the existing law.
I shall now touch briefly upon the disengagement of the ILPA—the Infant Life (Preservation) Act—from the Abortion Act. It is sometimes said that that would open the door to abortions until birth because there would be no sanction to prevent it happening. I cannot emphasise too strongly that the elimination of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act from the Abortion Act does not mean that abortions can be carried out to birth with impunity. Plainly, any doctor who terminates a pregnancy outside the statutory limit, or otherwise in contravention of the 1967 Act, will remain fully liable to prosecution under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 or the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, or both.
Finally, I turn to the wording of Amendment No. 20A. The amendment requires the doctor to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the child is born alive if the pregnancy is terminated under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c). In my respectful submission the amendment is wholly inappropriate. A paragraph (a) termination is one which is undertaken to avoid risk of injury to the health of the mother or her existing children. However, under the Commons amendment such a termination can only take place down to the 24th week

1065
of the pregnancy; that is, 23 weeks plus, which is before a live and viable birth can reasonably be expected. Therefore, why direct the doctor to ensure a live birth when performing a paragraph (a) termination if a live birth is impossible or highly improbable? Surely the duty of the doctor is to carry out a paragraph (a) abortion in the manner, and according to the procedures, which is safest for the mother.
Amendment No. 20A also applies to a paragraph (b) or (c) abortion. Paragraph (b) is a termination which is necessary to prevent the mother from becoming a permanent invalid; a paragraph (c) termination is carried out in order to prevent her death. Of course, in such cases the doctor will strive to preserve the life of the child if he can do so consistently with preserving the life of the mother. The pregnancy is one which is wanted and not one which is not wanted. It would be unthinkable for a doctor who was carrying out a termination in order to preserve the mother's life to gratuitously terminate the life of the child. A doctor does not need an Act of Parliament to teach him that elementary duty.
I have a little more to say on the disengagement of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act from the Abortion Act. I believe that it would be more appropriate if I were to continue with what I have to say when we come to deal with Amendment No. 20C.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, does he acknowledge that our amendment would not prevent one termination? With this amendment we are not concerned with a handicap.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I agree. My argument was that Amendment No. 20A is unnecessary because under paragraph (a) it deals only with a termination at a time when a viable child is not to be expected and under paragraphs (b) and (c) when the life of the child will be preserved by the doctor anyway.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I should say at the outset that the House is being shamefully treated. There are three parties to blame. The first is the Government, who have denied proper facilities for this controversial and important subject to be debated and for changes in the law to be brought about except by the dubious course, with frustrations galore, of the Private Member's Bill procedure. No abortion law or amendment to abortion law has been passed except by Private Member's legislation. What a precarious process that is! I blame the Bishops Bench for not turning up when the matter was under discussion at an earlier stage. I blame the pro-life lobby for deserting the debate on my Bill when it was receiving its Second and Third Readings.
That Bill was introduced on 22nd November 1989. It had its Second Reading on 12th December 1989. On that occasion, over 100 Members of your Lordships' House turned up. A delaying Motion was moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. It was lost by 61 votes to 48. Of the 48 Members of your Lordships' House who voted to delay the Bill and wreck its
1066
progress, 57 per cent. were claimed by the Catholic Directory as adherents to the Catholic Church. I say that without bias and without recrimination. I am just as impartial as the BBC! It is noteworthy to see where the inspiration on this issue constantly comes from.
On Second Reading, the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, said:
"We need amendments to the Abortion Act 1967. But this Bill goes in the wrong direction and so is not worth treating as a basis that could itself be amended. The Bill is a calamity". —[Official Report, 14/12/89; col. 1466.]
That was the message, and so the noble Duke promptly deserted the proceedings on the Bill. We had a Committee stage. Amendments were moved. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and I joined in moving an amendment. We were defeated. When the Committee stage finished, the Bill remained intact. There was no Report stage. We went to Third Reading on 7th March this year, in this Session. The Bill passed without a Division.
Naturally, the other place was looking around for some way of solving the interminable controversy without giving time for Private Member's Bills. How could it be done? The other place laid open the path for this matter to be spatchcocked into the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Here it comes as a flaming carbuncle on the body politic of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Here we are up against the time-limit of the Session.
When the other place was looking around for some central consensus, something to put up to allow it speedily to deal with the matter and to get out of it some common denominator of Commons opinion, where did it look? Where could it look? There was no other evidence available. No one else had done the job to the extent that it had been done by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. When it heard that the Select Committee's recommendations had passed through the House without a Division the other place thought, "Ah, here is something stable, something valuable to be put to the Commons to be shot at". So the other place copied my Bill into the core Motion for the Commons.
I know all that because the Leader of the House, Sir Geoffrey Howe, did me the honour of consulting me on the matter; not that I had any claim on his time, but I happened to be one of his constituents. When an MP visits a constituent who does not have a vote, it is an honour indeed. So I agreed that that was the best way of going about the matter. The decks were cleared for one big day of shots at the target. The Motion was moved by the Leader of the House, and amendments were moved by the Secretary of State for Health, not in a partisan way—neither for nor against—but to facilitate the procedural process. There were more than 10 Divisions in Committee that day, 24th April. That was only a few days after the Bill passed through this House.
I remind your Lordships again: Amendment No. 20 has already gone through all its stages in your Lordships' House the normal way. Those who stayed away have only themselves to blame. If they were confused, it is only because they did not turn up. Is the

1067
House of Lords now going to say, "Well, a Bill of which not much notice is taken cannot matter very much"?
The noble Duke did not bother with the Bill because he did not believe that it would get anywhere; but look where it is now. Yet he brushed it aside: "It is not amendable. Why bother with it? It is a calamity. I'm off"; and he went. The other place seized on that, and so what was an unamendable Bill is an almost unamendable Commons amendment; and here it is. Now what are we going to do? There were 10 Divisions on the gestational age limits. The other place voted pendulum-wise. It voted first on 18 weeks. The great aim of the pro-life lobby was to get the gestational limit on abortion down to 18 weeks. It said, "We only want time down there to get this through. Everyone is in the way". When the other place had a chance to look at that proposal, it brushed 18 weeks clean out of the picture. It then went to 20 weeks. It brushed that off; then 22 weeks, but it was not quite so certain about that; then 26 weeks, and it was quite certain about that.
There were those Divisions, which left, unassailed by common assent, 24 weeks. That is why that time-limit is not being assailed in the amendments now. The pro-life lobby dares not touch it. If the amendment went back to the other place it would be thrown back without further debate. We were then left with the other parts of the Bill.
We should now have primary legislation, a Second Reading and a Committee stage. We should have on a more satisfactory basis all that we should have had earlier this year. But noble Lords, by their inattention or scornful dismissal of the attempt to put more sense into the abortion argument, stayed away. The Commons was left bereft. It did not know how to get sense out of it down there, even when it had the time to do so.
On the gestational limits for the prevention of serious permanent injury to the mother, two options were given: a limit of 28 weeks or no limit—emphatically, no limit. The next point was to save the life of the mother. There was no argument; that went through. The other point was on fetal abnormality, the clause that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has just read out. The option was: 28 weeks limit or no limit—emphatically, no limit. That was in the Commons. We have to face that. The no limit proviso in the three cases that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has explained so fully were insisted upon in the House of Commons when it had the option of doing something different on a free vote every time. There were 10 Divisions that day to get it right.
Now we come to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. The same clause as was in my Bill is in Amendment No. 20. It was in the Bill that was passed on 7th March this year. It was added to the core Bill in the House of Commons that no prosecution under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act should apply to any acts done within the scope of the Abortion Act. The vote was overwhelming. Three hundred members of the House
1068
of Commons voted to get the ILPA out by a majority of 159. These amendments propose getting it back again. Supporters of the amendment want the weasel formula "capable of being born alive" back in the Bill after it was banished under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. What do they think they will get from it?
When the pro-life people finally realised what had happened on 21st June—disaster in Parliament, tendentious stuff in what Parliament had done—what did the national president of the LIFE organisation have to say? Presumably he is a superior officer to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, if he is still chairman of the All-Party Pro-Life Group. The national chairman stated:
"We must honestly admit that we have suffered a numbing political defeat. We are bitterly disappointed. We had all worked so hard. We don't know what else we could have done".
However, here comes the clue to the situation. Referring to the advice they received on the policy of this organisation, the statement continues:
"Others insisted that we should not do any statute-tinkering. We should instead get the existing law enforced. In particular, some lawyers argued that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act…which made it a crime knowingly to kill in the womb a child capable of being born alive, was a powerful weapon lying unused".
"Go to it", the lawyers said. "Every abortion after 12 weeks contravened the law, so get that Act enforced". That is what they said.
What did that organisation do to try to achieve that? It said, "We tried it". It set its nurses' spy network to work. There is an organisation called Nurses for Life which was to watch the doctors, see what they were doing and report any suspicious actions. It acted on a spy network of other sources of information and set in motion cases against half a dozen individual doctors who were named in their hospitals and the evidence was given to us. The cases were all thrown out. No doctor has yet been convicted under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act—none. When it comes to the point, whatever the doctor does in good faith and in his belief that he is discharging his duty to his patient, applying his clinical judgment to the situation, no jury will convict him.
Then said Mr. Scarisbrick, "This is a broken reed". So the 1929 Act was a broken reed. It always has been. We have proved that there is nothing to enforce and much effort and time have been wasted. Money was not mentioned. This organisation spent £46,500 on a campaign that lasted six months. It is now appealing for money. The SPUC organisation, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, must have spent well over £500,000 on all the items it has sent round: plastic fetuses, videos from America called The Silent Scream, blown-up photographs which the Sunday Times newspaper says are very expensive indeed. These come mostly from one source and we know what that source is. I shall not mention his name because he is not here to reply, but I am sure that there is no secret about it. It was munificence for extravagant propaganda.

1069
What is the evil of these amendments? The evil of the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox—who, incidentally, was not present at any of the discussions on live health —is that they expose the doctors to a renewal of the harassment and the detective network because of the additional obligation in the statute on "capable of being born alive". The more we define the duty of the doctors, the more we expose them to harassment and fear of the criminal law. That is the wicked part of these amendments. The doctors should be trusted.
Goodness me, are 27 cases really all that occupy our attention in paragraphs (c) and (d)? Each case has its own special circumstances. Can we not trust the doctors to decide in such grievous examples? They are all in National Health Service hospitals. There is no private sector carrying on illicit business on the side. All such cases are in National Health Service hospitals. Can we not even trust them? What a pass we are coming to!
I ask your Lordships: where do we go now? I can see no satisfaction to be gained anywhere from simply voting for or against sending the Bill back to the House of Commons. What will the House of Commons do about it? The Government will need a guillotine to get it through. The resentment there at the way in which the House of Lords has let them down would be very strong indeed. We are being manoeuvred into a false position. We ought to come to the conclusion, if needs must, that the only clear duty of this House is to endorse what the House of Commons—which we relied upon to produce the answer —has given to us for consideration. Nothing else will bring any satisfaction or peace anywhere.
I believe that the whole Bill could be put in jeopardy if there is a misjudgment of the mood of the House of Commons on what I think is a dreadful and unnecessary parliamentary situation. Let us settle it tonight, finish this phase in the long saga of a decade or two on abortion. Let those of us who work in this field for God's sake get a night's sleep and see what happens. The medical profession will be responsible. The social organisations also will be responsible. Will these people who live on professionalism to intimidate emotionally and in every other way lay off? If they do not, there is no hope at all. They must lay off and let the doctors get on with the job. They must let the abortion legislation settle down in a reasonable atmosphere. I beg noble Lords not to go down this path; I beg them to accept what the House of Commons has done. There is nothing better on offer: nothing better will come from the House of Commons. If we want a snub, we are asking for one. It is better for noble Lords to say, "We have done our best. The Commons has done its best. The Commons' view should prevail". That is the parliamentary situation. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will have something better to offer. The Government have been lamentable. They have landed us in this shambles all the way along the line. As I sit down, I hope that this is the last speech I ever make on this subject in your Lordships' House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, after the weasels, carbuncles and unnamed zealots mentioned in the fascinating speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I hope your Lordships will permit me, in less than three minutes, to raise one point. The speech which weighed with me more than any other as a criticism of the amendments to the Commons amendment, which I support, was that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. He told us that Amendment No. 20A was superfluous as applied to subsection (1) (a) of the Commons amendment. He also said that the Lords amendment was unnecessary in relation to paragraphs (b) and (c) of the subsection. I shall leave the question of superfluity on one side and consider necessity. The judgment of the noble and learned Lord appeared to rest on the assumption first, that the pregnancy in each case referred to under paragraphs (b) and (c) was wanted by the mother and, secondly, that a doctor would presumably, therefore, strive to preserve the life of the fetus.
I am not sufficiently learned in the law to know whether it would be binding on a doctor to assume that the pregnancy was wanted in any case, but I appreciate that the danger of injury to the mother's mental health is one of the conditions of paragraph (b) under which an abortion may be brought about. I believe that on every occasion that the noble and learned Lord referred to that matter he mentioned abortion and not termination by the preservation of life of the fetus. Presumably that process is possible, and that is what the Lords amendment seeks to achieve.
If it is the case that some of these pregnancies may be unwanted and if not all doctors, sadly, are always bound by the Hippocratic oath, and if our statutes are meant to prevent improper acts by those who might be expected to act properly, I believe that some protection in law is required. As a postscript I should add that, on reflection, the noble and learned Lord said he believed that the wording of paragraph (c) of the Commons amendment reproduced the existing law. I can only say that that is not necessarily a recommendation for leaving it unamended.
As a layman in every sense of the word it is clear to me that some protection is needed which is not provided by the Bill as it would be drafted were the Commons amendment to be accepted in the form in which it has been brought to us. It may well be that the amendments are imperfect, but if your Lordships are not content with them and resist the amendments on the grounds that they are imperfect, we shall be landed with the Bill as it is now drafted. The only way to get any alternative amendment is to send the Bill back to the Commons for it to consider how to meet the objections raised in this House in another form. For that reason I shall support the amendments to the Commons amendment.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I have a handicapped child so I believe it may be useful if I refer to this matter. The first thing I want to make clear is that we are not talking about healthy children. The entire question of termination after 24 weeks concerns unhealthy, abnormal children. My wife and I had, as

1071
our first child, a perfectly normal son. Our second child, a daughter, is a Mongol with Down's syndrome. We care for her and look after her and she is brought up in the family. She is doing extremely well. When my wife became pregnant for a third time, we faced a big problem as regards what we were going to do. My wife was now considered to be in a high risk group. I must add that we had no idea that we were going to have a Down's syndrome child. That came out of the blue. All the debates so far have concerned the rights of the mother and the unborn child. We seem to forget that we are still supposed to have family units in this country. The Church is still supposed to believe in that. Therefore there are husbands and other children involved in this matter.
When we were faced with a third pregnancy, we had to consider what would happen if that child turned out to be handicapped. The difficulty is that the problem hits one rather late on. Some time may elapse before one's wife announces she is pregnant. Then one has to make an appointment to see the doctor and the whole palaver carries on. Then one has to decide whether to have an amniocentesis test at 16 weeks. It is not possible to have it before then. Further the test can only be carried out when the hospital can arrange for it to be carried out. So one has to book into the hospital. Having the test increases the risk of a miscarriage. If one is going to have the child anyway, regardless of whether or not it is handicapped, there is no point in having amniocentesis because one increases the chance of miscarrying a perfectly healthy, normal child.
The first decision to take is whether to terminate the pregnancy if it is discovered that the fetus is handicapped. That is a very difficult decision to take. If one decides to have the child anyway, there is no point in having the amniocentesis test. That reinforces the point I am making about the time limits involved here. It causes a great deal of pressure for both the people involved.
In our case both my wife and I worked and had other pressures apart from the pregnancy. We had the pressure of the other child and my mother-in-law. It is difficult to be able to sit down quietly together in the evening and discuss such personal matters. First of all the man has to find out what his wife's attitude is to abortion. She may be so anti-abortion that she would not even consider that step whereas the man may be pro-abortion. The problem with having these built-in time limits is that it places psychological pressure on a marriage. It is a very dangerous time for the couple: marriages can be broken up if one word is said out of place. A row can begin that may never finish.
In our case we decided that the risk to our elder son's mental health if, to put it impolitely, he had two nutty siblings, was high. I am afraid that one has to admit that that is what the situation boils down to. Schools and school children can be very nasty in these situations. If there is only one abnormal child among a family of three or four children, no one will worry. When fingers are pointed at school, the child can weather it. The abnormal child is just one among
1072
many. However, if a normal child has two nutty brothers or sisters and he is the only normal offspring, one can imagine what the reaction of other children will be. They would pass remarks such as, "You are the one with the funny sister" or "You are the one with the funny brother". We were concerned about how such a situation might affect my son Harry as he grew up; so we decided to have the amniocentesis test. I believe that the test was carried out at 16½ weeks or 17 weeks. Fortunately, it was successful on the first occasion. Another problem can be posed if the test is unsuccessful. In that case the process has to be carried out a second time, but the staff will not know if it has been successful for a further two weeks. Again, therefore, we are pushing up against the time limit.
In theory one carries out the test at 16 weeks. But one does not receive the results until the 20th week. The staff have to contact the parents, inform them of the results and counsel them if there is a problem. People are up against the time limit the whole time. If we had been told that our child was abnormal, we might have reconsidered our decision, particularly as our handicapped daughter is so tremendous. When these time limits are set, intense pressures are placed upon families. We are not talking about healthy children here. Some 23 abortions were carried out last year after the time limit of 24 weeks. None of those abortions involved healthy children. We are not talking about children who will be brought up in loving wonderful families and who will live a healthy, bouncy life. Perhaps in every 10 years one such child may turn out to be an exceptional character; that is, if he survives, because he may not even necessarily be viable at 24 weeks. But how many lives and how many families might be wrecked by the others as a result of the trauma and mental pressure? In setting a time limit one puts pressure on normal families. That is very dangerous. It nearly happened to us. I disagree with anything that would produce that sort of pressure. For abnormal situations there should be no time limit: the family is more important.
6 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his clear exposition of the arrangements for regulation and control of medical abortion by the DHSS and the other aspects of Amendment No. 20. I support everything said by my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord McColl, and I listened with great admiration to the moving speech of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll.
I should like to make it clear that I fully supported the Bill in the form in which it left your Lordships' House. I voted for embryo research under strict regulation. However, since then the Bill has been drastically amended in another place to include major reform of the abortion law. I am most concerned by some of the provisions in the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 20. However, I have no intention, nor I believe have any of your Lordships—with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—of

1073
raising any of the issues concerning the limit of 24 weeks or pregnancies terminated due to the risk of danger to the life of the mother.
I realise that at this late stage the Government are concerned that disagreement between the two Houses could cause problems and might conceivably jeopardise the passing of the Bill into law during this Session. In my view that last would be a tragedy, for the Bill contains important provisions for the regulation of embryo research. However, I submit that the passing of good law, sound in logic, application and ethics, must take precedence over any consideration of the convenience of legislators.
I strongly believe that the new clause inserted in another place is not sound, either in logic or in ethics. In addition, as my noble friend Lady Cox said, there has been considerable confusion about the difference between abortion —killing a fetus—and termination of pregnancy and producing a live child. I believe that that is one good reason why we should be debating the matter again in this House, despite the points that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, put to us about his Bill. I believe that that difference has not been sufficiently appreciated and it is right that we should take it fully into account. That is what Amendments Nos. 20A and 20B do.
I fully realise that the conflicts of loyalties which arise in such cases are desperately difficult. I have some small personal experience of them. They are particularly intense and difficult when loved ones are involved. There are many instances through the ages of mothers bravely sacrificing all, even life itself, to protect and nurture their children. There have also been cases when the diagnosis of a seriously deformed fetus has been proved wrong and a child has been born with no more than minor abnormality, or even fully healthy.
Now for the logic. If for some reason it is decided to have an abortion at a very late stage when the fetus is capable of being born alive, say a week before the birth, under the proposed Amendment No. 20 that would be lawful in certain not easily defined cases. However, if a child is born with more serious abnormalities than were diagnosed, it would be a crime—of infanticide I believe—to kill that child a week after birth, however deformed it was. That cannot be sound logic. It must be bad law.
Lastly, I come to the ethical dimension, perhaps the most important of all. Here the analogy with the debate that we have had on many occasions in both Houses on the death penalty for murder is a good one. For good reasons Parliament has concluded that it is better for many murderers to escape the penalty of death rather than that one person should be hanged and subsequently proved to be innocent. So I believe that we should proclaim, as firmly and clearly as we can, the importance of saving the life of the unborn child. We should minimise in every possible way the risk of killing the unborn child unnecessarily.
Those are all very difficult and painful issues. As I said, I listened with great admiration to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, which was so relevant to
1074
this difficult issue. Amendment No. 20 would allow abortion under certain, not easily defined, conditions; namely, the termination of pregnancy by killing the fetus up to the day of birth for reasons other than risk to the life of the mother. All of us in this great, civilised country, whether of any religious faith or none, respect the sanctity of human life. It must therefore be wrong and against every ethical principle of a truly civilised country to permit the killing of a child, a fetus capable of being born alive, a few days before birth, simply because it happens to be within the womb rather than outside it, in any circumstances other than when the mother's life is at risk.
Amendments Nos. 20A and 20B now proposed to Amendment No. 20 would go a long way towards preventing that from happening. I do not believe that they are in any way contrary to the protestations of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. He wants to see children born alive if possible. Therefore, why not agree to Amendments Nos. 20A and 20B? That is all we seek to achieve—that on every possible occasion the life of the child should be saved if that is possible and that we should lay a duty on the medical practitioner to do all that he can to achieve that.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor mentioned that that was the current practice. I am sure that it is. However, times change, governments change and doctors change. Should we not enshrine that principle in law? That is what those Amendments Nos. 20A and 20B would serve to achieve. They would enshrine in law the principle that if possible the life of the unborn child should be saved. I submit that they are entirely reasonable and very wise amendments.
Perhaps I may say one thing more. I confidently pray that every noble Lord here tonight will vote as each believes is right and wise and will not be affected by any considerations of convenience of parliamentary business management.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down perhaps he will allow me to correct one mistake. He said that the amendments from the Commons drastically altered the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. In fact they exactly reproduce that Bill and the Committee's recommendations.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, if the noble Lord will read Hansard he will see that I said that the Commons amendments drastically altered the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which was passed by this House. So far as I can remember, I said that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that we had already discussed the issue when we debated his Bill and passed its Second Reading, was not a strong point because of the argument raised by my noble friend Lady Cox. She said that sufficient consideration had not been given to the difference between abortion, which is the killing of a fetus capable of being born alive, and the termination of pregnancy with every intention of preserving the life of the unborn child. I believe that when the noble Lord, Lord Brightman, reads Hansard he will find that that is what I said.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Viscount.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I think that the House is being led along a path which, to me at any rate, is new—it may not be at all new to the medical profession—namely, the path which follows a distinction between abortion and termination of pregnancy. I certainly assumed that the two meant the same. But it is very dangerous to make the assumption that in the case of terminations under paragraphs (a) (b) and (c), there is not generally a very strong desire on the part of both the mother and the doctors to save the child if possible. We should take that for granted, even though people may be able to cite evidence where the opposite is true.
Considering the very small number of cases of late abortions for those reasons, I believe that it is extremely unlikely that in many of them there is a desire that the child should die and not survive. Therefore it is misleading to be told that if we pass Commons Amendment No. 20 as it stands we shall be on the side of killing the child. That is rubbish. We shall still be on the side of saving the child where possible.
It is different when we come to terminations on the grounds set out in paragraph (d). Here one is talking about a child who is very severely damaged and cannot live a meaningful life. In the committee on which I had the honour to serve under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, we used the phrase "a meaningful life". I do not believe that today we have said anything that makes clear, first, what is meant by "capable of being born alive" and, secondly, what is meant by "capable of living". We have not settled the question of whether that means living for a minute, a month or a year, by artificial inflation of the lungs or without such drastic measures. None of those points has been considered, nor do I think that they should be considered. I believe that there is a minute number of children—we have heard figures of 23 or 24—who are aborted on those grounds. In every case it is a tragedy. In every case it is difficult to bear.
However, I should like to go back to something that was said earlier. I remind your Lordships that, if the law is not amended in this way, it is in fact the mother who has to carry the child from week 28 until week 40. That is the length of a whole school term. Twelve weeks is a long time. I do not believe that enough attention has been paid to that appalling demand which Hugh Montefiore, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, quite explicity said he thought ought to be imposed on the woman.
The plea that I make is that noble Lords should consider this set of amendments as a whole and pass them all without entering into arguments about how many children will be wanted and how many are not wanted, and bear that in mind.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may say a few words. I hesitate to do so because she is much wiser than I am on this subject, but I understand termination of
1076
pregnancy after 24 weeks to be either abortion when the child is killed or induced birth when the child is kept alive and the live child is born or there is a Caesarean operation. It is for that reason that we have tabled our amendment. We want it to be an induced birth and not a destruction of the child in the womb.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, it may be appropriate if I say a few words as a practising doctor. The movers of the amendments may feel that that qualification diminishes the worth of my contribution. However, I hope that noble Lords who have not made up their minds will accept that individual doctors and the great majority of the profession as a whole, as well as most obstetricians and gynaecologists, feel that the Commons amendments are entirely appropriate. They modernise the 1967 Abortion Act and bring the law into line with current practice in most cases. They will remove the anomaly of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 under which gynaecologists operating in good faith risk prosecution for carrying out a humane procedure.
I should like simply to address subsection (1) (d) in Commons Amendment No. 20 which concerns severe handicap. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, covered much the same point that I wanted to make. When a child with a severe handicap has been diagnosed late (and, as has been pointed out, sadly, that happens very occasionally), the new clause inserted into the Bill allows the mother or both parents to opt for a termination of pregnancy—I use that word advisedly; I myself consider that it means the same as an abortion—if they so wish, with no gestational restrictions. But it does not require them to have a termination. They are perfectly at liberty to continue with the pregnancy if their conscience dictates that the mother should give birth and they should look after a very severely handicapped child until it dies, possibly after a few hours or maybe a few years depending on how serious is the handicap.
Obviously some will make that choice, as the noble Lord who spoke recently pointed out. But I believe that the majority of parents in that position will opt for a termination and will not want the child to survive. After a period they will try again with the strong expectation of conceiving another normal child in its place. The Lords' amendments remove that choice from the unfortunate couple and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said, force the mother to continue with the pregnancy because—in the words of the amendment—if a doctor:
"takes all reasonable steps to secure that the child is born alive"
he or she must allow that pregnancy to continue to full term.
In my opinion the movers of these amendments are forcing the majority of women in that position, and the majority of gynaecologists, to follow the movers' minority belief. They are thus removing the choice of women to replace their handicapped fetus with a healthy normal pregnancy and causing them to bear an unwanted and deformed child possibly for as long as 12 weeks.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, reference has been made several times to the Select Committee of this House and I have to own that I was a member of it. I was glad to sign the report. As was rightly said, its conclusions were unanimous. Because I intend to vote in favour of the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, I shall offer a brief word as to why I shall do so.
With his usual impeccable fairness the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, explained to us the conclusions of the committee. I disagree with him on only one comparatively tiny point; namely, that the phrases and words of the amendments which have come to us from the Commons do not line up with sufficient accuracy with the words of our recommendation. In its conclusions the committee said that termination of the pregnancy must be essential to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. Let me compare that with the grounds put before us in the Commons amendment:
"to present grave permanent injury"
or that there would be:
"risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated".
I must say that there is a significant gap which causes me some anxiety. Perhaps I may add at once that I accept fully the other recommendations of the committee as expressed in the Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I take my place with others on the stall of penitence in not having been present when that Bill was debated in this House. If the amendment is pressed to bring back the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, I shall certainly vote against it.
There are cases where the termination of a pregnancy after the 24th week might well have to be by abortion. The evidence put before us convinced me of that. However, I do not believe that that would cover absolutely, totally and without peradventure every case. The hypothesis—perhaps it is more than a hypothesis—has been put before us already today that a pregnant woman may be suffering from hypertension to such a degree that her pregnancy could be terminated. I do not understand medicine but it seems unnecessary to hypothesise that that fetus could not be born by induction (as any other premature baby might be) and could not lead a perfectly normal and healthy life. Surely it should be induced.
We entirely accept the reassurances given by several Members of this House that the medical profession would normally do so and would ensure that the child was born alive. However, I believe that no harm and perhaps some good would be done if such provision were nudged into the legislation by the modest amendments, Amendments Nos. 20A and 20B. They provide only that all reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that the child is born alive.
In my belief, more important is the signal that Parliament would or would not send to the community over this matter. Should we not make it as clear as we can that if a child can be born alive it should be? There may be reasons that that is impossible or undesirable. Those reasons may in some cases be, sustained. But surely the burden of proof
1078
must be decisively on those who would abort a child who could at that point in time be born alive. It is not necessary to suppose that the amendments would compel mothers to carry their children in all cases to term. They probably would not. I believe that the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, is perfectly right. But why should we even by assumption appear almost to obviate, if not prohibit, the induced birth of a healthy child, or even a child with some handicap? If we leave the wording as it is, the presumption will go abroad that termination in each case means abortion.
With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, he used the words "termination" and "abortion" as though they were synonymous. I believe that these amendments need not be synonymous. It would be right and accurate if we were to ensure by these amendments that those words were not so construed.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I had not intended to speak. However, I must take up one point raised by the right reverend Prelate. I do not believe that doctors should make laws. The laws must be made by Parliament. Certainly we must take their views into account because their profession is a competent and a caring one.
The point that the right reverend Prelate made about abortion and termination and induced birth is amply covered. I was most impressed by a letter that I received. It has been referred to several times. It was signed by 21 distinguished obstetricians from Aberdeen to north Devon, all of them at the top of their profession. They support the Commons amendment. The letter refers quite clearly to the point that the right reverend Prelate made. It states:
"If the foetus is mature enough to have a reasonable chance of survival with intensive care, all possible steps are taken to optimise the survival of both mother and foetus; delivery is then usually by caesarean section".
That appears to cover the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others.
At the end of the day, the doctors have to interpret the law in a desperately caring and difficult situation. Without any doubt we should listen to their views. For that reason I shall vote for the Commons amendment.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I had intended to speak only on Amendment No. 20B. After listening to the speeches of noble Lords, it seems to me that the two amendments have been covered in one debate.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, no. With the leave of the House, we agreed earlier that they would be dealt with separately. Rather than waste the noble Lord's time while speaking now, when he may wish to make the same points on the second amendment, perhaps I may say that there is a separate debate on that amendment.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I recognise what the noble Baroness says. However, while we shall have a separate vote on Amendment No. 20B, almost every speaker has combined arguments on the two amendments.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor worried us about what would happen if we decided to accept the amendments. Others have taken the same

1079
line. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for example, said that we must not change the position now because that is against the provision that the Commons agreed. However, if as a House we feel that such provision is wrong we have a duty to put our views and the provision that we should like to the other place. If it turned us down I doubt whether there would be a constitutional crisis, although no one can say for certain.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, made a most powerful speech. He was arguing in favour of Amendment No. 20. None of us is arguing against it. The debate was very interesting but it was not relevant to the amendments. He said that we must trust the doctors. I understand that, but I believe that at times the doctors may need guidance.
We had the entertaining speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I am not sure whether entertaining speeches are appropriate on this subject, but never mind. He spoke entirely about Amendment No. 20, what he did in the past, and so on. He said, "If you pass the amendments they will be evil". Those were his words. I tried to understand why they would be evil. It was because it would put pressure on the doctors. That is exactly what I consider should be done. There should be pressure on them to think very seriously before they act. I am not in the least afraid of doing that.
Many noble Lords will recognise the enormous problem that the doctors have in making a decision with regard to the unborn child. However, I do not believe that one should put the responsibility on the doctors without guidance from this House. I believe that the two amendments help to give such guidance.
Those of us who believe in God should not expect doctors to make His judgments. Perhaps I may tell noble Lords a very short story.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: No!
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, the story is this—despite the chuckling of the noble and learned Lord in the corner. Two doctors were debating whether they should end a pregnancy. The father had syphilis; and the mother had tuberculosis. The first child was born blind; the second child died; and the third child was deaf and dumb. The question that was put by one doctor to the other was, "What will you do in this case?". The doctor said, "I suppose that there is no option but to terminate the pregnancy". If that had been done, there would be no Beethoven. I tell that story because it is of immense importance that we should not try to make a judgment that is God's. That is what worries me. There are many similar cases but we should never forget that often seriously handicapped children have compensating gifts which make life worth while from their point of view and that of the world.
Noble Lords may believe that my final point is a little far fetched, but I do not believe so. If we allow doctors to decide whether to take life because a child may be handicapped, does that not come close to saying that euthanasia is also reasonable? It could be
1080
said, "Here are people who are handicapped; admittedly they are old, and we should terminate their lives as well".
I hope that in speaking to both amendments I have not overstepped the mark. I may speak again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has said. I beg your Lordships to recognise the fact that the amendments are not against Amendment No. 20—far from it. All noble Lords who have spoken have accepted Amendment No. 20. However, we have sought to make the doctors think about whether the child is to be born alive.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I had intended to speak for much longer than I shall speak. I had prepared a long speech but, after having read the reports, listened to the arguments and sat in the Chamber throughout this debate, I have changed my mind. I and many other people are puzzled by one issue. I have deferred and held back because of the number of experts that we have heard this afternoon. We have heard experts from the religious, medical and political fields. What came across is the difference between them. I have no medical expertise apart from almost a lifetime spent on health committees and in advising and counselling for advice services in the voluntary sector. Apart from that, I was an engineer.
However, I have a gut reaction which is common to millions of people outside the House. I have listened to and read about debates, and I have watched television programmes on the subject. Together with many people who have no knowledge of the subject and have read no reports, I say, "They are going too far. This thing is going over the top". The debate today has shown clearly that there is a difference in the position that exists and the position that is being proposed. I have heard the difference enunciated by a number of speakers. My difficulty is in interpreting the feeling, "They are going too far. What can we do to stop them?".
I am not intimidated by my noble friend Lord Houghton. I have long admired and respected him and have supported him in his excellent campaigns on animal welfare and vivisection. However, I depart from him on this issue. I am not intimidated when I hear him saying, "This will do damage here; that will happen there; and the Commons will be upset". Our job is to do what we think is right; to amend the Bill where we believe that there are weaknesses, to strengthen it where we believe it needs strengthening and then to send it back. No doubt we shall be flexible and speedy in order to allow the timetable of this Session to be maintained. No one wishes to wreck the Bill or the timetable; but we do not wish to be seen to be allowing legislation which we believe is wrong to pass. I am one of those who believe that this legislation is wrong and that there is a major difference.
I have read the report and I am confused by it. It pays scant attention, if any, to the views of the Royal College of Obstetricians, the Royal College of Midwives, the Health Visitors' Association, the Royal

1081
College of General Practitioners and other professional bodies which call for an upper limit of 24 weeks. No mention of that is made in the report of the Select Committee, and it is touched on only vaguely elsewhere. I recall previous debates when we were told by those justifying the use of human embryo for research, for instance, that we had to vote on the grounds that all the main medical bodies in this country were urging the pursuance of such practices. Now they have turned the issue upside down because all the main medical bodies in this country have said that the upper limit should be 24 weeks and are now telling us to vote against—
Noble Lords: No, it is the other way round.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, those of us who do not have a great deal of medical knowledge must be careful. If noble Lords read the conclusions in Part V they will see that my comments are correct. The contention that there is a difference and that the existing Bill will lead to abortion on demand up to birth did not come from any pro-life organisation. It came from an article in a paper with which I do not agree—that is, the Guardian. On the day after the debate in the other place, it stated that the clause might be interpreted so liberally that it becomes abortion on demand without limit of time. Who is to say that the Guardian is speaking for the pro-life movement or is a member of SPUC? That is where the argument first originated. I could go on for a long time—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful for your support and I shall try to return the compliment some day.
I understand that under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 which is still in force a baby may be destroyed in the womb only with the aim of "preserving the life of the mother". That is important and we all accept it. There has been no argument about the length of the pregnancy when such a condition has existed. However, the Bill as it stands without the amendments permits abortion for:
"risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated".
That is a diminution of the legislation which now exists and it is weakened. I am not in favour of weakening the position of the mother in such circumstances. I am in favour of maintaining the position and amending as we have suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, read from a newspaper or journal from the pro-life movement in order 10 justify his claim. That justifies me reading from a letter which my noble friend Lord Houghton distributed. That states that we should get down to the fundamentals of the issue. It says that abortion has existed since the beginning of human life. No country and no religion has ever been able to prevent or stop it. It goes on that the Irish Republic is the only fundamentalist country left in the European Community and it exports its abortion cases to us. I would refute that totally.
1082
As regards the Irish position—and it is worth mentioning because that is an injustice to a friendly country—the Irish constitution is quite clear. It underlines the principle that the state acknowledges the right to life for the unborn child having due regard to the equal rights of the mother, and all practical and reasonable steps are taken to uphold that principle. That was put to the country in the form of a referendum. This matter has never been put to our country in the form of a referendum, so why should we criticise what another sovereign state has done?
The result of the referendum was an overwhelming majority in favour of the constitution. As regards the other part of Ireland, the only matter which unites the people in the six counties of Northern Ireland is their abhorrence of abortion. They regularly vote together against any attempts to worsen the present situation. For those reasons, and many more, I intend to support the amendments.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have had a long debate and it has covered a good deal of ground —some of it not entirely covered by the amendment which we are presently discussing.
Therefore, I should like to remind your Lordships of the question raised by this amendment. There is no question in this amendment of altering the grounds for medical termination of pregnancy stated in the Commons amendment and no proposal in any way to alter those in their definitions. Therefore a good deal of comment made about that is not particularly relevant to the amendment. I should like to show that the amendment is engrafting a proviso to the lawfulness of abortions or terminations of pregnancy, to be accurate, on the grounds specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the Commons amendment.
It is worth reminding ourselves that what has happened as regards the Commons amendment is that the law relating to medical termination of pregnancy has been modified by including for the first time in that legislation a time limit; namely, 24 weeks. Essentially, that was the question considered by the Select Committee—that is, whether a time limit should be put into the abortion legislation; and, if so, what it should be. The House of Commons has introduced into the abortion legislation a time limit of 24 weeks.
That applies except for the exceptions specified. My noble and learned friend Lord Brightman has explained how the committee which he chaired reached the conclusion that it was right to make a reduction in the time limit from what had previously been thought to exist—and I shall come on to explain how that was so—and to make exceptions from that provision for the time limit. Those exceptions are mirrored in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d).
It is true that the word used in paragraph (b) is "necessary" and that may be capable of being distinguished from "essential". However, that is a fairly narrow distinction. The three paragraphs (b) (c) and (d) are intended to mirror the exceptions from the reduction in the time limit which the committee proposed. I shall not go into the justification for those.

1083
I merely say that the committee reached the view that those exceptions were appropriate on the basis of the evidence which it took and its considerations.
In respect of paragraph (a)—the 24 week case—it is proposed by this amendment to introduce a proviso. I believe that I am right in saying that the medical evidence is that under 24 weeks the chance of a fetus being born alive is not very great. In the current medical view, at 24 weeks there may be a possibility of life independent of the mother if the child is delivered. The 24 week period is fixed on that basis.
As I said earlier, until this provision is implemented —if it is—the law regarding time limits has stood upon the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. That Act was based on the idea of the capability of life. It contained in its provisions a presumption about the capability of life. I shall read that because it is quite important and my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk referred to it. It states:
"For the purposes of this Act, evidence that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of twenty-eight weeks or more shall be prima facie proof that she was at that time pregnant of a child capable of being born alive".
That gave a legal presumption—a rebuttable presumption because it is prima facie proof—that if she had carried a child for 28 weeks, it was capable of being born alive. It …as from that Act that the general view was taken that there was a 28 week limit on abortions.
However, it is important to notice that the 1929 Act made it an offence for any person who:
"with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother".
That was the basis on which the offence was created. It was not a question of failure to take steps but required the doing of a wilful act with intent to cause the child to die.
That Act contains this proviso:
"no person shall be found guilty of an offence under this section unless it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother".
The result was that the committee recommended that the 28 weeks which appears there should, in modern times, be taken into the abortion legislation and changed into the shorter period of 24 weeks. That is the primary effect of this part of the Commons amendment—that is, to reduce that.
Against that background, the proposal is made to amend in order to insert the words of Amendment No. 20A. As I say, that amendment is intended to apply to paragraphs (a), (b) or (c). As my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman pointed out, that creates a difficulty in respect of paragraph (a) where the 24 week time limit is applied.
I wish simply to summarise the question. The question is whether this House should put an additional responsibility on the doctor carrying out an operation under this statutory provision, to determine that the child is capable of being born alive. The
1084
amendment does not make that capability dependent on the doctor's opinion. It is an absolute criterion that is taken. Your Lordships will also remember that that doctor is taking a decision in respect of a child in utero, and must reach a conclusion upon that matter before any operation is undertaken.
My next point is that the amendment requires that if that set of facts is established, and that set of facts is an objective set of facts not dependent upon the doctor's opinion, then the doctor is bound to take all reasonable steps to secure that the child is born alive. In paragraphs (b) and (c) with which the amendment is concerned, the medical situation of the mother is sharply in focus. The life of the mother is specifically referred to in paragraph (c). That is the emphasis of that paragraph—that it involves risk to the life of the pregnant woman; that it is a life-threatening pregnancy with which one is dealing.
The question is whether the amendment is obliging the doctor to take all reasonable steps to secure that the child is born alive, whatever effect that may have on the life or health of the mother. That is a question which must arise on the amendment. The argument in favour of the amendment is that the concept of capability of being born alive is an essential one. In some ways it is a watershed of the legality or moral propriety of the operation. However, I remind your Lordships that in 1929 when Parliament dealt with this it did so on the basis of weeks of pregnancy and left that otherwise open to evidence.
The argument to the contrary is put on the basis that the criteria supplied are the criteria under which the medical practitioner should operate without further qualification. I must point out that breach of the condition under which authorisation is given exposes the medical practitioner in question to criminal prosecution. In other words, if it were shown in any specific case that a doctor had not taken what the court regarded as all reasonable steps, and it was proved to the court's satisfaction that the child was capable of being born alive, that doctor would be liable to prosecution for a criminal offence. He might fall foul of the other offences which regulate that area.
I said earlier that the Government are entirely neutral on this matter. I have sought to put before your Lordships the facts to be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, criticised the Government for putting your Lordships in this position. The Government sought to arrange time for a structured and full debate on the matter in the House of Commons, and your Lordships have the opportunity of discussing it once more, having discussed it already under the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.
I do not seek to worry—I believe that was the word used by the noble Earl, Lord Perth—about what might happen, whatever your Lordships do. All I said, and it is an indisputable fact, was that consent of both Houses is required for the Bill to become law. I state that as a fact your Lordships will wish to bear in mind when considering a course of action. It is for your Lordships to decide in the light of your own conscience how to deal with the amendment.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly thank every noble Lord who contributed to this important and often moving debate. I wish to make three points. I cannot emphasise too strongly that Amendment No. 20A would not, in any situation whatever, constitute grounds for termination of a pregnancy covered by the House of Commons amendment. In other words, the House of Commons amendment allows for a termination of pregnancy according to a number of grounds. Our amendment would in no way prevent that termination of pregnancy.
We are not opposed to the termination of a pregnancy if the mother's health and well-being are at risk. Amendment No. 20A says that in such a situation, where it appears that the mother's well-being requires the termination of a pregnancy, the outcome should not be intentionally an abortion. The Abortion Act would apply. The outcome should be termination of a pregnancy with every effort reasonably made to secure and protect the life of the child. The mother's well-being comes first. But the amendment puts the onus on the medical practitioners to do heir utmost to protect the life of the child.
There is nothing inconsistent with the spirit of the two amendments. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said, it puts the presumption on life rather than, as in the case of abortion, on death. We are not speaking of handicaps. Some valid and sensible points were made regarding babies with handicaps discovered in utero. That is the substance of another amendment and another debate. I ask noble Lords not to take those points on board when considering Amendment No. 20A, which relates to the well-being of the mother and which we regard as being paramount. But, after 24 weeks, if the child is capable of life, we ask that it be protected.
My final point is that it has been made very clear that at present professional practitioners would protect the child anyway. We do not wish to impugn the integrity of professional practitioners. But if the law is amended by the Commons amendment as it now stands, the child will become vulnerable at law. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that at present the child is protected by the good practice of clinical practitioners. But the child will not be protected by law from abortion on those grounds, many of which are open to vague interpretation.
We are not legislating against good practice. One does not need to legislate against that. We are attempting to close a potential loophole against possible malpractice. As we see it, the Commons amendments, which would allow for abortion up to birth, on social grounds might well open loopholes for a malpractice which I am sure your Lordships would not wish to see allowed in any way in this country.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London put the argument very well when he said that we are attempting to put into law the principle of the presumption of life rather than the principle of the presumption of death. It is not a question of putting the mother at any kind of risk. We accept termination of pregnancy. All we ask is that termination of
1086
pregnancy beyond 24 weeks—we welcome that reduction to 24 weeks—should not be on the presumption of abortion but on the presumption that every effort will be made to protect the life of the unborn child. We are afraid that that principle will be jeopardised by the House of Commons amendments as they now stand. Our amendment is an attempt to spell out that principle in a legal framework. I ask noble Lords to support it.
7 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 20A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 20, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 133.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Lytton, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L. [Teller.]

Ashbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bessborough, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Boardman, L.

Mersey, V.

Braye, B.

Milverton, L.

Brentford, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Byron, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mottistone, L.

Canterbury, Abp.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chester, Bp.

Nelson, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Norfolk, D.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Parmoor, L.

Cockfield, L.

Pearson of Rannock, L.

Coleraine, L.

Perth, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Petre, L.

Cox, B. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

De L'Isle, V.

Portsmouth, E.

Denman, L.

Reading, M.

Eden of Winton, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Ellenborough, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Elles, B.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Elton, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Fitt, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Salisbury, M.

Gladwyn, L.

Savile, L.

Gloucester, Bp.

Sidmouth, V.

Hampton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harvington, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Havers, L.

Stafford, L.

Holderness, L.

Stallard, L.

Howe, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hylton, L.

Strange, B.

Iddesleigh, E.

Swinfen, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Terrington, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tonypandy, V.

Liverpool, Bp.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Liverpool, E.

Wilberforce, L.

London, Bp.

Winchester, Bp.

Longford, E.

York, Abp.

Lothian, M.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Addington, L.

Belstead, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Birk, B.

Ampthill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ardwick, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Arran, E.

Blyth, L.

Astor, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Attlee, E.

Boyd-Carpenter L.

Aylestone, L.

Brightman, L.

Balfour, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Barnett, L.

Butterworth, L.

1087

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lockwood, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Long, V.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Colwyn, L.

McNair, L.

Craigavon, V.

Merrivale, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Meston, L.

Croham, L.

Monson, L.

Crook, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dainton, L.

Mulley, L.

David, B.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller]

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Nathan, L.

Derwent, L.

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Northfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Oram, L.

Elibank, L.

Orkney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Ennals, L.

Pender, L.

Erroll, E.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Piatt of Writtle, B.

Feversham, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rea, L.

Flowers, L.

Reay, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Renwick, L.

Haden-Guest, L.

Richard, L.

Hailsham of

Romney, E.

Saint Marylebone, L.

Roskill, L.

Halsbury, E.

Russell, E.

Hankey, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hanworth, V.

Seebohm, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Selborne, E.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Selkirk, E.

Henley, L.

Selsdon, L.

Hives, L.

Serota, B.

Hooson, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sherfield, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stedman, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Jeger, B.

Templeman, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Thomson of Monifeth, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thurlow, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Trumpington, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kearton, L.

Vernon, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Warnock, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

White, B.

Kissin, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Knollys, V.

Willis, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Listowel, E.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 20A disagreed to accordingly.
7.8 p.m.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 20
20B Subsection (1), at end insert:
("Provided that, if the ground for terminating the pregnancy is that specified in paragraph (d) above and the child is capable of being born alive and is not suffering from a handicap incompatible with life, the medical practitioner terminating the pregnancy takes all reasonable steps to secure that the child is born alive.").
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20B. In introducing Amendment No. 20B as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 20, I shall speak very briefly.
I must begin by emphasising with great sincerity that I do not in any way underestimate the agonising situation in which parents may find themselves when
1088
confronted by the knowledge that they have a fetus which is afflicted by a mental and/or a physical handicap. I know that these points were made in the earlier debate and I respect them with complete sincerity.
In my own profession I have been with people confronted by such appalling dilemmas. I do not in any way under-estimate the social and domestic problems which the birth of a handicapped child may pose in certain circumstances. Therefore I have deep respect for the concerns relating to the problems to which subsection (1)(d) of Commons Amendment No. 20 refers. But it is well known that the vast majority of such problems are identified before the 24th week of pregnancy, and therefore the agonising decisions and actions relating to termination can be taken in the vast majority of cases within the first five to six months of pregnancy. Modern techniques of screening and scanning, including ultrasound, amniocentesis, tissue culture, chorionic villus sampling and photoscopy are so effective that almost all fetal abnormalities can be detected within the first 18 weeks of pregnancy—many much earlier—allowing time for assessment and decisions within the 24 weeks allowed for in the Commons amendment.
For example, conditions such as anencephaly, open spina bifida or Down's syndrome can all be identified by the 17th to the 20th week of pregnancy, allowing time for parents to decide before the 24th week how they wish to respond to the tragic predicament confronting them. It is important to emphasise that none of the official medical, midwifery or other professional organisations expressing a view has ever suggested otherwise. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place has always made it clear that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the British Paediatric Association all want an upper limit of 24 weeks for abortion. In not one case has any major professional body argued for termination of pregnancy up until birth except on the ground that it was necessary to save the life of the mother, which was the substance of the amendment previously debated. But as we noted during debate on the amendment, it is common practice, where termination is required for this reason, for every effort to be made to save the life of the child also.
We recognise that there are conditions such as hydrocephaly or microcephaly which can develop late in pregnancy. Some indeed develop or can be diagnosed only after birth. If they are diagnosed in utero and are deemed to be incompatible with life, then they would come within the terms of reference of the amendment. There is therefore no good case for allowing legal abortion—in other words, the killing off of a fetus—after the 24th week of pregnancy except in the two kinds of circumstances identified: where the life of the mother is at risk or where the infant is diagnosed as suffering from a handicap of such severity as to be incompatible with life, as in cases, for

1089
example, of anencephaly or such gross cardiac malformation that the child could not survive beyond its first gasp.
I am aware that this is an immensely sensitive matter. I am also aware that in the relatively few circumstances of late diagnosis of very severe handicap the problems of continuing with pregnancy can be immense. But we have to consider the alternatives. For example, what kind of message are we sending to handicapped people if we choose to agree that late abortions, once a child is viable, may be granted on the ground of handicap, physical or mental, which is not incompatible with life?
I do not know whether many of your Lordships have seen the television programmes in which handicapped people describe life with their handicaps, saying how glad they are to be alive. Are we to deny handicapped babies the chance of such life, or are we to denigrate the magnificent contribution which handicapped people make to the quality of life of other people and to society in general? Many people would testify to the love and the joy which can be given and received by people who suffer from Down's syndrome. Is the message to be that, as a nation, we really do not want them here? That is how the Commons amendment could be interpreted. I cannot believe that it is an aspect of the Commons amendment which commands your Lordships' support.
I am fully aware of the sensitivity of these matters and I speak with great attentiveness. But I and other noble Lords who support Amendment No. 20B believe that the principle of the amendment is of immense importance. It strives to maintain a balance regarding the rights of a mother to decide what is in the best interests of herself and others closely involved in the tragic event of finding that her baby is handicapped and to take such action as she feels appropriate up to 24 weeks of that child's life. In the vast majority of cases, early diagnosis would enable any action to be taken much earlier than that, often in the first three or four months. But once the baby becomes capable of sustaining independent life we believe that it should receive the protection of law; and of course all the health and welfare services will be available to help to support and to care for that baby, for the mother and for all concerned if the child is carried to term and delivered alive.
We strongly believe that this is morally and legally the best approach to a human problem which is indeed unquantifiable in its poignancy but is not solved by killing a viable baby. There are people alive today enjoying a quality of life, loving and being loved, and contributing to the lives of other people. Others like them may not be alive in the future if the Commons amendment becomes law. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 20B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 20, be agreed to.—(Baroness Cox.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, this amendment relating to the seriously deformed child says this. In the case of a termination because of a substantial risk of serious abnormality, the doctor is required to take all reasonable steps to secure that the child is born alive provided, first, that the child is capable of being born alive; and, secondly, that the child is not suffering from a handicap incompatible with life.
There are two fatal objections to the amendment. First, there is the obscurity of the language. What is meant by "a handicap incompatible with life" as distinguished from a handicap compatible with life? Compatible with life for how long—life for a month or a year; until adolescence; until the age of 40; or until some other period, perhaps an hour or a minute? Given that the proviso is only to apply if the child is capable of being born alive, how can one say that it suffers from a handicap incompatible with life unless one defines what one means by life?
Secondly, the direction to the doctor to ensure that the child is born alive is inappropriate. If the diagnosed handicap was such that the doctor would, if there were a termination, be under a duty to ensure that the child lived, the doctor would have no business to be terminating the pregnancy at all. The surest way of ensuring that the handicapped child lives is to leave it in the womb so that it goes full term. The amendment has two defects; first, obscurity; and, secondly, total irrelevance.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, as I have put down my name to this amendment perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words. If it is not accepted, are we not saying in effect that all seriously handicapped people are valueless, expendable and may be wiped out at will?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Ashbourne: That seems an appalling situation when we compare it with the supreme worth put on the value of one human being by the Saviour of the world.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, who spoke earlier, I am also the father of a handicapped child. I know the difficulties, the trauma and the stress which may be involved in bringing up a child of this nature. My own son is aged 19 and he cannot speak, read or write. Medically speaking, there is no prospect of him so doing. Yet I have a very rewarding relationship with him. I am so glad that we never considered aborting him in the womb. My understanding of the new Clause (1) (d) of Commons Amendment No. 20 is that a handicapped child capable of being born alive has no protection whatever under this Bill. I ask the Government this question: am I right in thinking that doctors will be able to kill seriously handicapped babies in the womb with no legal consequences whatever? Should not the intention be to save the life of the child if at all possible? Hence the necessity for this amendment.
I listened to the speech of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York earlier this evening with delight, and particularly to his very clear

1091
exposition of the need for and the force behind the amendment. I am not always in agreement with the most reverend Primates and the right reverend Prelates, but it was a particular pleasure for me to be 100 per cent. with them on that occasion. I am saddened by the way in which this Bill has evolved. In my view it completely fails to reflect respect for the sanctity of human life. On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of handicapped babies who may be aborted in the future, I urge noble Lords most vigorously to support this amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, in relation to this amendment it is relevant to say that there exists generous-hearted couples who are willing to adopt seriously handicapped babies and children. In many cases they are unable to find such children to adopt. In cases of late diagnosis of handicap it is greatly preferable to deliver the child, if the pregnancy has to be terminated, by means of Caesarian section or induction rather than by methods which end the life of the child in question.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I shall be brief. I assure those who are proposing this amendment that nothing in the Commons amendments makes abortion or termination of a pregnancy mandatory or compulsory. What we are talking about in this debate, and have been doing so since about 3.15 this afternoon, is basically the balance that one has to try to achieve between the rights of the unborn child on the one hand and the rights of the parents on the other. If the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness are carried, then the tilt of that balance goes somewhat in the wrong direction and away from the position which now exists. Therefore I am opposed to the amendments.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I have three very short points to make. First, it may have been of help to us if the Government had defined the phrase "seriously handicapped" which is used in Commons Amendment No. 20. I believe that they are unable to do so. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may wish to comment on that. Secondly, I ask him whether he would like to comment, if he is able to do so, on the position of the doctor who delivers a child and finds that it is seriously handicapped. Does the doctor have to bring the child to birth and see that it stays alive or can he take another course?
Thirdly, I believe that the Government are to issue regulations that will require doctors aborting a child under this amendment to specify the nature of the handicap.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has put his finger on one important point, if not three. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has a genius for attracting my antagonism which is quite at variance with his personality. He said that the defect in the amendment is a lack of definition of life. I take his point entirely. It seems to me that the phrase, "incompatible with life" should be refined. If that is an unsatisfactory position to be left with, what
1092
is the position if we do not have it? Doctors are empowered to terminate a life if failure to do so means that there is a risk of serious handicap.
In common parlance that does not mean anything like leaving a person unable to live a reasonable life. In common parlance serious handicap means something which makes life difficult but not insupportable or unenjoyable. If it has a meaning in law which is more severe than that then your Lordships should be told of it. If not, we are left with a choice between unacceptable definitions or the lack of them. Late though the hour is—and this is a revising Chamber —the only way to secure another definition is to send this matter back to another place. If that is what your Lordships think about the definition in the Commons amendment, I very much hope that noble Lords will very brusquely return it.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, since 1945 I have had the privilege of working and living among thousands of handicapped children and adults. It is hard to explain the joy and grace which these people give. Their enthusiasm and often their ability to learn, despite their pain and disabilty, and their striving to overcome those difficulties to lead a useful and purposeful life, is quite remarkable. Many are brilliant in the way they cope and achieve what to an ordinary person would be impossible. There are eminent people, like Professor Stephen Hawking, who cannot talk. He is a professor of superspace and supergravity at Cambridge University, and he is but one example.
These people do not commit crimes. Those of us who associate with them have found our own lives more fulfilled and richer, whereas many able-bodied people all too often sadly tend to become greedy for position, money and power. Since 1945 I have yet to hear any handicapped person say that he would have preferred never to have been born. So it is not surprising to learn the rate of suicide among handicapped people is lower than among the so-called normal.
I could give countless examples of individuals who show incredible perseverance and courage. Perhaps I may mention just one. Janet was born with muscular dystrophy into a poor family. Later she was diagnosed to have both rheumatoid arthritis and cancer. In the foundation which I represent we were able to give her medical treatment, nursing care and education. She attained her A levels before she attended polytechnic where she read mathematics. She was later employed in a computer firm where she worked until she died in her thirties.
Understandably, there is great devotion in this country to animals. No fewer than 28 different organisations are here to represent and protect them, including those who believe that no animal should be killed to be made into a fur coat. I am sure that the majority of noble Lords will remember the huge advertising poster showing a great pile of dogs which the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has put on hoardings at key points throughout the country in the past year. That poster brought protests. It awoke people in this country to the fact that, according to the RSPCA, about 1,000

1093
dogs each day are put down because their owners have rejected or thrown them out of the house. I am confident that many of your Lordships have supported th RSPCA in what it has been seeking to do.
I turn now to the plight of the unborn children—the immature members of our species. Each working day we legally kill over 700 of these children, some in ways which would bring down the law upon us—and quite rightly—if we used similar techniques on dogs or cats. We tear these babes to pieces. Surely that is murder.
If I were to do as the RSPCA did and produce a picture to demonstrate to your Lordships one day's work in Britain in getting rid of our young, many noble Lord's who support the RSPCA would lead the uproar, attacking me and using words like "macabre" and "obscene". I know about this because pro-abortionists used those precise words to describe perfectly ordinary lifesize, medical models of the 20-week fetus (used in medical and nursing schools throughout the country) when a pro-life group gave them to MPs. Of course, words like "grotesque" and "obscene" are right; not as a description of the models of babies, but of what we as a society allow to happen to unborn children in the name of the right to choose.
As if it is not enough to kill over 700 babies each working day of the year—183,798 in 1988 to be exact, or 3 million since the Abortion Act came into force —we ire now being asked to extend the law to allow abortions past the previous limit of 28 weeks and up to birth. Of course those who oppose us say, "We need to do this for good reasons". One of the good reasons put forward is that the children may be seriously handicapped. I have already spoken on that matter. I hope did so with feeling.
One of the factors which I find most objectionable in the attitude of our opponents is the way in which they refuse to examine fact; for example, the manner in which they describe as "emotive" any scientific argument which we put forward. If we refer to the reaction of the fetus to painful stimuli, there is an immediate uproar with claims that we have no evidence. In fact, there is ample evidence to show that the fetus reacts to stimuli. In view of the fact that we have laws that protect cats and dogs from having pain deliberately inflicted upon them, surely it is high time that we accorded the same right to the fetus.
The right reverend Prelates and others have asked so clearly in this House: do we want to become a country—of which we should all be proud—with the highest number of abortions in the world? I am speaking about matters of which I have some experience. As an auxiliary nurse, I have seen both early and late abortions. No words can express the horror and later the sorrow of the mothers who grieve for their babies who have been destroyed. I have also been present at many births and witnessed the joy of mothers, including single persons. I wonder how many noble Lords have been present at such scenes. Further, is it known to noble Lords that adoption societies have had to close their lists through lack of babies. I
1094
know of couples—indeed, many of them write to me —who are pleading to adopt a baby or a child whether it is handicapped or normal.
I wonder whether noble Lords are aware that a survey carried out by an official Gallop poll in May of this year showed quite clearly that 75 per cent. of the British public are opposed to abortion on demand. Therefore, although we live in a post-Christian society, people are still stirred by their basic instincts calling them to respect human life.
I unashamedly refer to the sacredness of human life. I remember the beautiful thanksgiving words of the Psalmist:
"You created my inmost being. You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made".
I support the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I wonder whether we are in danger of forgetting the purpose of this amendment. As I understand it, it is concerned with a very small number of women who seek a late abortion because of the severity and handicap of the child which they are carrying. To be in that situation must be a very painful experience. However, I believe it would be even worse if it were known to the woman that the child was going to be, if at all possible, born alive. I say that because the woman, with the consultation, help and support of the doctor, is actually seeking a termination. In such a case this means seeking not to have the child which is so severely handicapped.
I fully admit that in the report from which the original amendment was derived the expression "severely handicapped" was used and that was not subject to definition any more than the words "incompatible to life" are subject to definition. I do not think that a definition of what counts as being severely handicapped would be very helpful because new conditions may arise and some conditions might be more severely handicapping in certain circumstances than others.
However, there already is a very short list of conditions which are deemed to be so severely handicapping that a very late abortion is on the cards whether recommended or desired. We should bear in mind the very small number of abortions—23 a year and gradually decreasing—which are carried out on these grounds.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I should like to address my remarks not only to the House but also to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. I hope that the noble Baroness who spoke so eloquently from the Cross-Benches will not accuse me of holding human life in any less respect than she does. I am quite aware of what my noble friend who sits behind me referred to when he spoke of the bond which can exist between the heavily handicapped child and its parents and what wonderful examples of love and care they can show.
All the same, I do not find the amendment to be an acceptable one. I thought that my noble and learned

1095
friend Lord Brightman was conclusive on that point. What is "compatible with life"? Is an encephalopathy —if that is the correct form of the word—"compatible with life"? Is micro-encephalopathy—if that is the correct word in that case—compatible with life? I believe that I am right in saying that life would be very short indeed in both those cases; but life will have existed. The child will be born, it will breathe and its heart will be beating. I do not know whether such a child would have any degree of consciousness; indeed, I do not suppose that anyone in this House can know the answer to that question. In any event, it will not live long.
What is meant by the phrase, "compatible with life"? I can find no meaning to it. Moreover, when my noble friend Lord Elton, says, "Let's send it back to the Commons to see whether we can get something better", I can only say that he is an optimist. I say that because in principle it is not possible.
I have another question to ask. I address it to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and I hope that he will be able to give us some help on the matter. Where is the burden of proof under this amendment? After all, one must remember the doctors. They are no less infallible and no more subject to original sin than the rest of us. However, there is the concept that a man is innocent unless he is proved guilty.
The doctor who performs such an operation, whoever he may be, will be doing so—that is, if the amendment is passed —under threat of a criminal prosecution. Where under the terms of the amendment is the burden of proof? It is on the defendant to prove that he is innocent. Further, how is the jury to make up its mind on the matter? The amendment also uses the words "all reasonable steps". However, what steps are reasonable and how much is "all"? I just cannot make sense of it. I wish that we had a little less sentiment and a little more common sense about making legislation.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, does he regard the term "serious handicap" as defying definition, as he does "incompatible with life"? If so, how many of your Lordships does it embrace, or where does the line lie?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I do not know how serious is "serious". I know that I am handicapped. I walk on two sticks. That is not incompatible with my life, so far as I know; or, at least, so far. I do not believe that I can answer my noble friend's question. All I am saying is that the amendment is under debate. I find it unacceptable unless my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack tells me that it can make some sense, and, if so, what that sense is.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if my noble and learned friend will bear with me, the point of my question was to emphasis that an amendment is needed to define "serious handicap". On the definition that he gave, it does not seem that many healthy people could be safely expected to come to life under the existing legislation.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, the word "serious" is a matter of degree. I was born with six fingers on my right hand and no joint on my two thumbs. I do not regard that as serious. It has not done me much harm in the event.
The Archbishop of York: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, has made some damaging criticisms of the amendment and yet it tries to say something important even though it says it in an imperfect way. I suspect that if they had their will the movers of the amendment would have preferred a simple amendment to delete paragraph (d) from Commons Amendment No. 20. That was no doubt deemed to be impractical.
As drafted, the amendment fills a gap which resides in the Commons amendment around the phrase "seriously handicapped". There may be disputes about what that means, but there are also disputes medically about whether an infant in the womb is or is not seriously handicapped and whether that can be diagnosed with certainty before a termination is decided upon. As drafted, the amendment slips into that gap and says, "If, acting in good faith, a doctor decides that termination would be right on the grounds of serious handicap", and it is then discovered that the child is viable and has a reasonable prospect of a reasonable life, every effort should be made to preserve it. That is important because in cases of suspected handicap, according to the evidence given to the Select Committee, the child is often killed in the womb before delivery. Despite its illogicality—and it needs to be amended—there is something here that your Lordships' House needs to take seriously and hope that another place can make better sense of it.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, last week I went to my home valley in the Rhondda to embark upon a scheme to help disabled people. I found people who one would have thought could not have a decent life. I was given the details of a person without arms or legs. I did not meet him. He is holding down a job because the Department of Employment and the Department of Health have devised a means of helping grotesquely injured people to find fulfilment in life.
We are putting an enormous responsibility upon the doctors.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, no.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, they will be deciding if there is to be a late abortion.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I was not seeking to ask the noble Viscount to give way but I am pleased that he did. Does he not believe that the parents have a role in this? It seems to me that the parents' role is essential. The doctor acts only in the light of the parents' wishes.
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, with some dismay. We heard her say that the mother might say that she did not want the child. I happen to have other beliefs. Without being certain of the degree of disability, and

1097
whether that child will be able to contribute later, it is an enormous responsibility to say, "Thou shalt not live".
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, we have heard criticisms of the amendment from two distinguished lawyers, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. They have made cogent criticisms of the wording. It may not be the best, but are not their criticisms equally valid, as has been implied, in the case of the words "seriously handicapped" in the Commons amendment? In that case would it not be wise to take the advice of my noble friend Lord Elton, send it back to the Commons and say, "We do not think much of the wording of paragraph (d) in respect of 'seriously handicapped'. We believe our amendment indicates the kind of provision that should be enacted"? The whole matter could then be looked at again. If we were in Committee it could be reconsidered on Third Reading if the intention was agreed but the wording was not. I support my noble friend Lord Elton most strongly.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am not completely happy with the amendment, but I am even more worried about paragraph (d) in the Commons amendment. I want to emphasise that we are not talking about inanimate objects; we are talking about people. Paragraph (d) provides,
"that there is a substantial risk"
—not that there is certainty. That means that there is no certainty that the child will be born handicapped. Therefore we are saying that one need be only 80 per cent. certain that there is a risk of handicap and we will accept a 20 per cent. risk that the child will not be handicapped. The Commons amendment has not been properly thought out.
When we had the death penalty, a criminal could be certain that a jury would have to be 100 per cent. sure of his guilt before he would be executed. We are saying that vie need not be 100 per cent. certain when we terminate the life of an unborn child. It is upon that basis that I shall support the amendment.
I should like to make one further point. We define handicapped people. We talk about severely handicapped people. When we do so, we know what we are talking about. But what does the amendment say? It does not say, "physical or mental abnormalities as to be severely handicapped"; it merely says, "seriously handicapped". We must consider what "seriously" means. It is not an absolute definition; it is a matter of somebody's opinion. Since when have we terminated life on the basis of someone's opinion? For that reason I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may tell him that "seriously" is a technical term used by doctors. In this case it is the decision of doctors whether the child would be sufficiently seriously or grossly or abnormally handicapped. The word "seriously" is not just a light word in that sense.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I appreciate precisely what my noble friend says. However we are not talking about the opinions of doctors but the opinions of others; what it means to other people. I do not believe that doctors should have any more power over life or death than anyone else. If we give that power to anyone we need to be much more precise than the amendment. I thank my noble friend for her intervention.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, to a certain extent we sit here in cloud cuckoo land, pontificating about the wonderful life with all the love, care and attention that these handicapped children will receive. That is not so in the real world. Last year there were only 23 cases falling into the category covered by the amendment. I imagine that if the majority had been forced to be carried to completion or forced to be kept alive they would probably have been born to people from fairly deprived backgrounds who did not want them and could not handle and face the situation. It would then fall to the state and the carers to look after them.
Many are not in a state to be considered for adoption. Why are so many handicapped people in homes not adopted? We hear that hundreds of parents are waiting for them; but they are not adopting them. Either there is a problem in the adoption process or there is such a serious problem with these people or children that they cannot be adopted. There is a problem in the system. These children will not be born to happy, loving families and live a wonderful life. Let us have no illusions. We reckoned that we could not cope with a second such child. Perhaps we could have done. I do not know. But we did not wish to take the risk.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, a great deal has already been said and I do not wish to take up much time on the amendment. Questions have been put to me and I shall try to answer them.
As regards "seriously handicapped" in paragraph (d), we should read the whole of the paragraph. It says:
"that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped".
The same phraseology was used in the Abortion Act 1967. Section 1(1) (b) states:
"that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped".
It is not an absolute matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said. The authority under which a medical termination could be carried out is that two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion formed in good faith that there is a substantial risk. That must be the reality of the situation. It is surely impossible to take an absolutely certain view of these cases. It is a matter of opinion, and the requirement is that the opinion should be formed in good faith.
In speaking to Commons Amendment No. 20, I said that the Secretary of State had undertaken that regulations would be put in place under which the nature of the abnormality or handicap would be specified. I said that, subject to the difficulties of

1099
confidentiality, because the numbers are rather small, the Secretary of State would make public the results of the returns he would receive on this kind of termination after 24 weeks.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out, when the amendment was criticised on the grounds of defective wording, that questions of definition arise on the main clause. That is true. But the phrase "seriously handicapped" appears in the context which has existed in Acts of Parliament since 1967. The only reason for the phrase being separated out in this way to form paragraph (d) is that the Commons took the view, in line with the view of the Select Committee of this House, that the heading should not be subject to the 24-week limit, for reasons which have already been explained.
The comment that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York made is that the point behind the amendment is deeper than the words. However, ultimately, somebody will have to formulate words. There is no amendment dealing with paragraph (d) or seeking to modify it. The only amendment we have to consider, with which your Lordships are invited either to be content or not content, is this amendment.
Among other things, the amendment has the effect of suggesting, indeed putting it beyond doubt if it were accepted, that substantial or serious handicap could exist and yet be compatible with life. That is a consequence of the amendment which may not be entirely in accordance with the thrust and spirit of the amendment. I cannot offer any definition of what is meant by the terms of the amendment. The word "reasonable" and what are reasonable steps is a matter of circumstances. If all else were in order, I feel certain that a jury could, if necessary, come to some conclusion on that.
As regards the onus of proof, in order to qualify under the new provisions of the clause if the amendment were passed, a doctor would have to show —if the child were capable of being born alive and the serious handicap was not incompatible with life—that he had taken all reasonable steps to preserve the life of the child. He would wish to have protection against the Offences Against the Person Act and also possibly against the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. These Acts are only disapplied—assuming subsection (4) to which we will come is left in the legislation—and the doctor is only exempt from possible prosecution under the other provisions if he has conformed with the abortion Acts. One of the terms with which he would have to conform is the taking of all reasonable steps.
I said in relation to the earlier amendment that my information was that doctors would be faced, in the circumstances in which they have to take a decision, with considerable difficulty in ascertaining into which category the fetus came—assuming that these categories were capable of application—and dealing with it. The point I made on the previous amendment does not apply here. There is no conflict in this case between the steps to preserve the life of the mother and the steps to preserve the life of the fetus.
1100
Again, the Government are entirely neutral. It is for your Lordships to form a view. The amendment is extremely important, but it may not be absolutely necessary on either side for the view to be taken that the other side does not respect human life or has no proper appreciation of what wonderful people the disabled can be. That is a concept that I hope all of us cherish. As has been said, many disabled people have marvellous relationships with others and have demonstrated, sometimes rather spectacularly, a marvellous ability to overcome their disabilities. They have shown themselves to be wonderful people in that. The noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, referred to one such person whom she and I met some time ago. That person was most seriously disabled and yet was still able to play a tremendous part in the life of the University of Cambridge. It is for noble Lords to make up their minds on this issue. No doubt noble Lords will receive some further guidance on the matter before doing so.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords,—
Noble Lords: Order!
8 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or the House whether a noble Lord may speak after the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has spoken? As far as I am aware, that is allowed, with the courtesy of the House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I am afraid that, technically, the noble Earl is out of order. After the Government spokesman has replied, the Companion to the Standing Orders makes it clear that there should be no further speeches, except for the mover of the amendment who has the right of reply.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, once again I wish to express deep gratitude to all noble Lords who have contributed to this rather shorter debate. I express gratitude also to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for clarifying the situation. I confess that I accept that there is ambiguity in the term "incompatible with life". However, as my noble friend Lord Elton has said, there is a comparable ambiguity in the term "seriously handicapped" which is the term that appears in the Commons amendment.
I am extremely grateful to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for emphasising that our amendment meets an important need and addresses some serious issues which are raised by the Commons amendment. Given the ambiguity of the term "seriously handicapped", our concern is that we should definitely and intentionally be tilting the balance in a direction which would protect the fetus which is diagnosed as having a handicap. It was suggested that we are doing wrong in that, but we believe we are acting correctly. If the Commons amendment is accepted as it stands, children who are capable of enjoying life and contributing to life in ways which have been so eloquently described by the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, and other Members of your Lordships' House, would not survive to birth. That point was further powerfully emphasised by the

1101
noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who mentioned the potential dangers as regards the uncertainty of diagnosis during a pregnancy.
This is a matter of very great importance. I believe, perhaps particularly for the reasons given by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, that an amendment is needed. Only your Lordships' House can judge whether another place should be asked to consider another amendment, but in my view we should take the view of this House on the matter of whether another place should be asked to consider refining its own wording.
8.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 20B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 20, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 101.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ashbourne, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Boardman, L.

Mersey, V.

Braye, B.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Caldecote, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Canterbury, Abp.

Nelson, E.

Chester, Bp.

Norfolk, D.

Clanwilliam, E.

Oxford and Asquith, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Parmoor, L.

Coleraine, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Perth, E.

Cox, B [Teller.]

Petre, L.

Elles, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elton, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Falkland, V.

Reading, M.

Gloucester, Bp.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Harvington, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Holderness, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Hylton, L.

Savile, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sidmouth, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Stafford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stallard, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Liverpool, E.

Swinfen, L.

London, Bp.

Tonypandy, V.

Longford, E.

Winchester, Bp.

Lothian, M.

York, Abp.

McColl of Dulwich, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Ailesbury, M.

Derwent, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Diamond, L.

Ampthill, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ardwick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Arran, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Astor, V.

Ennals, L.

Attlee, E.

Errol, E.

Aylestone, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Balfour, E.

Faversham, L.

Belstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Blyth, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Haden-Guest, L.

Brightman, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marylebone, L.

Butterworth, L.

Halsbury, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hankey, L.

Carnock, L.

Hanworth, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Craigavon, V.

Henley, L.

Crook L.

Hives, L.

David, B.

Hooson, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

1102

Howie of Troon, L.

Rea, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Reay, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Renton, L.

Jeger, B.

Richard, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Rodney, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Roskill, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Russell, E.

Lawrence, L.

Seebohm, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Selborne, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Selkirk, E.

Lockwood, B.

Serota, B.

Long, V.

Sherfield, L.

Meston, L.

Stedman, B.

Monkswell, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Monson, L.

Templeman, L.

Mountevans, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mulley, L.

Thurlow, L.

Munster, E.

Trumpington, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Nicol, B.

Vernon, L.

Northfield, L.

Warnock, B.

Oram, L.

White, B.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Willis, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 20B disagreed to accordingly.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 20
20C Leave out subsection (4).
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20C. We are in the rather curious position of having legislation concerning abortion in which the maximum time-limit is 28 weeks yet if Commons Amendment No. 20 is not amended as proposed in the amendment that I have tabled, which proposes the deletion of the reference to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, in a few weeks' time this country will have a law which will allow abortion freely up to term. As my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk said, it will be permitted until the severance of the umbilical cord.
That is a prospect which I and many of my colleagues do not view with equanimity. It does not accord with our view of the standing of family life in this country or our respect for the sanctity of human life. It would be regrettable if the Commons amendment were not amended. It would also mean that we had the most liberal legislation in Europe. Once again, there would be a flood of young women coming to this country for abortions, just as there was following the introduction of the Abortion Act in 1967. The only people who would gain would be the private abortion clinics. That would be a matter of great regret to me.
Although we have been debating the subject for many hours this evening, I feel that it is important that your Lordships should know what happened in another place when the vote took place on the amendments. Many parliamentarians said that they had not understood what had happened and there was great confusion. It may be helpful if I quote from the Commons Official Report for 24th April 1990. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said (at col. 266) in his winding up speech:

1103
"If new clause 4 is passed, it is important to note the change that it will make to the law as it introduces time limits into the 1967 Act for the first time. Those new time limits for various purposes will exist alongside the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which will continue with the rebuttable presumptions either way, unless amended, at the 28-week stage".
From that statement it would be fair to assume that Members on all sides of the House could have believed that that part of the Abortion Act would remain within the new Bill. Not so, my Lords. Over the page, at col. 267 of the Official Report for 24th April 1990, my right honourable friend said:
"I hope that amendment (q) will be carried and that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act is not left standing alongside the Abortion Act. To have two sets of time limits would be confusing in practice. I therefore hope that there will be a single test, with the Infant Life (Preservation) Act applying only to non-Abortion Act cases".
I contend that that has caused a double confusion. From the first paragraph it seemed clear that the intention was to keep that particular reference in the new Bill. However, in the second paragraph my right honourable friend referred to the difficulty of having different time-limits—28 weeks for the Infant Life (Preservation) Act and 24 weeks in the new clause which we have debated this evening. However, as has already been said by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk with reference to a conversation which he had with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, the only—and crucial—test in the Infant Life (Preservation) Act is that the child should be capable of being born alive. It is totally irrelevant whether the 28-weeks or the 24-weeks limit applies.
Therefore, it was not correct for my right honourable friend to say that it would have caused confusion if the reference to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act had been retained. I ask noble Lords not to take that argument into account when deciding whether to support the amendment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the noble Baroness suggesting that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health would welcome the amendment that she is now proposing?
Baroness Elles: No, my Lords. I thought I had made it clear that in col. 267 of the Official Report my right honourable friend said he hoped that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act was not left standing alongside the Abortion Act. He did not support its retention. I understand that many Members voted for the clause as it came before the other place without understanding that that element would be deleted. It was perfectly clear from the second part of my right honourable friend's speech that he was in favour of its being deleted.
Amendment No. 20C, by restoring to the Bill the reference to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, would preclude abortion but not termination of pregnancy after 24 weeks. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London made it clear that there is a distinction between termination of pregnancy on the one hand and abortion on the other. The fact that there is a 24-week limit for abortion does not prevent termination of pregnancy from the 24-week period to
1104
the full gestation period of 40 weeks. As Professor Ronald Taylor has said, the termination of pregnancy is not incompatible with saving the life of the child. That is a point which has not been stressed sufficiently in the debate this afternoon.
The effect of the amendment can be seen clearly if one takes the example of a viable fetus. All of us here were viable fetuses at one time, and we can be thankful that we were born before the Act became law because we had a chance of survival. Under the new law, without my amendment, a viable fetus has a one in four chance of being eliminated up to 24 weeks. The statistics show that in 1989 there were 180,000 abortions. It appears that in the first quarter of 1990 the figure has crept up. The figure I have given relates to a total of live births—which have been declining —of 650,000. Thus the viable fetus is probably not eliminated at that stage. What happens to it? If it survives, it may be severely handicapped. In the Bill it will probably be eliminated by an abortion because there will be nothing to stop that abortion taking place —only a termination of pregnancy, which in this case in the absence of my amendment it would not become. It would remain an abortion.
Secondly there is perhaps a more difficult point relating to paragraphs (b) and (c) of the subsection that we have been discussing. Again, there could be a termination of pregnancy for the reasons which we have gone over several times. However, it has perhaps not been stressed sufficiently that it will be up to the doctors concerned to decide whether the termination of pregnancy is a greater protection to the mother than otherwise; namely, the termination of pregnancy is more important than risking any grave physical or mental damage to the health of the mother. Again, that is another hurdle that the fetus has to overcome.
Finally, at the time of full term there is still nothing whatsoever in the Bill that would stop the fetus from being aborted. We have seen in the way in which the Abortion Act 1967 worked that it was considered that there were strict limitations on the way in which abortions should be carried out. The figures have escalated year after year. Undoubtedly that is what will happen if there is not a stopgap—something which makes a doctor try to save the life of the child as well as the life of the mother.
In the ILPA it is very clear that first of all the child has to be capable of being born alive. If it is not, there is no question but that there would be a termination of pregnancy and that would be an end of the matter. However, it also has to save the life of the mother, which is paramount. I am sure that everyone in this House will agree and it is universally accepted that saving the life of the mother is paramount. Thirdly, it has to be done in good faith by the doctor concerned.
All those conditions, which I believe should be put back into the Bill, would at least be a fallback position for the fetus which could have got practically to term but still have been eliminated and will no doubt be eliminated under this legislation if Commons Amendment No. 20 is accepted and goes back to the Commons as it stands.

1105
In conclusion, many noble Lords have given figures showing how few abortions there have been in serious cases beyond 24 weeks—only 23 or 24; I think someone mentioned 27. That is precisely because there is reference to the ILPA in Section 5(1) of the Abortion Act. If that reference were not there, there would have been far more late abortions. That reference prevents that happening. That is the fallback position.
Noble Lords have mentioned how few have been the number of cases and that is precisely because reference to that statute was made in the Abortion Act 1967. Indeed, it was mentioned in the 1986–87 report of the Select Committee on the Infant Life (Preservation) Act that a civil servant was asked, "Why do you think there are so few prosecutions under this Act and there have not been cases in excess of 28 weeks?" The senior civil servant from the Home Office replied, "Well of course it is because doctors do heed legislation; they seriously act in conformity with the law".
That is the main reason why I have put forward this amendment. I hope that it will be considered favourably by your Lordships.
Moved, That Amendment No. 20C, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 20, be agreed to.—(Baroness Elles.)
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I should like briefly to try to answer the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. There has always been a part of the United Kingdom where the Infant Life (Preservation) Act did not run. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will confirm that that is Scotland.
What happens in Scotland? For the past three years for which there are figures available there has been a base of about 10,000 abortions performed every year. For those years in Scotland the number of abortions after 24 weeks in 1986 was three; in 1987, it was two; and in 1988 one.
That was not done by the compulsion of law. It has been done by what those on my side of this debate are recommending should happen in the future: the good sense of the doctors combined with the guidance of the Department of Health would solve the problem. All the scare stories about abortion being available up to birth are complete fantastical imaginings.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, the effect of this amendment would be to perpetuate in the Abortion Act the reference to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, contrary to the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee. The point is a little complicated and perhaps I may be forgiven if I say just a few words by way of preface.
The Infant Life (Preservation) Act was enacted in 1929. At that time abortions were illegal except to save the mother's life. A doctor who terminated a pregnancy for any other purpose was liable to prosecution under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. However, the criminal judges in England had decided that no offence was committed under the
1106
1861 Act or under any other law if the child was killed after it had left the mother's womb or if it was still emerging from the mother's womb but had not a wholly independent existence. It was a lacuna which had been perceived by the English judges. The Infant Life (Preservation) Act was passed solely for the purpose of curing that anomaly.
When the Abortion Act 1967 was passed it contained no express maximum period for lawful terminations. So far as the main text of the Act was concerned, terminations up to birth were permissible. But the Abortion Act stated that nothing in that Act should affect the provisions of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. That has always been construed as implying that terminations should not take place after 28 weeks, by which time there was, under the 1929 Act, a presumption that a child was capable of being born alive. Unlike the Abortion Act, the Commons amendment specifies the time limit for most terminations - 24 weeks. Therefore no longer is there any sensible place for the Infant Life (Preservation) Act in the Abortion Act. The Infant Life (Preservation) Act is.functus officio so far as concerns time limits.
Once one has an Abortion Act which specifies a time limit of 24 weeks for abortions, there is no room for an Act which implies a time limit of 28 weeks. One cannot sensibly have two time limits applying to the same category of abortion. If it is intended to apply a limit of 28 weeks, for example to paragraphs (b), (c) or (d) abortions, then those paragraphs ought to say so.
I have a second objection to the proposed amendment. It leaves a doctor under a possible criminal liability notwithstanding that he has performed a termination in strict accord with the terms of the Abortion Act. If he performs an abortion within the gestational limit imposed by the Act and in full accord with all its provisions, why should he be liable to criminal prosecution?
Thirdly, there is the odd, unsatisfactory wording of the 1929 Act. I refer to the difficulty of applying the test "capable of being born alive". It is in most cases, perhaps in all cases, impossible for a doctor contemplating a termination in the 23 to 28-week bracket to be certain in advance whether or not an unborn child—who is not already dead—is capable of being born alive.
Lastly, there is doubt as to the meaning of the expression "capable of being born alive". Perhaps I may read a short passage from the Select Committee's report. It states:
"As a matter of legal interpretation, this expression probably means capable of being brought into the world alive independently of the mother for a period however short, even a matter of minutes".
Since the report was made, there has been a judicial decision to that effect.
"The general opinion, however, among the medical profession and other persons concerned with the subject of abortion, is that 'capable of being born alive' means 'viable' in the sense of the capacity to survive for an appreciable period, which witnesses variously describe or wish to see defined as capable of 'sustained independent existence', 'being able to breathe at the time of birth so that long term survival

1107
is possible', 'not only the capability of being born alive but also viability (ie, the capability of sustaining life)' and 'capable of sustained survival'.
Those are all different interpretations that medical witnesses put to us in committee. The committee think that the majority of those concerned with the problem of interpretation probably equate "capable of being born alive" with "capable of sustained survival" for some period not precisely defined. Even the draftsman of the 1967 Act used the word "viable" to describe the effect of the 1929 Act in the Section 5 proviso.
In the face of all those objections, it seemed to the committee and it seems to me, that it is quite out of place to leave the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 unnecessarily coupled to the Abortion Act 1967. I ask noble Lords not to agree to the proposed amendment.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he confirm that paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) are not subject to any time limit and that therefore the doctor is free to perform any of those terminations of pregnancy up to the full time of gestation?
Lord Brightman: My Lords, the answer is, yes, but only in the exceptional circumstances laid down by those paragraphs: that is, to save the life of the mother, to save her being a permanent invalid, and to save her from having to bear to full term a child who is diagnosed as seriously handicapped.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, we have listened to some interesting speeches with regard to life and much about death. I find them most interesting since I was seated next to my good and noble friend Lord Erroll, whose children have suffered. I had a child who was a cot death syndrome child. Thank God for the alertness of my good lady wife, otherwise the child would have died.
It is very interesting to listen to people in this Chamber who are living and well, talking about babies, or would-be babies and how inconvenient it is because they have a disability. It has been said, "Let us put them down. Let us get rid of them". I am sure that many noble Lords have heard that medical scientists and others feel that life in a fertilised human ovary is recognisable at 14 days. The Reverend Dr. Ford, an Australian, agrees with the figure of 14 days. He adds that there is a chance that the fetus is a human individual before that.
If one was a member of the Chinese race, the day that one was delivered from one's mother's womb would have been the day when one was nine months old. The Chinese believe that one starts one's life at conception. I concur with that belief. I consider that abortion—the destruction of a live fetus—is acceptable only when the mother's life is at risk. There has been reference to certain other cases where, from scans, it is obvious to the practitioners, the paediatricians and those who are more highly qualified than myself—I have spoken to Professor Peckham of Great Ormond Street Hospital—that where there is only one kidney or half a kidney or a large chest defect the child will certainly not survive. The child will be stillborn. In such circumstances I again condone an abortion.
1108
There are, too, strong arguments for those people who suffer rape. However, the female concerned must make the decision whether or not she wants to carry the child or whether she is willing to have the child adopted.
We have voted on the legal limits for aborting a fetus. Let us not fool ourselves. There are other cowboys who can offer the services whenever a pregnant female wishes to have an abortion. The services are available. One needs only to go into the Underground to see the telephone numbers on the wall. How many noble Lords go to the Underground?
We have heard reference to the drug RU486. It is available on prescription in France. One knows full well that drugs come into this country left, right and centre, and we condemn drug addiction. I do not say that it is absolutely wrong to use that drug but its use should be monitored. One should ask general practitioners whether they agree with that drug being introduced into this country.
Abortion is not to be regarded as a social convenience but as a serious step. It must be agreed by all the parties; the father, the mother and also medical advisers and, where sought, religious advisers. One must also consider the option of having the child adopted. In 1987 there were more than 7,000, adoptions, although I must admit that 56 per cent. were of illegitimate children. However, that gives one an idea of how many legitimate children were adopted. Please, let us bear one matter in mind: in the eyes of the majority, taking life is wrong.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in the debate and I shall therefore be brief. I must point out to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, that subsection (1) (c) does not mention saving the life of the mother. It would allow an abortion if,
"the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated".
It does not quantify the degree of risk; therefore, the provision is open to a wide degree of interpretation. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, that it would pave the way for abortion on demand up to full term.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, really, really, really! Not one word of the previous two speeches to which we have listened has had the smallest relevance to the amendment under discussion. My noble and learned friend Lord Brightman made a conclusive and absolutely convincing speech.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the reasons given for deciding that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act should be uncoupled from the Abortion Act have been explained by my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman based on the Select Committee's report. The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Elles is intended to restore that coupling.
As my noble and learned friend said in answer to the noble Baroness, it is plain that if Commons Amendment No. 20 stands as it is there is no time limit as regards paragraphs (b), (c) and (d). One of the main

1109
purposes of Commons Amendment No. 20 is to provide within the abortion legislation a clear time limit for the abortions which are judged to be subject to that time limit.
The arguments are obvious. If one wishes to have a time limit of some kind after 24 weeks in order to cover paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) a provision along the lines of that in my noble friend's amendment will be appropriate. If, on the other hand, one is persuaded that if the termination qualifications are stated, that form of protection is appropriate presumably one will not vote for the amendment.
The matter is one entirely for your Lordships and there is a completely free vote. No doubt there will be some further advice before noble Lords are asked to decide.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for discussing the amendment. Many points have been made on both sides of the issue. I maintain that without the amendment and a limit of 28 weeks we shall see a vast increase in the number of abortions under the provisions of paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) —in particular (b) and (c)—as we did when the Abortion Act came into force in 1967.
Sadly I say: watch the statistics for 1991, 1992 and 1993. Perhaps some noble Lords will return to the issue and see that this Bill is a disaster for the moral standing of this country. It is also a disaster for the young people with whom we must work and contend in a climate that is not conducive to upholding the family and the value of human life. With those words I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have dealt with the issues relating to Commons Amendment No. 20 and therefore I now put the Question.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
8.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
26 Clause 42, page 24 line 19, after 'Act' insert—'(except section (Amendment of law relating to termination of pregnancy.))'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26. I have already spoken to this amendment which is consequential.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out from 'in vitro' to second 'and' in line 17 and insert '(in their application to those where fertilisation is complete) are to those where fertilisation began outside the human body whether or not it was completed there'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. This is a technical amendment and follows the amendment which I moved to take account of a point that my noble friend Lady Elles
1110
wished to be covered in the Bill. She wanted control to go right to the earliest stage of the formation of the fetus and include the egg. In the amendment we make suitable drafting adjustments to take account of that in certain passages of the Bill where the full idea would not apply.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2Clause 4, page 3, line 8, at end insert:
'(2A) No person shall place sperm and eggs in a woman in any circumstances specified in regulations except in pursuance of a licence.
(2B) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (2A) above may provide that, in relation to licences only to place sperm and eggs in a woman in such circumstances, sections 12 to 22 of this Act shall have effect with such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 and 21. The House will be aware that during the passage of the Bill a number of amendments were moved both here and in another place which, if accepted, would have had the effect of bringing the technique of GIFT—gamete intra fallopian transfer —within the ambit of the Bill. These amendments were defeated in this House and in Standing Committee in another place. The Government recognise the concerns of those such as Dame Mary Donaldson, the chairman of the Interim Licensing Authority, and the Maternity Alliance, who wish to see GIFT licensed by the statutory authority, but we are also aware that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists takes the opposite view.
In response to the debate in this House and in another place, the Government brought forward in another place a three-point package contained within Amendments Nos. 2, 7 and 21. I believe that this will recognise the concerns that have been expressed and hope that it will also be accepted by this House as a sensitive way of dealing with the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, earlier told the House, in anticipation of the amendments, that he supported them. The main effect of the amendments is to provide powers to bring GIFT within the licensing system if the Government consider that to become necessary in the future. Amendment No. 2 would provide that regulations could specify circumstances in which a person would be prohibited from placing sperm and eggs in a woman unless authorised to do so by a licence.
That regulation-making power could be used to bring the placing of sperm and eggs in a woman within the scope of the licensing system provided by the Bill. The regulations may provide that Clauses 12 to 22, which deal with conditions of licences, grant, revocation, variation and suspension of licences and appeals against the decisions of licence committees, would have effect with such modifications in respect of GIFT as may be specified in regulations. Regulations

1111
could therefore specify, for example, that a woman could not receive GIFT unless she has been given a suitable opportunity to receive proper counselling about the implications of being treated using the GIFT technique. Amendment No. 24, which I shall be dealing with later, will make those regulations subject to affirmative resolution.
The second effect of the package is that Amendment No. 21 would create an offence if regulations under Clause 4(2A) were made and any person placed sperm and eggs in a woman in any circumstances specifed in these regulations where he was not authorised to do so by a licence.
The third effect of the package relates to the code of practice which the authority is required by Clause 25 to maintain. The code will give guidance about the proper conduct of activities carried on under a licence. Amendment No. 7 would allow the authority to give guidance in its code of practice about the use of any technique involving the placing of sperm and eggs in a woman; whereby or not the technique was brought within the scope of the Bill by regulations. In other words, it may be possible to give guidance about the activities without going to the full length of regulating. If the guidance does not prove effective then the power to make regulations exists.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 13, page 6, line 46, after 'treatment' insert '(including the need of that child for a father)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6. While in your Lordships' House the Bill was amended to provide that a woman should not be provided with treatment services unless account had been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment, and of any other child who may be affected by the birth. These amendments further provide that part of the consideration of the welfare of the child who may be born as a result of the treatment should be the need of that child for a father.
Those who supported this amendment in the other place consider that a family life where a child is brought up by both a father and a mother offers the child the best prospects. Professional people who will be required to make judgments about who is suitable for treatment will be guided by the code of practice of the new authority. The code of practice will include guidance on the welfare of the child.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
4 Clause 24, page 13, line 12, after 'recorded' insert 'and given to the Authority'.
5 Page 13, line 13, at end insert:
1112
'(2A) Directions may authorise, in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the directions, the keeping, by or on behalf of a person to whom a licence applies, of gametes or embryos in the course of their carriage to or from any premises.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 en bloc. The amendments are designed to clarify the authority's power to collect information from licence holders. They are very straightforward in nature.
Amendment No. 4 concerns the collection of information by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority from centres licensed to carry out treatment services regulated by the Bill. The sort of information covered is about the people for whom treatment services are provided or about any child appearing to have been born as a result of licensed treatment. This type of information must be recorded for each of the matters in Clause 13(2)(a) to (e) of the Bill.
The amendment provides therefore that for every treatment licence issued, information must not only be recorded, but also be given to the authority, for each of the matters in Clause 13(2)(a) to (e).
Amendment No. 5 makes provision for the transfer of embryos and gametes from one place to another. For instance, it may be desired to use sperm which has been donated in one clinic at another clinic, or a woman who had stored embryos might move and wish to undergo further treatment at a different clinic nearer her new home. It is important that the transport arrangements should be covered.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
6Clause 25, page 14, line 16, after 'services', insert '(including a child's need for a father)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
7Clause 25, page 14, line 17, at end insert:
'(2) The code may also give guidance about the use of any technique involving the placing of sperm and eggs in a woman.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
8 Clause 28, page 16, line 10, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
'(a) are to the parties to a marriage subsisting at that time, unless a judicial separation was then in force, but'.
9 Page 16, line 19, at end insert:
'(9) In subsection (7)(a) above, "judicial separation" includes a legal separation obtained in a country outside the British Islands and recognised in the United Kingdom.'.
10 Clause 29, page 16, line 33, leave out 'and' and insert 'to'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 en bloc.
When the Bill was last considered in your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, proposed an amendment to similar effect which I agreed to consider. The present amendment is the result of my deliberations. In brief, it provides that a man shall not, prima facie, be treated as the father of the child if there is a judicial separation. I shall be pleased to explain the technical details needed to achieve this through the amendment if any of your Lordships wish.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 10.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
11 Clause 29, page 17, leave out line 1
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 and 31.
Clause 28(2) provides that if a married woman carries a child as a result of sperm, embryo or egg donation, then her husband is treated as the father of the child unless it is shown that he did not consent.
The effect of Amendment No. 31 will be to ensure that if the husband dies during a pregnancy brought about by one of the techniques regulated by the Bill, the mother will be eligible for widowed mother's allowance, just as she would have been if she had been carrying a child conceived naturally.
Mothers of AID children in England and Wales are already eligible for this allowance as a result of an amendment made to the Social Security Act 1975 by the Family Law Reform Act 1987. This amendment extends eligibility to those whose pregnancy resulted from other artificial techniques and has the effect of applying the provision to Scotland. The amendment makes similar provision for Northern Ireland.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 27 are drafting amendments, the only effect of which is to open up Schedule 4 to minor and consequential amendments such as the amendment to the social security Acts which are not, strictly speaking, about status.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
12 After Clause 29, insert the following new clause:
Parental orders in favour of gamete donors
'(1) The court may make an order providing for a child to be treated in law as the child of the parties to a marriage (referred to in this section as "the husband" and "the wife") if—

(a) the child has been carried by a woman other than the wife as the result of the placing in her of an embryo or sperm and eggs or her artificial insemination,

(b) the gametes of the husband or the wife, or both, were used to bring about the creation of the embryo, and

(c) the conditions in subsections (2) to (7) below are satisfied.

(2) The husband and the wife must apply for the order within six months of the birth of the child or, in the case of a child born before the coming into force of this Act, within six months of such coming into force.
(3) At the time of the application and of the making of the order—

(a) the child's home must be with the husband and the wife, and

(b) the husband or the wife, or both of them, must be domiciled in a part of the United Kingdom or in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

(4) At the time of the making of the order both the husband and the wife must have attained the age of eighteen.
(5) The court must be satisfied that both the father of the child (including a person who is the father by virtue of section 28 of this Act), where he is not the husband, and the woman who carried the child have freely, and with full understanding of what is involved, agreed unconditionally to the making of the order.
(6) Subsection (5) above does not require the agreement of a person who cannot be found or is incapable of giving agreement and the agreement of the woman who carried the child is ineffective for the purposes of that subsection if given by her less than six weeks after the child's birth.
(7) The court must be satisfied that no money or other benefit (other than for expenses reasonably incurred) has been given or received by the husband or the wife for or in consideration of—

(a) the making of the order,

(b) any agreement required by subsection (5) above,

(c) the handing over of the child to the husband and the wife, or

(d) the making of any arrangements with a view to the making of the order,

unless authorised by the court.
(8) For the purposes of an application under this section—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, section 92(7) to (10) of, and Part I of Schedule 11 to, the Children Act 1989 (jurisdiction of courts) shall apply for the purposes of this section to determine the meaning of "the court" as they apply for the purposes of that Act and proceedings on the application shall be "family proceedings" for the purposes of that Act,

(b) in relation to Scotland, "the court" means the Court of Session or the sheriff court of the sheriffdom within which the child is, and

(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, "the court" means the High Court or any county court within whose division the child is.

(9) Regulations may provide·

(a) for any provision of the enactments about adoption to have effect, with such modifications (if any) as may be specified in the regulations, in relation to

1115
orders under this section, and applications for such orders, as it has effect in relation to adoption, and applications for adoption orders, and

(b) for references in any enactment to adoption, an adopted child or an adoptive relationship to be read (respectively) as references to the effect of an order under this section, a child to whom such an order applies and a relationship arising by virtue of the enactments about adoption, as applied by the regulations, and for similar expressions in connection with adoption to be read accordingly,

and regulations may include such incidental or supplemental provision as appears to the Secretary of State necessary or desirable in consequence of any provision made by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) above.
(10) In this section "the enactments about adoption" means the Adoption Act 1976, the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 and the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.
(11) Subsection (1)(a) above applies whether the woman was in the United Kingdom or elsewhere at the time of the placing in her of the embryo or the sperm and eggs or her artificial insemination.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. This is perhaps a more substantial amendment than some of the others with which I have been dealing.
The amendment was introduced in another place in response to an undertaking given in Committee by my right honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General to address circumstances where a carrying mother wants the child to whom she has given birth to go to a married couple of whom one, or both, are the genetic parents of the child. I believe the amendment meets the concerns which have been expressed on this point during the passage of the Bill.
We are thinking here of a situation where a woman has agreed to carry a child for a wife who cannot carry, or perhaps cannot conceive, a child of her own. Such an arrangement may involve, for example, in vitro fertilisation, or artificial insemination with the sperm of the husband of a woman who is infertile. Sections 27 and 28 provide that the carrying mother, and her husband—if she has one, and if he cannot prove that he has not consented to the embryo transfer or the insemination—will be the child's legal mother and father. It would be quite wrong to interfere with or undermine that principle. However, we must face the fact that occasionally those who have become legal parents in this way have done so without any intention of accepting responsibility for the child once born. They may have intended (and may hold by the intention) to help another couple who are unable to have a child of their own. This couple may warmly wish to accept the child as their own. It seems to us that there must be some legal means available, including proper safeguards for the child, whereby courts can order a child be treated in law as the child of those who contributed the embryos or eggs or sperm which are placed in the carrying mother.
I should perhaps emphasise that in making that provision and in bringing it forward we do not intend in any way to condone or encourage surrogacy arrangements. That should be clearly understood.
1116
Commercial surrogacy is entirely prohibited, and all surrogacy arrangements are unenforceable. Clause 33 of the Bill confirms that.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 120.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
9 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, we should be grateful to the Government for dealing with this issue in this very carefully produced amendment. It meets a need in a few specific cases. It is consistent with the suggestions contained in the Warnock Report, and I therefore venture to suggest that it is consistent with common sense. The only question I ask the noble and learned Lord is whether and when regulations may be expected under the proposed new subsection (9).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome afforded to this clause. We carefully considered the matter. It was obvious that there was a problem. I am glad to hear the noble Lord say that it is a carefully considered clause. The provisions that we need to make will require to be consulted on in accordance with our usual open practice. I hope that by the autumn of 1991 the necessary regulations will be capable of being put in place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
13Clause 30, page 17, line 33, at end insert:
'(4A) Regulations cannot require the Authority to give any information as to the identity of a person whose gametes have been used or from whom an embryo has been taken if a person to whom a licence applied was provided with the information at a time when the Authority could not have been required to give information of the kind in question.'.
14Clause 31, page 18, line 2, after 'man', insert 'is or'.
15 Page 18, line 6, leave out from 'disclose' to end of line 8 and insert
'whether any information on the register kept in pursuance of section 30 of this Act tends to show that the man may be the father of the child by virtue of section 28 of this Act and, if it does, disclose that information.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 to 15. With your Lordships' leave I shall move them en bloc.
The amendments concern access to information held by the authority. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 were brought forward by the Government in another place. They make clear the intended scope of Clause 31, which deals with information which the authority is required to provide to the Registrar General. This is the information which, by Clause 30, the authority is required to keep on the register. It is intended that the information would be made available where there is a dispute over paternity. For example, a man who has been registered as the father of a child because he was married to the child's mother may deny being the father because he believes the child to have been born as a result of artificial insemination by donor to which he did not consent.
Clause 31 enables the Registrar General to find out whether the child might have been born as a result of

1117
treatment involving the use of donated gametes and embryos. These amendments extend Clause 31 to cover a case where a man who is not registered as the father of a child wishes to show that he is in fact the father—the other way round. The authority's register could show that he may be the father because he fulfils the condition in Clause 28.
Amendment No. 18, which is for your Lordships' consideration, provides for a logical progression from Clause 31 by allowing information of this kind to be made Available to a court in the interests of justice. This could he where, for example, there is a dispute about paternity and a woman is seeking to obtain a maintenance order for a child which might have been born as a result of treatment services regulated by the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will support these amendments.
I turn next to Amendment No. 13. The matters which Clause 30 of the Bill addresses are of the greatest importance and sensitivity, and I hope that the House will understand if I take a moment to explain the reasons this clause appears as presently drafted in the Bill.
Clause 30 requires the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to keep information about donors and people to whom treatment services have been provided, and regulates circumstances under which information may be disclosed. If a person aged 18 or over applies to the authority, it must let the applicant know whether there is information on the register indicating that he or she was born following infertility treatment governed by the Bill. If that is the case, the authority must give the applicant certain information about his or her genetic parents which will be specified in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. The intention is that the information given will tell the applicant something about the genetic parent, but not enough for him or her to be identified.
The Government have given considerable thought to the matter of the nature of information to be given to applicants. They have listened very carefully to all the views expressed, and there have been many. We remain of the view expressed in paragraph 83 of the White Paper, which says:
"all adults over the age of 18 should have a legal right to find out whether they were born following gamete or embryo donation and that those who were should have the right of access to certain non-identifying information about the donor to be prescribed in regulations".
That view supported by 43 per cent. of the respondents to the consultation document we issued. Only 23 per cent. thought the donor's name should be made available to the person born as a result of treatment. However, as paragraph 84 of the White Paper recognised, society's views on the issue may change. We said:
"Attitudes to the anonymity of donors, however, may well change over time as happened with adoption. The Government therefore proposes to keep the position under review."
That is why subsection (4)(a) of Clause 30 is drafted so that a person born as a result of donation may he given as much information relating to the person
1118
concerned as is required by regulations. If a future Parliament took the view that opinion generally had changed on the matter, regulations could specify that identifying information could be given to applicants. That arrangement gives a degree of flexibility. It allows for the legislation to reflect society's attitudes at the present time, and if these change over time.
Due to the very sensitive nature of the matter and the fact that strong opinions have been expressed on both sides, the Government have brought forward Amendment No. 24, which we shall come to later, which provides for any regulations under Clause 30 to be subject to affirmative rather than negative resolution. That will require both Houses to give the matter thorough debate before any regulations are made.
I am aware that there are strong feelings on this issue. These have been expressed very forcefully in debate both here and in another place. I know that there are some people, particularly those who work in the fields of social work and adoption, who take the view that a child should have the right to identifying information about his or her genetic parents, and particularly so since it is available to a third party; that is, the authority. They feel that there should be no secrecy surrounding the issue, and that it is important that children can know their true genetic identity in the interests of their personal development and mental health.
They draw an analogy with adoption. However, the policy in the Bill is based on the belief that there is a difference between children who are adopted and those born as a result of donation. The relationship between a child born as a result of donation and the donor is by its very nature less close than that between an adopted child and the natural parents. And although a child born as a result of donation may not share the genetic inheritance of the mother who carried him or her, in a very real sense that child is her flesh and blood.
With egg donation the donor may not even be aware that a child has resulted from her donation of an egg, and a similar situation exists when a man donates sperm. Particularly in the case of AID, there may also be the possibility that the child was in fact born as a result of normal sexual intercourse between its social parents.
Those who take the opposite view, that the anonymity of the donor should be protected by primary legislation, are concerned about the effect that identifying information would have on the number of people willing to be donors. They are also concerned that the Bill does not set out in primary legislation that identifying information will not be made available retro-actively. They fear the effect that this might have on the availability of donated gametes and therefore the availability of treatment. They maintain that potential donors may be deterred for fear that their identity might be disclosed at a later date and that that would inevitably lead to a diminishing service for infertile couples. They also fear that women wanting artificial insemination by donor may try to seek out "unofficial" treatment if there was

1119
a shortage of donated sperm or because they too wished donations to be anonymous. In those circumstances, the treatment might not be carried out under proper clinical supervision, the sperm might not be properly screened and they would be at risk of contracting a congenitally transmitted disease and there would be no opportunity for them to receive proper counselling.
When a provision was introduced in Sweden enabling children born following treatment involving donated gametes to have access to the identity of their genetic parents, donations of sperm fell sharply and I understand that some infertile Swedish couples now seek treatment in other countries where donor anonymity is protected. Recent studies suggest some change in attitudes and the category of donor has changed, mainly to older men who have completed their families. But I think that we shall need to wait for the situation to develop fully and settle down before any conclusions can be drawn definitively from the Swedish experience.
When the issue was debated at Report stage in another place a number of options were carefully considered. In the end, the House decided to accept an amendment moved by the honourable Member for Salisbury and supported by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. This amendment reflected the views of those who felt that, if Parliament decided in the future to make identifying information about donors available to children born as a result of techniques involving donation who requested it, that information should not be made available retroactively. As I have tried to indicate, the arguments are finely balanced, but I hope that this House will feel able to agree with the Commons in this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 to 15.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
16Clause 32, page 18, line 28, at end insert:

`(cc) in pursuance of an order of a court under section [Disclosure in interests of justice] or [Disclosure in interests of justice: congenital disabilities, etc] of this Act,'.

17 Clause 32, page 18, line 47, at end insert:

`(bb) so far as it identifies a person who, but for sections 27 to 29 of this Act, would or might be a parent of a person who instituted proceedings under section IA of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976, but only for the purpose of defending such proceedings, or instituting connected proceedings for compensation against that parent.'.

18 After Clause 32, insert the following new clause:
Disclosure in interests of justice
`(1) Where in any proceedings before a court the question whether a person is or is not the parent of a child by virtue of sections 27 to 29 of this Act falls to be determined, the court may on the application of any party to the proceedings make an order requiring the Authority—
1120

(a) to disclose whether or not any information relevant to that question is contained in the register kept in pursuance of section 30 of this Act, and

(b) if it is, to disclose so much of it as is specified in the order,

but such an order may not require the Authority to disclose any information falling within section 30(2)(b) of this Act.
(2) The court must not make an order under subsection (1) above unless it is satisfied that the interests of justice require it to do so, taking into account—

(a) any representations made by any individual who may be affected by the disclosure, and

(b) the welfare of the child, if under 18 years old, and of any other person under that age who may be affected by the disclosure.

(3) If the proceedings before the court are civil proceedings, it—

(a) may direct that the whole or any part of the proceedings on the application for an order under subsection (2) above shall be heard in camera, and

(b) if it makes such an order, may then or later direct that the whole or any part of any later stage of the proceedings shall be heard in camera.

(4) An application for a direction under subsection (3) above shall be heard in camera unless the court otherwise directs.'.
19 After Clause 32, insert the following new clause:
Disclosure in interests of justice: congenital disabilities, etc.
`(1) Where for the purpose of instituting proceedings under section 1 of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 (civil liability to child born disabled) it is necessary to identify a person who would or might be the parent of a child but for sections 27 to 29 of this Act, the court may, on the application of the child, make an order requiring the Authority to disclose any information contained in the register kept in pursuance of section 30 of this Act identifying that person.
(2) Where, for the purposes of any action for damages in Scotland (including any such action which is likely to be brought) in which the damages claimed consist of or include damages or solatium in respect of personal injury (including any disease and any impairment of physical or mental condition), it is necessary to identify a person who would or might be the parent of a child but for sections 27 to 29 of this Act, the court may, on the application of any party to the action or, if the proceedings have not been commenced, the prospective pursuer, make an order requiring the Authority to disclose any information contained in the register kept in pursuance of section 30 of this Act identifying that person.
(3) Subsections (2) to (4) of section [Disclosure in interests of justice] of this Act apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that.
(4) After section 4(4) of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 there is inserted—
"(4A) In any case where a child carried by a woman as the result of the placing in her of an embryo or of sperm and eggs or her artificial insemination is born disabled, any reference in section 1 of this Act to a parent includes a reference to a person who would be a parent but for sections 27 to 29 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.".'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their

1121
Amendments Nos. 16 to 19. In moving these amendments, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 23.
Clause 30 of the Bill requires the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, in exercising its regulatory function in respect of the provision of infertility treatment involving the donation of gametes or embryos, to keep a register of information about the provision of treatment services for any identifiable individual; the keeping or use of the gametes of any identifiable individual; and identifiable individuals who were or may have been born as a result of treatment services.
By virtue of Clause 32, it is an offence for the authority or one of its employees to disclose information held on that register except in limited circumstances. As drafted, the Bill would not enable a court to order disclosure of that information where it is needed in order to determine whether a person is, in law, treated as the parent of a child by virtue of Clauses 27 or 28. The new clause introduced by Amendment No. 18 provides the court with that power.
Before I explain why the new clause is needed, I would like to deal first with an important limitation on the power that it confers. Your Lordships will see that subsection (1) provides that only information relevant to the question whether or not a person is the parent should be disclosed and that such an order may not require the authority to disclose any information falling within Clause 30(2)(b) of the Bill. That sub-paragraph relates to information about the keeping or use of the gametes of any identifiable individual. The effect is that nothing in this new clause enables a court to order disclosure of information about donors.
There are various examples of cases in which a court may have to determine whether or not a person is, in law, the parent of a child. Perhaps the most obvious is an application for maintenance where paternity is disputed. Because a father, by virtue of Section 28, is not the genetic father, that parental relationship cannot be determined by using blood tests. That is one example which shows the need for such an order. The clause has in it the necessary safeguards for the provision of information to the court.
Amendment No. 16 and new clause 19 therefore provide that, for the purpose of Section 1 of the 1976 Act, the word "parent" includes the genetic parent and that, on the application of a child, the court may order the authority to disclose information held in the register identifying the donor, and that the authority commits no offence if it discloses that information in pursuance of the court order.
Amendment No. 17 provides that those defending such an action or seeking compensation from the genetic parent of the child in connected proceedings must be allowed to disclose identifying information about that genetic parent for those purposes only.
1122
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 19.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
21 Clause 37, page 21, line 27, after 'Ace insert:

`(bb) contravenes section 4(2A) of this Act,'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No 21.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
22 Before Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
Keeping and examining gametes and embryos in connection with crime, etc
.—(1) Regulations may provide—

(a) for the keeping and examination of gametes or embryos, in such mannner and on such conditions (if any) as may be specified in regulations, in connection with the investigation of, or proceedings for an offence (wherever committed), or

(b) for the storage of gametes, in such manner and on such conditions (if any) as may be specified in regulations, where they are to be used only for such purposes, other than treatment services, as may be specified in regulations.

(2) Nothing in this Act makes unlawful the keeping or examination of any gametes or embryos in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of this section.
(3) In this section "examination" includes use for the purposes of any test.'.
9.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. Clause 3 of the Bill prohibits the keeping or use of an embryo except under licence, and Clause 4 prohibits the storage of any gametes except under licence. This new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations prescribing purposes for which it would not be unlawful for the police, for example, to keep an embryo or store gametes for forensic purposes, without holding a licence.
It would be unnecessary and unduly bureaucratic if every police station in the country had to apply for a licence to store sperm in connection with criminal investigations—for example, rape—or indeed to carry out investigations in connection with the enforcement of the Bill. A similar regulation-making power could also be used, in very specific circumstances, to exempt establishments where gametes are stored for other purposes. This power would not extend to the storing of embryos.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
23 Before Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
Civil liability to child with disability
.—(1) After section 1 of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 (civil liability to child born disabled) there is inserted—
"Extension of section 1 to cover infertility treatments.
1A.—(1) In any case where—

(a) a child carried by a woman as the result of the placing in her of an embryo or of sperm and eggs or her artificial insemination is born disabled,

(b) the disability results from an act or omission in the course of the selection, or the keeping or use outside the body, of the embryo carried by her or of the gametes used to bring about the creation of the embryo, and

(c) a person is under this section answerable to the child in respect of the act or omission,

the child's disabilities are to be regarded as damage resulting from the wrongful act of that person and actionable accordingly at the suit of the child.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below and the applied provisions of section 1 of this Act, a person (here referred to as "the defendant") is answerable to the child if he was liable in tort to one or both of the parents (here referred to as "the parent or parents concerned") or would, if sued in due time, have been so; and it is no answer that there could not have been such liability because the parent or parents concerned suffered no actionable injury, if there was a breach of legal duty which, accompanied by injury, would have given rise to the liability.
(3) The defendant is not under this section answerable to the child if at the time the embryo, or the sperm and eggs, are placed in the woman or the time of her insemination (as the case may be) either or both of the parents knew the risk of their child being born disabled (that is to say, the particular risk Created by the act or omission).
(4) Subsections (5) to (7) of section 1 of this Act apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that but as if references to the parent or the parent affected were references to the parent or parents concerned."
(2) In section 4 of that Act (intepretation, etc)—

(a) at the end of subsection (2) there is inserted

"and references to embryos shall be construed in accordance with section 1 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990",

(b) in subsection (3), after "section 1" there is inserted "1A", and

(c) in subsection (4), for "either" there is substituted "any".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 16.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, when I read the report of the discussion in another place it appeared to me that worries had been expressed about this new clause, and in particular about subsection (3). As I understand it, the effect of the clause, including subsection (3), is to ensure that the legal rights of a disabled child born as a result of an IVF pregnancy will be precisely the same as those of a child born after natural pregnancy. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that interpretation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this subsection mirrors Section 1(4) of the 1976 Act. The new clause also applies the provisions of subsection (6) of Section 1 of the 1976 Act. That subsection preserves the defendant's right to rely on exclusion of his liability by contract with a parent. In practice, however, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 severely restricts the scope of this defence. A person cannot by any contract, term or notice exclude or restrict his liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence to any person.
If I understood the noble Lord's question correctly, subsection (3) has the same effect in relation to this kind of child as for a child born naturally.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. I am sure that it will reassure all those who have expressed concern about the subsection.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. If I find any reason to qualify what I have said I shall certainly write to him. But I think my answer was correct.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
24 Clause 39, page 23, line 8, leave out 'or 4(2)' and insert '4(2) or (2A), (Parental orders in favour of gamete donors), 30(4)(a), or (Keeping and examining gametes and embryos in connection with crime, etc.)'.
25 Page 23, line 8, leave out second '(3)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 and 25.
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are government amendments which add to the list of regulation-making powers which will be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament. Amendment No. 24 refers to four regulation-making powers. The first concerns Amendment No. 2, the amendment relating to GIFT. The second adds regulation-making powers in connection with Amendment No. 12, which is the new clause on surrogacy arrangements. The third follows Clause 30(4) (a), which provides a regulation-making power to deal with the information to be given on request to an applicant by the authority. The fourth follows from Amendment No. 22, the new clause about keeping and examining gametes and embryos in connection with crime and for other closely specified purposes.
Amendment No. 25 concerns regulations in respect of additional purposes for which research licences can be issued, and it is allied to Amendment No. 29. With the leave of the House, I shall move Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 en bloc.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
27Clause 43, page 24, line 37, at end insert:
'(4A) Schedule 4 to this Act (which makes minor and consequential amendments) shall have effect.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
28 Clause 43, page 25, line 5, leave out subsection (7).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House to agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28.
Your Lordships will remember that Clause 43(7) was a privilege amendment made while the Bill was passing through this House in its earlier stages to avoid infringing the privilege of the other place to control charges on public funds. The Bill has now been considered in the other place where the privilege amendment was removed.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
29 Schedule 2, page 29, line 44, leave out from 'or' to 'such' in line 45 and insert 'for such other purposes as may be specifies in regulations.
(2A) Purposes may only be so specified with a view to the authorisation of projects of research which increase knowledge about the creation and development of embryos, or about disease, or enable'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. Amendment 29 would have the effect of removing from the authority the general power the Bill currently gives the authority to grant research licences for purposes which are not specifically mentioned in Schedule 2, paragraph 3(2)(a) to (e). It would replace it by a regulation-making power which enabled the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying additional purposes for which the authority could grant research licences provided that those purposes related to research project; which increase knowledge about the creation and development of embryos or about disease, or enable such knowledge to be applied.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
30 Schedule 3, page 32, line 8, at end insert:
`(4) Any consent required by this paragraph is in addition to any consent that may be required by paragraph 5 above.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30.
This is a drafting amendment. Schedule 3 of the Bill provides that a person's consent is required before his gametes are used for the treatment of others. It also provides that the consent of each donor is required before an embryo is created in vitro, to the use for
1126
which the embryo is intended. Their consent is also required to the actual use of the embryo for that purpose. This amendment provides, lest there be any ambiguity, that the required consent to in vitro fertilisation and the subsequent use of the embryo is in addition to, and not an alternative to, consent to the use of the gametes.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30.·(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
31Schedule 4, page 32, line 35, at end insert:
'Social Security Act 1975 (c. 14)
1A. In section 25(1) of the Social Security Act 1975 (widowed mother's allowance), for the words from "or" after paragraph (b) to the end there is substituted "or

(c) if the woman and her late husband were residing together immediately before the time of his death, the woman is pregnant as the result of being artificially inseminated before that time with the semen of some person other than her husband, or as the result of the placing in her before that time of an embryo, of an egg in the process of fertilisation, or of sperm and eggs."

Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 (c.15)
1B. In section 25(1) of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 (widowed mother's allowance), at the end there is inserted "or

(c) if the woman and her late husband were residing together immediately before the time of his death, the woman is pregnant as the result of being artificially inseminated before that time with the semen of some person other than her husband, or as the result of the placing in her before that time of an embryo, of an egg in the process of fertilisation, or of sperm and eggs.".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31.
I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 11. I am very glad to say that this is the conclusion of our consideration of the Commons Amendments. I particularly appreciate the company of those of your Lordships who have kindly stayed to this stage of the proceedings.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; and with a privilege amendment.

Heathrow Express Railway Bill [H.L.]
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following Orders.
That the Promoters of the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [H.L.] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to

1127
suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [H.L.]
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following Orders.
That the Promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [H.L.] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present
1128
Session, and shall report the Bill as amended in the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Australia, and Menley & James, Australia Bill [H.L.]
A message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following Orders.
That the Promoters of the Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Australia, and Menley & James, Australia Bill [H.L.] shall have leave to suspend further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That no Petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any Committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matters which arise during the progress of the Bill before the Committee;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following Orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House.
That the Promoters of the British Railways (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the

1129
present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have a ready been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

London Docklands Railway Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following Orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House.
That the Promoters of the London Docklands Railway Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings
1130
thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past nine o'clock.

  KUWAIT: FOREIGN NATIONALS
  KUWAIT: FOREIGN NATIONALS
  BENEFIT AND YOUTH TRAINING PROVISIONS: RESEARCH
  BENEFIT AND YOUTH TRAINING PROVISIONS: RESEARCH
  STANDARD SPENDING ASSESSMENTS: PUBLICATIONS
  STANDARD SPENDING ASSESSMENTS: PUBLICATIONS
  NOISE REVIEW WORKING PARTY: REPORT
  NOISE REVIEW WORKING PARTY: REPORT