Sitting of 24 October 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    SHARD BRIDGE BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.

  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
  Ordered,
  That the Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business set out in the Schedule be made.

  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

    SCHEDULE
    Standing Order 1
    Leave out lines 72 to 75 and insert—
    `the term "water company" means a company appointed to be a water undertaker or a sewerage undertaker under Chapter 1 of Part II of the Water Act 1989'.
    Standing Order 4A, as amended in 1986

    Line 7, leave out 'a London borough or',

    Line 16, after 'county' insert "metropolitan district or London borough'.

    Line 23, after 'counties' insert 'metropolitan districts or London boroughs'.

    Line 35, after 'county' insert 'metropolitan district or London borough'.

    Line 38, after 'county' insert 'metropolitan district or London borough'.

    Standing Order 7
    Line 2, after 'specify' insert `by reference to the deposited plans'.
    Standing Order 10

    Line 12, after 'county' insert 'metropolitan district or London borough'.

    Line 20, after 'county' insert `metropolitan district or London boroughs'.

    Line 29, after 'county' insert `metropolitan district or London borough'.

    Standing Order 27
    Line 62, after 'Office' insert 'one copy at the Health and Safety Executive'.
    Standing Order 29
    Line 6, leave out from 'thereon' to 'shall' in line 8.
    Standing Order 32
    Line 11, leave out from 'the' to 'and' in line 12 and insert 'principal regional office of the National Rivers Authority for the area containing the river or estuary affected'.
    Standing Order 33

    Line 4, leave out 'which is subject to the jurisdiction of a water authority'.

    Line 9, leave out `office of that authority' and insert 'principal regional office of the National Rivers Authority for the area containing the river affected'.

    Standing Order 36, as amended in 1986
    Line 11, at end insert 'with the proper officer of the district'.
    Standing Order 37
    Line 8, at end insert 'and another at the Department of the Environment'.
    Standing Order 39
    Line 18, leave out from beginning to 'at' in line 19.
    Standing Order 42

    Line 3, leave out `within the area of any water authority'.

    Line 7, leave out 'office of the authority' and insert 'principal regional office of the National Rivers Authority for the area containing the water course affected'.

    Standing Order 43
    Line 7, leave out from 'the' to 'and' in line 8 and insert `principal regional office of the National Rivers Authority for the area containing the river or estuary affected'.
    Standing Order 45

    Line 2, leave out from 'Office' to end of line 11.

    Line 12, leave out from first 'bill' to second 'in' in line 13.

    Line 16, after 'estimate' insert 'signed by the person making the same'.

    Line 19, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 21. Line 33, leave out subsection (4).

    Standing Order 46
    That the Standing Order be repealed.
    Standing Order 64
    Line 17, after 'that' insert—

    `(i) failure to comply with the requirements of Standing Order 62 (Consents of proprietors of statutory companies promoting bills originating in this House) or Standing Order 63 (Consents of members of registered companies, etc, promoting bills originating in this House) as applied by this Standing Order shall affect only such provisions as aforesaid, and shall not affect any other provisions of the Bill: and

    (ii) that'.

    Standing Order 99
    Line 1, leave out 'water authority or other'.
    Standing Order 155
    That the Standing Order be repealed.
    Standing Order 156
    That the Standing Order be repealed.
    Standing Order 156A
    Line 6, leave out from 'might' to 'under' in line 7 and insert 'be taken into account in determining the sums payable by way of Revenue Support Grant'.
    Standing Order 156B
    That the Standing Order be repealed.
    Standing Order 159
    That the Standing Order be repealed.
    Standing Order 162
    That the Standing Order be repealed.
    Standing Order 191

    Line 7, at end insert—

    '(c) any community charge, or the non-domestic rate; or'.

    Line 8, leave out 'Rate' and insert 'Revenue'.

    Standing Order 198

    Line 7, at beginning insert 'In the case of a bill originating in this House'.

    Line 9, leave out from 'time' to end of line 13.

    Standing Order 235
    Line 6, at end add 'and no Petitions other than those so deposited shall be received'.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    CITY OF DUNDEE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
      ZETLAND MASONIC SICK AND WIDOWS AND ORPHANS FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
      Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    United States of America
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit the United States of America to discuss American-European relations.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I have no firm plans for my next visit to the United States. I am in frequent touch with Mr. Baker, and last met him in New York on 2 October during the meeting of CSCE Ministers.
    Mr. Marshall: Does the Foreign Secretary agree with his American counterpart that, in the light of the end of the cold war in Europe, NATO is increasingly likely to become a political rather than a military alliance? If so, what steps does he intend to take to further that change?
    Mr. Hurd: Those steps were clearly set out at the July NATO summit held in London. We set out the military essentials of the alliance. We—and, of course, the Americans and all the allies—intend to maintain the integrated command, the presence of substantial American troops on the continent of Europe and a sensible mix of nuclear and conventional weapons. We then went on to illustrate the change, in particular by holding out the hand of co-operation to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend go a little further? Does he realise that the North Atlantic Assembly is the only governmentally accepted body where American members of Congress and European Members of Parliament can meet? Although much consideration is being given to the military structure, the future of a body in which American members of Congress, Canadian Members of Parliament and European members can get together is of the greatest importance and is worthy of serious consideration.
    Mr. Hurd: I know the importance of the Atlantic Assembly and the part that my hon. Friend plays in it. I certainly agree that such contacts, forming part of the political side of NATO's work, are extremely important.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: As the IRA has extended its activities into many countries of the European Community, and as much of its funding comes from the United States—some of its blood money was probably used this morning in the atrocious attack on the Royal Irish Rangers in Newry and on another regiment in Londonderry, which no doubt the Foreign Secretary will take the opportunity to condemn—has the Foreign Secretary ever raised the question of funding by Americans for the IRA in Europe?
    Mr. Hurd: Of course, I condemn this morning's tragic events in Newry and in Londonderry. We have often raised this point. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I raised it when I visited the United States. The present Administration and the Reagan Administration before them, have taken as strict a line as

    319
    they can within United States law to ensure that such contributions are not given in a way that could help the outrages about which the right hon. Gentleman is concerned. I agree that we need to keep those reminders constantly before the United States.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that relations between America and Europe could be seriously undermined because of the failure of the EEC to put forward realistic proposals on agricultural expenditure? Does it worry my right hon. Friend, as Foreign Secretary, that, despite all the pleas that were made for strong action, the EEC is planning a substantial increase in its agricultural spending next year and that, once again, food mountains are growing to all-time highs?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed. I made the first point strongly to my colleagues in Luxembourg on Monday. It is not sensible for the European Community and its leaders to suppose that they will attract much credibility when talking about economic and monetary union or, indeed, political union if they cannot produce a reasonable offer for the GATT negotiations. At the moment, the European Community is isolated. I believe that when examined at the negotiating table, the American offers will prove to have a good deal of fustian in them, but we cannot examine them at the negotiating table until we have a position of our own.
    Mr. Kaufman: When replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), the right hon. Gentleman referred with approval to the declaration made at the July NATO summit, which the Prime Minister signed. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in that declaration NATO endorsed a new NATO strategy making nuclear forces
    "truly weapons of last resort",
    and that those are the words of President Bush himself? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, in her speech in Helsinki on 30 August the Prime Minister said:
    "Our first task is in reality to preserve the essentials of the present order. That means … continuing to station nuclear weapons in Europe, without putting new constraints on them such as … 'weapons of last resort'"?
    As the Prime Minister signed that declaration and as she has disgracefully repudiated it, will the Foreign Secretary now uphold President Bush and repudiate the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has earned his reputation for selective quotation. He omitted—[Interruption.] I see that some of his text is highlighted, but I am not sure whether that is the bit that he left in or the bit that he left out. I recall clearly our discussions at Lancaster house on this point and the balancing sentences and phrases that were used to safeguard the position of the Alliance. One thing that it must preserve is a sensible mix of nuclear and conventional weapons.

    Middle Fast
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the Foreign Minister of Israel to discuss the middle east peace process.
    Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Israel to discuss the middle east peace process.
    Mr. Hurd: I met the Israeli Foreign Minister on 16 October. We had a thorough discussion of middle eastern issues. I have no firm plans to meet Mr. Levy again, but we agreed to stay in closer contact in future.
    Mr. Marshall: Did my right hon. Friend congratulate the Israeli Government on their actions in deactivating the Basra reactor? Without that action, the bloodthirsty butcher of Baghdad would have been able to threaten the whole world with a nuclear disaster.
    Mr.Hurd: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I am not sure that the world would be a safer place if everybody acted as Israel did in that respect. Nevertheless, I take note of what I believe is my hon. Friend's point for the future. Iraq has obligations of great importance under the non-proliferation treaty and it is of crucial interest to the whole community—not just to Israel—that those obligations should be respected.
    Ms. Primarolo: Given the disastrous results of the Foreign Secretary's attempts to clarify the Government's position with regard to the Palestinian problem when he was in Jerusalem recently, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to make a clear and unambiguous statement to Parliament on the Government's commitment to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the west bank and the Gaza?
    Mr. Hurd: As the hon. Lady knows, we have never had such a commitment. What we are saying and have said for a long time is that the Palestinians have the right to self-determination and that that right can be exercised only in the context of a negotiated settlement, which must also include provision for the security of Israel within secure borders. That has been the position for a long time, and I restated it in Jerusalem. I am sorry that, for one reason or another, the way in which it came out prevented Palestinian leaders from meeting me a week ago as I had hoped. That would have balanced my visit to Israel.
    Mr. Sumberg: When my right hon. Friend met the Israeli Government did he raise with them the horrendous and appalling massacre of hundreds of Lebanese Christians by the Syrian army? If he did not, will he join me in inviting the United Nations to pass a resolution condemning that outrage to prove to the world and the parties in the middle east that it is not the one-sided, biased organisation that it sometimes appears to be?
    Mr. Hurd: We made it clear with regard to the killings on Temple Mount, the later killings in Jerusalem, and what happened in the Lebanon, that we condemn all acts of violence of that nature. They are separate problems and neither will be resolved by political violence.
    Mr. Janner: After his visit to Israel, does the right hon. Gentleman feel that he now has a better understanding of the legitimate sensitivities and anxieties of that democratic country? If Britain is to help in the peace process, it must be seen to be even-handed and balanced. That means continuing its opposition to the Arab boycott. If he believes that that is right, will he speak to the Secretary of State for Energy about the reported compliance of National Power with that boycott, which I am sure he would regard as intolerable?
    Mr. Hurd: One of the purposes of my visit to Israel was to get into close touch with not only Israeli Ministers but

    321
    people such as Mr. Peres and Mayor Kollek. Israel is a democratic society and I hope that within the democratic debate in Israel there is a growing realisation that its security cannot satisfactorily rest on a regime of occupation. It is neither a just nor a sustainable basis for the security of Israel, about which Israelis, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, are rightly anxious and sensitive.
    On the hon. and learned Gentleman's second point, we deplore boycott efforts and campaigns of that nature. How specific British enterprises respond to them is not a matter for me.
    Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the presence of the Iraqis in Kuwait is totally unacceptable, as is the presence of the Israelis in parts of the Lebanon, Syria and Jordan?
    Mr. Lawrence: Jordan?
    Mr. Adley: Yes, in parts of Jordan. The presence of both forces is unacceptable for exactly the same reasons—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends have had their say and now they should let someone else have theirs. They are in defiance of the United Nations resolutions against invading and occupying the territory of their neighbours. Will my right hon. Friend also confirm my understanding of the position? The reason why we, the Americans and others are in Saudi is that we were invited there by the Saudi Government, in the same way as the Syrians are in the Lebanon because they were invited there by the Lebanese Government. Am I correct in that assumption?
    Mr. Hurd: The right answers to both the problems which my hon. Friend mentioned have been set out in Security Council resolutions. In the case of Kuwait the resolutions are very clear because they respond to a clear act of aggression and require the unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi troops. In the case of Arab-Israel, another set of Security Council resolutions, in particular Nos. 242 and 338, require the sensible reconciling of Israel's need for security—a particularly sensitive matter because of its geography and recent history—and the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. Those two things must be reconciled. They can be reconciled only through negotiations for a comprehensive settlement.
    It is not sensible to draw too many exact comparisons between the positions in Syria and Kuwait but my hon. Friend is right that originally, whatever one's view of their later activities, the Syrians went into Lebanon at the request of the Lebanese Government.

    Romania
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Romania about the development of democracy there.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs plans to visit Romania at present. However, I hope that Ministers will be able to discuss economic matters with the Romanian deputy Prime Minister in the United Kingdom next month. My right hon. Friend discussed Romania's troubled progress towards democracy with his Romanian counterpart in New York on 2 October.
    Mr. Flynn: Despite 40 years of paranoid tyranny and the many betrayed hopes of the past nine months, will the Government now respond to the genuine encouraging trends in Romania with the first prosecutions of the miners who participated in the June repression and the fact that recent opposition demonstrations have not been harassed? Is not there a grave danger, however, that unless we take action now and acknowledge in a practical way the advances that have been made to the flawed but genuine democracy of Romania, we shall give encouragement to those sinister forces seeking to recreate the country's previous isolation?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I certainly agree that we must reward the steps forward, but we must not ignore those things that are still going wrong. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we and our European colleagues were right to sign a trade agreement with Romania. However, we are holding back from further steps because there is evidence of further secret police activity of the old style and of the harassment of dissidents. I spoke to Doina Cornea about that when we met recently. It is a policy of carrots and sticks and both, I am afraid, are still necessary.
    Mr. Aitken: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whole-hearted political and economic co-operation with the Government of Romania will be difficult as long as that Government appear to have a less than healthy commitment to human rights and freedoms? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is still a great deal of fear among the ordinary people of Romania that the secret police, the Securitate, are still up to their old tricks? Have we made it clear enough to President Iliescu and his Government that we want to see further progress towards a truly free society before there is real co-operation?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that we have made that pretty clear. The Romanians are anxious to present the progress that they have made in as clear a manner as possible. As I said to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), we must not forget that other things still need a great deal of improvement. The meetings that we were able to have in Bournemouth with a number of principal dissidents under Ceausescu warned us that, as yet, all is far from being in order.

    AIDS
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent conferences on the international aspects of AIDS have been attended by Ministers or officials; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): Officials have attended eight conferences on AIDS issues this year. AIDS is a global threat, and international co-operation is required to control its spread. Our strategy is highly regarded internationally, and we play a leading role in international meetings on the subject.
    Mr. Kirkwood: It is reassuring to hear that officials are being sent to attend those important international gatherings, but does the Minister accept that ministerial involvement is also important? He should pay particular attention to the worrying increase in the number of AIDS cases in the heterosexual community, particularly those

    323
    cases that have been contracted as a result of foreign travel. What will Ministers do in future to ensure that business men and holiday makers are given the proper information that they need to protect themselves?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is a very important matter, and ministerial involvement is constant. With regard to the spread of AIDS through heterosexual contacts by travellers abroad, the World Health Organisation runs co-ordinated national AIDS programmes in almost every country and has published a booklet, "AIDS Information For Travellers", which is widely available.
    Mr. Tredinnick: I support what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said. I have just come from a meeting of the all-party group on AIDS and the key message that we must get across is the danger faced by the heterosexual community. Given the worrying figures already mentioned, will my hon. Friend undertake to consider ways in which to increase awareness of the dangers in that community?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course. We are very much aware of the increase in AIDS in the heterosexual community. I shall certainly undertake to reconsider these matters to see whether there are any further initiatives that we can take.
    Mr. Corbyn: AIDS is a terrifying problem which has serious implications—the likely death of millions of people throughout the world. What support has been given to WHO so that the spread of AIDS in other countries can at least be combated by publicity and that research done in Britain and the United States can be shared with the poorer countries, which are suffering just as badly, if not worse than ourselves, from the problem of AIDS?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The World Health Organisation is leading the action against AIDS. The United Kingdom is the third largest donor and we have pledged £16·83 million so far.

    German Unification
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions are taking place within the European Community regarding the implications of German unification for weighted majority voting in the Council of Ministers and for the size of the European Parliament.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Garel-Jones): None, Sir.
    Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will be aware that weighted majority voting in the Council of Europe bears little relationship to the populations of the countries involved. However, we now hear that following unification, both the Chancellor and the Foreign Minister in Germany have said that they do not require any increased representation "for the time being." May I take it from my hon. Friend that his reply "none" is 100 times more encouraging than "none for the time being"?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The German Government undertook not to request EC treaty amendments to accommodate German unification. They have made no proposals to amend qualified majority vote weighting or the number of Members of the European Parliament, both of which would require treaty amendment. But, as my hon. Friend
    324
    says, it is clear that a number of small member countries, with Luxembourg a prime example, have made a not able contribution to the Community despite their size.
    Mr. Trimble: Although we must welcome the extension of the Community by the inclusion of what was, before this October, a separate country, is not it inappropriate that the other countries of central Europe that experienced similar democratic revolutions and are at a similar economic stage—Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland—should be kept out of the Community while the former German Democratic Republic is allowed in?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: There is no intention on behalf of the Government or the Community to keep anyone out of the Community. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we would welcome the day when those new, emerging democracies in the east are in a position, because of their internal politics and their economies, to apply to join the Community.
    Mr. Soames: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. Is it likely that such matters will be discussed at the intergovernmental conference and what position will Her Majesty's Government take?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: There is no reason why those matters should arise in the intergovernmental conference. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his warm welcome.
    Mr. Skinner: Was the Minister of State in favour of weighted voting when he was Deputy Chief Whip?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: As the hon. Member will know, in those days I was in favour of hon. Members supporting their party—a lesson that he might take.

    Eastern Europe
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet the European Community Foreign Affairs Ministers to discuss aid to eastern Europe.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets his European Community colleagues to discuss the Community's relations with the countries of central and eastern Europe. We strongly support the Community's policy of making aid to those countries conditional on progress towards political and economic reform.
    Mr. Coombs: Although I recognise the vital importance of aid, in terms of trade credits and direct aid, to eastern European countries and the importance of exchanges of personnel through seminars and courses, is not it equally important to set up educational institutions, such as business schools, in eastern European countries so that people there can learn the sort of commercial skills that they will need in a newly competitive world? Will he ensure that the know-how fund is used to that end?
    Mr. Waldegrave: There have been some such projects under the know-how fund. In general, it is better to try to develop institutions in the countries involved rather than bring them here, which is what they ask for on the whole.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister acknowledge that it would be daft for Britain to provide aid to eastern Europe if that would result in the displacement of British jobs,

    325
    particularly in the textile and clothing industry? Therefore, will he take this opportunity to acknowledge, on behalf of the Government, that they do not regard the British textile and clothing industry as expendable and that there is absolutely no question of the multi-fibre arrangement being abandoned or phased out too quickly unless proper and adequate safeguards are put in place to protect the best interests of the textile and clothing industry and the British workers whose livelihoods depend on it?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Similar arguments can be made in relation to every sector of the economy where we are trying to liberalise trade with the rest of the world—for example, agriculture. There must be some respect in which, if we are serious about opening our markets to poorer countries, we are willing to stand against our sectoral interests sometimes.
    Mr. William Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week I had the opportunity of visiting the headquarters of the Stasi in east Berlin? Is not it perfectly clear that the Stasi hopes to return to power by establishing massive slush funds at home and abroad? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when he talks to Community Ministers he discusses the recycling of looted Stasi funds into aid to eastern Europe?
    Mr. Waldegrave: However much money was deployed by former members of the Stasi, I do not think that they would return to power in a democratic society.
    Mr. Robertson: Does not Britain set a particularly bad example on this in the EC? The Prime Minister and other Ministers perambulate around Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland promising all sorts of help, but is not the sad reality that the total amount of know-how help for central and eastern Europe in this financial year adds up to £15 million, that all of it is already committed and that, despite the growing demand, desire and need for it, no new projects can possibly be sanctioned before April next year? Does not that show up Tory concern for the new democracies as the sanctimonious propaganda that we all know it to be?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The answer is no. There is still no parallel among other European countries for the know-how fund and I welcome the fact that the rapid spread of democratic and free enterprise societies in eastern Europe has meant that we can move much quicker than expected this year, and negotiations are already under way for next year. Such help has been far more effective than the huge generalised soft loans, many of which have not been taken up, which hit the headlines but do little good.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that contributions of know-how and other non-financial kinds are being co-ordinated in the same way as financial contributions within the EC?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, we try to do that, but I am sure that there is always room for co-ordination to be improved. Our view has always been that if we have a good project we should back it first and try to co-ordinate later, rather than be too bureaucratic.

    Ethiopia
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the peace process in Ethiopia.
    Mr. Waldegrave: As a result of recent contacts in the United States, there is a prospect that the negotiations between the Ethiopian Government and the Eritrean People's Liberation Front may resume.
    Mr. Bennett: Given all the talk about a new world order, does the Minister agree that that new world order should try to inject some urgency into peace negotiations within Ethiopia, because until peace is established within Ethiopia there is little hope of effective aid reaching the large numbers of people now starving in Government-held areas and in areas held by the various liberation fronts? Will the Government use all their offices to get some action, rather than simply talking about talks?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with the link that the hon. Gentleman makes between the establishment of peace and effective aid. Until there is peace, there will never be an end to the hunger crisis in that country. The principal responsibility must lie with the warring factions, who too often in recent years have seen the mirage of a military victory and therefore broken off negotiations again, but it is somewhat more encouraging that they are talking again.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does not my right hon. Friend consider the disastrous situation in Ethiopia to be yet another example, in economic and human terms, of Marxism in action?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Certainly the Ethiopian Government have had a terrible record in the past both on human rights and in the competence of their economic and social doctrines. They are now jettisoning those doctrines very fast, which gives some hope for progress.

    EC Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he is making in preparation for the intergovernmental conference in December, with particular reference to the issue of political union.
    Mr. Hurd: I attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 22 October, which discussed preparations for the intergovernmental conference on political union. The Italian presidency will report on progress to the special European Council—the summit—on 27 and 28 October. Our aim continues to be a more efficient, effective and democratically accountable Community.
    Mr. Sillars: Has the Secretary of State read reports of the rather bad-tempered presentation at the European Parliament yesterday of the Commission's document on political union, which will ultimately go before the intergovernmental conference? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the document confirms that, as the Community was established by international treaties agreed by sovereign states, it is perfectly possible to deepen and widen its integration and to create greater cohesion

    327
    without crucially altering its legal basis? Does not the Commission's document point to the model for the future being not federalist but confederalist?
    Mr. Hurd: I have not read the Commission document, but Mr. Delors outlined it at the Foreign Affairs Council meeting on Monday. Having heard that outline, and subject to my studying the document, I do not believe that it offers a way forward that my Government would want to follow. In all the discussions in the intergovernmental conferences beginning in December on economic and monetary union and political union, we shall be arguing—for example, in the GATT round—about many of the issues confronting the Community. We shall argue not from an un-European or anti-European stance, but for a Europe that is liberal and open. There will be considerable discussion of those points.
    Mr. Haselhurst: What specific gains does my right hon. Friend think will emerge from the intergovernmental discussions? Would not it be helpful to Britain if they could be clearly explained ahead of the meeting, rather than merely expressing a generalised commitment to a better Community?
    Mr. Hurd: I tried to offer such an explanation when the House debated that subject in the summer. The gains can be easily summarised. We want to improve co-ordination between the Twelve on foreign policy and the role of national parliaments—including that of working together in controlling and monitoring the Council's activities. We want to improve also the work of the European Parliament, not by extending its legislative powers but by encouraging it to be more effective in monitoring and invigilating the Commission's work and expenditure. We should like to find a sensible definition of subsidiarity which would establish clearly where Community action is necessary, and what action should best be left to national Governments—particularly as it is national Governments who decide among themselves what the role of the Community should be, and not the Community which decides the role of national Governments.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear at the intergovernmental conference that it is no part of the Government's policy to countenance a two-speed Europe, with Britain on the outside track, which would be a disaster for our country?
    Mr. Hurd: It would be a disaster not only for this country but for Greece, where I discussed the matter last week, for Portugal, for Spain, and for many other countries. I hope very much that those in charge of the discussions on economic and monetary union in particular will bear that point in mind. It is most important that we travel at a speed and in a direction which commands consensus.
    Mr. Favell: Can my right hon. Friend say yet what the Government's attitude will be if the 11 other members of the Community accept the Delors proposals?
    Mr. Hurd: The Delors proposals deal with economic and monetary union, which is beyond the scope of the question. As to the intergovernmental conference on political union, there can be no change to the treaty unless all 12 member states agree.

    CSCE Summit
    Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the forthcoming CSCE summit in Paris.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend will attend the CSCE summit in Paris. We envisage that a conventional forces in Europe agreement will be signed. The conference should consolidate the recent progress in Europe by strengthening democratic and economic reforms. We believe that the rights won in the reforms should be enshrined in a magna carta for Europe.
    Mr. Atkinson: Given that all but three of the European CSCE participating states now send parliamentary delegations to the Council of Europe and that the remaining three—Romania, Bulgaria and Albania—expect to do so shortly, does my right hon. Friend agree that next month's summit need look no further for its proposed assembly of Europe, as suggested by the NATO summit in July, than to the existing Council of Europe? Will he ensure that the Government put that proposal forward at next month's summit?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The problem is that the United Stales and Canada are participants. I go this far with my hon. Friend—the infrastructure of the Council of Europe may well provide the basis on which a new assembly could meet, but we must pay attention to the importance of maintaining American participation in these meetings.
    Mr. Wareing: Is it not the proposal of the chairman of CSCE that the European assembly from the Atlantic to the Urals should be a completely separate assembly? What efforts will the Government make at the next summit to ensure that there is a coming together, which I believe that the people of this country and of Europe will see as a positive step towards the unification of Europe in ways other than the old-fashioned ideas of the EEC?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right that we should not proliferate entirely new assemblies, and if we can build on what already exists in a way that is acceptable to the north Atlantic partners, that is very sensible.

    Palestinian Refugees
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made during the past three months about Palestinian refugees to the Government of Israel.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed the situation in the occupied territories, including conditions in the Palestinian refugee camps there, with members of the Israeli Government during his recent visit to the middle east.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware of the great concern in all parts of the House about recent events in occupied Palestine. The intifada goes on; the violence continues. Does not he therefore believe that it is now time for a major international conference to be convened, possibly under the auspices of the United Nations, to discuss the occupied territories and the refugee problem?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We have always made it clear that at the right time an international conference will probably be necessary to help to produce the comprehensive settlement that my right hon. Friend spoke of earlier. I do not think that the time is yet right for that, unfortunately, and we continue to urge that contacts be built up between the Palestinians and the Israeli Government in the way they appeared to be about to begin to do before the present crisis in the Gulf.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to confirm to the Israeli Government that the United Kingdom Government's position is that east Jerusalem is occupied territory, and therefore that the provisions of the fourth Geneva convention on the protection of civilian persons in time of war apply absolutely and without exception? Will he also confirm that Israel's purported annexation of east Jerusalem is illegal and as such has no effect on the status of east Jerusalem as occupied territory; and that any measures that Israel purports to take to change the status of east Jerusalem are null and void?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That is the position of the British Government, yes.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is not it strange that Israel's oil-rich Arab neighbours have never thought it right to improve the standard of living of their Arab brothers in the refugee camps?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That is rather unfair. One of the many legitimate accusations against Saddam Hussein is that his invasion of Kuwait has destroyed a country which was generous in its support of the Palestinian people. The consequences of that, and of the loss of remittances from Palestinian workers in Kuwait and elsewhere, are now causing even more problems for already hard-pressed people in the occupied territories.
    Miss Hoey: In view of the news this morning that the occupied territories have once again been completely closed off by the Israeli Government, and given what we know that the Israeli Government are prepared to do when they are in public view, will the Minister take this opportunity to call the Israeli ambassador to the Foreign Office and insist that the occupied territories be open at the very least to the United Nations observers, who are not even allowed to go in and see the way in which people in the refugee camps are treated?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We have made it clear that the Secretary-General's mission, which the United Nations has been attempting to send, should be received in Israel. We deplore the continuing cycle of violence described by the hon. Lady. It is our belief—a belief that I believe is held on both sides of the House—that no amount of military action against the Palestinians will suppress their desire for self-determination. The sooner the Israelis accept that, the more chance that there is of the two peoples living together in peace.
    Mr. Conway: Is my hon. Friend aware of some of the excellent work to help physically and mentally handicapped children that is going on in some of the Palestinian refugee camps? If he is not, will he take the opportunity to find out about it to see whether we can do more to help that work?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am aware of the work, and my right hon. Friend is up to date on it as he visited one of those projects. I saw other work of this kind when I was in Gaza. Like the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East and other countries, we support this valuable work. I particularly mention the work at St. John's eye hospital, which has become excellent in dealing with the kind of injuries suffered in such situations.

    Europe-USA Relations
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the United States Secretary of State to discuss European-American relations.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to meet Secretary Baker in November when they are due to sign a declaration on EC-United States relations at the CSCE summit in Paris.
    Mr. Brown: When the Foreign Secretary meets representatives of the American Government, will he discuss the question of burden sharing—something on which the Americans are quite keen—in the context of the Gulf crisis? Having discussed it with the Americans, will he then dicuss the same issue with his Cabinet colleagues and get from them some intervention in those parts of the country, particularly my constituency, where substantial contracts with Iraq have been lost as a result of sanctions and major redundancy rounds have ensued? This is a problem that affects the north-east and Scotland, but so far there has been no response about domestic burden-sharing from the British Government. When can we expect one?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right in one sense—the contribution that the United Kingdom has made to the international peace-keeping force in the Gulf is second only to that of the United States. We lose no opportunity to invite other like-minded Governments to make a contribution. The matter of what happens within the United Kingdom is not for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will the Government continue to remind the United States not only of the need for self-determination for the Palestinian people but of their right to have their own state?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already answered that question, and it would not be wise for me to add anything to what he has said.
    Mr. Beggs: When the Foreign Secretary meets the United States Secretary, will he take the opportunity to discuss the recent Dublin Supreme Court decision and the constitutional imperative under which Irish Governments are required to work for a united Ireland? Will he seek the support of the United States Secretary in asking the Irish Government to remove this territorial claim and thus enable compliance with the Helsinki agreement, thereby denying the IRA and terrorists any right to exist and operate?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The British Government lose no opportunity to make clear to the United States the seriousness that we attach to IRA terrorism. As to the

    331
    constitutional matter that the hon. Gentleman raised in connection with the Helsinki agreement, it would not be right for the United States to intervene in the constitution of a foreign state.
    Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend recall Winston Churchill's statement that the supreme fact of the 20th century is that Britain and America have marched together upon the basis of shared values" Does he further recall that at the time of the Gulf crisis on 2 August and in the following weeks it was Britain and America who stood together to prevent Saddam Hussein from taking up the position that he would undoubtedly hold at the moment, had he been allowed to do so—that is to be in Saudi Arabia? Does he further agree that the most important action that we have to take is to encourage our European partners to play a full part in making sure that we maintain peace in the middle east?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend that our alliance with the United States, through NATO, must remain the mainstay of our position. That does not run counter to our wish for a closer co-ordination of security and foreign policy within the Community. My hon. Friend, however, is absolutely right, that our relationship with the United States is crucial to the United Kingdom in terms of both defence and other matters.

    South Africa
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions, and with whom, he has had about policy towards South Africa; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I visited South Africa from 19 to 21 September and met a wide range of political figures, including both President de Klerk and Mr. Nelson Mandela. I was encouraged by the commitment I found on all sides to move speedily towards negotiations aimed at ending apartheid.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister support Nelson Mandela who warned the South African Government earlier today that unless the new South African constitution guarantees the right to vote for all black people in South Africa, the probability is that violence will continue and escalate? Will the Minister also support the efforts that are being made to arrange a meeting between Nelson Mandela and Chief Buthelezi, with a view to bringing an end to the continuing violence in the townships, where more than 700 people have been killed since the beginning of August?
    Mr. Waldegrave: On the first point, I found no one among the main-line politicians in South Africa who had any doubt whatever but that the constitution must be based on one man, one vote. The hon. Gentleman need have no fears on that score. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I strongly agree with him. When I was in South Africa I met the secretary-general of Inkatha and urged that such a meeting should take place. I hope that it takes place soon and that it leads to an end to the violence in the townships. We all want to see that.
    Mr. Hind: When my right hon. Friend holds discussions with representatives of other African front-line states will he emphasise to them that a great deal of the
    332
    fighting in the townships is on a tribal basis between two groups who in the long term are seeking to have power in a future democratic South Africa? Will he urge those representatives to look in depth at the problem and see what they can do to bring the two sides together to end the fighting in the townships and hasten the march towards a free democratic South Africa?
    Mr. Waldegrave: There is something in what my hon. Friend says, but it is a little more complex than that. A great deal of fighting is taking place between Zulus who are ANC members and Zulus who are Inkatha members. It is not, therefore, simply a tribal matter, although there is a tribal element to the fighting. Clearly, ruthless jockeying for political position is taking place.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister aware that a South African delegation that recently saw Foreign Office officials was peddled the dangerous and disastrous line that there is no role now to be played in South Africa by external forces and that it is all down to the people inside the country? Will the Minister deny that that is the Government's position? Does he accept that there is a strong role to be played by Governments outside South Africa and that pressure must be maintained on President de Klerk to move faster towards the negotiating table rather than delaying that move, as he appears to be doing now?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that it is the ANC which is having difficulty in keeping up with the pace of movement towards negotiation. As a result of meeting external organisation representatives who over the years have honourably put a great deal of hard work into supporting the abolition of apartheid, I have the very strong feeling that they are increasingly being left behind. They often come to see me urging points of view which they believe are held by the ANC but which have already been abandoned by the ANC. I must urge that the lead being taken by major politicians in South Africa, both black and white, should continue. It is the most optimistic thing of all about South Africa at present and represents the best hope for the future.
    Mr. John Carlisle: As my right hon. Friend once again expressed his disapproval of economic sanctions while he was in South Africa, will he now express the same disapproval of sports sanctions and boycotts? It is nonsense that although, with the full support of this side of the House, we rightly advocate the abandonment of economic sanctions, we still retain the sports boycott. When are we going to come out of the ridiculous Gleneagles agreement?
    Mr. Waldegrave: With respect my hon. Friend is perhaps making the mirror image of the mistake made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) as there are now senior ANC spokesmen saying that the abolition of the sporting boycott is coming near. It is better to leave the joint leadership being developed between the South African Government, Inkatha, the ANC, Azapo and others to tell us about the timing on some of these things. The ANC is moving well ahead of some of its alleged external supporters on this.

    Cambodia
    Mr. Alan Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Government of China to discuss the future of Cambodia.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed Cambodia with his Chinese colleague, Mr. Qian Qichen, at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 28 September.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Minister comment on continuing reports that the SAS is involved in training the Khmer Rouge to lay land mines in Cambodia? In view of the excellent reputation of John Pilger, the journalist who is making these reports, and the way he has spoken the truth about Cambodia for years, does the Minister realise that the public are horrified by the prospect that the British Government are supporting militarily the return of the Khmer Rouge?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The British Government have never given support or help of any kind to the Khmer Rouge.
    Mr. Winterton: Will my hon. Friend accept that it is time that the free civilised world entered into meaningful discussions directly with the Administration in Cambodia and stopped playing around with Prince Sihanouk and the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot? That man is a tyrant and must never be allowed to set foot in the capital of Cambodia again to do what he did to the people of that wonderful country.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That man was a cruel tyrant and we condemn him. I urge my hon. Friend to recognise the work of the five permanent members of the Security Council in their new initiatives and the formation of the supreme national council which has membership from all the different leading figures in Cambodia.
    Mr. Foulkes: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), will the Government make it clear to the Chinese Government and to the House that they will oppose the continued illegal representation of Pol Pot at the United Nations and any representative of any coalition which includes Pol Pot? Will they make it clear that in the foreign policy of the United Kingdom the genocide of the killing fields will never be forgotten?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Most certainly, the genocide of the killing fields will never be forgotten. The Cambodian seat at the United Nations is not at present occupied. The supreme national council is supported by the five permanent members of the Security Council and all the factions in Cambodia. That is the new initiative and it will be up to the supreme national council to appoint an ambassador to the United Nations.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the interests of the people of Cambodia are not best served by exaggerations and distortions which can appear in television programmes, and nor will they be served by the return of anything which included Pol Pot and the Khmer
    334
    Rouge? Does my hon. Friend agree also that the only part of Cambodia that has any sort of normal life now is that under the control of the Phnom Penh Government? Will he do what he can to ensure that the world community recognises that and pours into that part of the country the aid and investment that is so necessary?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Britain has committed up to £2 million worth of humanitarian aid to Cambodia. The new development quite different from what prevailed in earlier months of this year is the resolution of the United Nations permanent five—supported by the United Nations General Assembly, the Hun Sen Government and all the factions in Cambodia—to make progress in discussions to form the supreme national council. We should all be pushing for that because we all wish to see an end to the suffering in that country and for those wretched people to be able to live life in peace and determine their future.

    Germany
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings he has had with other Foreign Ministers regarding German reunification; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: On 12 September in Moscow, with his German, French, American and Russian colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs signed the treaty on the final settlement with respect to Germany. On 1 October in New York, they signed a declaration suspending four-power rights and responsibilities with effect from German unification on 3 October.
    We welcome the unification of Germany in peace and freedom. We will be working with the united Germany as a friend, ally and partner for the peace and prosperity of Europe and the wider world.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that it will not be lost on the British people, who are suffering from high interest rates, rocketing unemployment and a massive trade deficit, that in the next two years, in order to carry out the German takeover, not reunification, this lousy Tory Government are to hand out £32 million of taxpayers' money to bail out shipyards in East Germany while shutting down shipyards in Sunderland and Birkenhead? The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman's question was reached this afternoon as it enables me to offer him an apology for suggesting that his voting record in support of his party was not what it might be. Not only did he vote against the last Labour Government more than anyone else—he also had one of the highest voting records in their favour because of his consistent attendance in the House.
    As I explained to the hon. Gentleman on Friday, the cost of German unification to the United Kingdom this year will be nil, and next year it will be £32 million. That is considerably less than the British taxpayer has spent subsidising the coal industry over many years. I realise that he and many of his hon. Friends are unable to give unification the welcome that we can because they still aspire to a Trabant-owning autocracy.

Middle East
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on developments in the middle east since the emergency debate on 6 and 7 September.
In that debate, the House endorsed the Government's policy, which is that of virtually the entire international community: Saddam Hussein must leave Kuwait and the legitimate Government of Kuwait must be restored. Iraq must release our hostages.
Since the House met, at the United Nations we have applied growing pressure to Iraq. Negotiations are under way in New York for a further resolution to hold Iraq liable to pay compensation for the damage resulting from its actions, including the maltreatment of foreign nationals and property.
Sanctions have been enforced, in particular by the effective blockade by allied ships that are operating in the area. More than 100 ships from 12 countries are on constant patrol enforcing the embargo. The Royal Navy has challenged more than 1,100 vessels and has taken part in 10 boarding operations. The House will want to pay tribute to the courage and professionalism of the Royal Navy.
The United Nations must continue to tighten the screw of sanctions. We cannot relax our determination to ensure Saddam Hussein's complete and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait. Since the House met, there have been many more examples of his tyranny. All the available evidence suggests that, far from being under strict orders to behave with discipline in Kuwait, Iraq's soldiers have been allowed complete licence. The House will be aware that many Kuwaitis who have been able to escape their occupied country have testified to wanton destruction of property and to cruel and inhuman treatment of Kuwaiti citizens, including several murders carried out in front of wives and children, rape and torture. We must remind the Iraqis once again that at all levels of authority, whether they be military or civilian, they are personally responsible under the Geneva convention for illegal acts committed as occupiers in Kuwait.
In those circumstances, one of the first concerns must be the welfare of the 800 British people still in Iraq and of the substantial British community remaining in Kuwait. In Kuwait, our embassy—now one of the last to stay open—is staffed by the ambassador and one colleague. They will continue, through the warden system, to help Britons in Kuwait as long as that is physically and practically possible.
We welcome the release of British nationals in response to the humanitarian appeal by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). But I must add that I find it grisly and repulsive that the Iraqis should set about deciding who is so sick and who is so old that he or she should be released from a position in which no human being should ever be placed and in which hundreds of human beings remain. All our nationals—all foreign nationals—should be allowed to leave Iraq. I admire the courage of those of our people who are detained or hiding in Iraq and Kuwait and of their families here. Our embassies have helped to organise the
336
evacuation of more than 900 women and children and we are doing what we can to ensure that those who remain in Iraq have the money and comforts that they need.
The situation is particularly agonising for families here at home. We are working closely with the Gulf Support Group to provide as much help and information as we can. We cannot work miracles, but the staff in the Foreign Office and the staff at the embassy in Baghdad are working round the clock on these problems. Where complaints have been made, we are investigating them urgently, and where there is room for improvements, we are making those improvements as quickly as we can. We should not forget that the plight of these people—of our hostages—has been caused by Saddam Hussein. It is Saddam Hussein who is playing cat and mouse with them, and the British Government and this Parliament would not wish to be blackmailed.
On the other side of the question, the United States and Britain, in particular, moved fast immediately after the invasion of Kuwait to protect Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries from the threat of attack. Since then, a unique coalition of forces from 25 countries has been established in the Gulf. On 14 September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced the deployment of the 7th Armoured Brigade and of more Tornado aircraft. This will bring the total number of British service men committed to the Gulf to about 16,000.
I believe that President Hussein will seek to cling to the country that he has acquired by force, or perhaps to negotiate his way out so that he can claim some gain for his aggression. He has tried, and is trying, to sow disunity in the coalition ranged against him, with a variety of bogus peace plans, delaying tactics and smoke screens. One of them is his presentation of himself as the champion of the Palestinian cause. In fact, the Palestinian cause has been set back by Iraq's aggression and the credibility of the PLO has been damaged by its ambivalent—to put it politely—response to that aggression.
Some have suggested that Saddam Hussein should be persuaded to withdraw from Kuwait in exchange for an international conference on the middle east as a whole. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the other countries of the Gulf and the Government of Kuwait have all firmly rejected that suggestion—because Iraq's withdrawal must be complete and unconditional. Hon. Members and British Governments have long argued the urgent need to find a lasting settlement in the middle east—including the Arab-Israel dispute. Once Iraq is out of Kuwait, we must return to that issue. The policy of the British Government is clear. It has been restated today and was restated during my recent visit. It involves self-determination for the Palestinian people and the right of Israel to live in peace behind secure borders.
The killing of 21 Palestinians on the Dome of the Rock, or Temple Mount, on 8 October and the later murder of Israelis underlines the tragedy of the Arab-Israel dispute. The cycle of violence is now repeating itself. I hope that the Government of Israel may yet agree to accept the Secretary-General's mission to investigate those killings because to do otherwise would risk diverting the Security Council from what ought to be its main task—getting Iraq out of Kuwait—and will give Saddam Hussein a cause which he will exploit ruthlessly.
Our aim remains as it was when we debated the matter: Iraq's complete withdrawal from Kuwait and the restoration of Kuwait's legitimate Government. At a

337
meeting of the Kuwaiti ruling family and their people in Jeddah earlier this month, there was an impressive display of the loyalty of all Kuwaitis and of the unity which the crisis has produced. The Kuwaitis announced at the conference their intention, when the legitimate Government is restored, to implement in full the 1962 democratic constitution. Many will welcome that decision which was taken freely by Kuwaitis.
In the meantime, the pressures on Saddam Hussein remain diplomatic isolation, the economic blockade and the threat of forcible expulsion from Kuwait. Saddam Hussein has a simple choice—retreat or defeat. The Government and the House strongly hope that the restoration of Kuwait will be achieved without further bloodshed, but the daily destruction of Kuwait and the murder of its people continue. We are tightening the screw of the peaceful pressures, but we cannot shirk our part in the alternative course if that course finally becomes necessary.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I am glad that the Foreign Secretary confirms that the Government continue to share the objective that we in the Labour party also uphold: that all the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Kuwait must be implemented and that Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait unconditionally.
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the first of those resolutions, No. 660, provides for negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait to resolve their differences, but that those negotiations can take place only once Iraq has withdrawn unconditionally from Kuwait and the hostages have been unconditionally released? We are glad that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has been able to bring home some hostages with him from Baghdad. However, I share the Foreign Secretary's view that it is a degrading spectacle to witness Saddam Hussein haggling and bargaining over misery that he has created.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that unconditional withdrawal by Iraq from Kuwait does not mean partial withdrawal and cannot be conditional on a change of Government in a freed Kuwait? The internal government of Kuwait is a matter for the Kuwaiti people and we welcome the indication of greater democracy in a free Kuwait.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is our objective that sanctions should achieve the liberation of Kuwait, with force an option to be invoked by the international community only if there is clear evidence over a sufficient period that sanctions cannot achieve that United Nations objective? Will he confirm that there should be clear United Nations authority if force was to be invoked and that that authority must be obvious not simply to legalists invoking article 51 of the United Nations charter, but to the judgment of the world community? In that connection, will the Secretary of State explain what he meant on BBC radio on Sunday when he said in connection with the possible invocation of article 51:
"We have requests from the Government of Kuwait"?
It is important that the Secretary of State clarifies what he meant by those words.
Will the Foreign Secretary, on behalf of the United Kingdom in the Security Council, lay stress on the
338
implementation of existing resolutions rather than be tempted to pursue distractions such as war crimes trials, which are neither relevant nor pertinent at this stage?
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that I do not join those who criticise him for having gone to Israel, as I believe that it is essential that all possible efforts be made to resolve this tragic and increasingly lethal conflict? The Opposition condemn the shootings by Israeli security forces on Temple Mount the week before last. We deplore the killing of other Palestinians and also of Israelis in recent weeks. Did the Secretary of State tell the Israeli Government that the use of live ammunition to deal with disturbances is not only wrong, but, as the former Labour Prime Minister and Defence Minister, Mr. Rabin, has said, ineffectual as a means of quelling such disturbances? Will the Secretary of State continue to emphasise that, if others are expected to observe Security Council resolutions, Israel cannot ignore them?
Did the Secretary of State meet leaders of the Israeli Labour party? They represent the other Israel—the Israel that advocates receiving the Secretary-General's mission, the Israel that wants to talk to the Palestinians and to trade land for peace, and the Israel that accepts that the Palestinians must have the right of self-determination and that that right does not exclude a state.
The Secretary of State says that he was misrepresented in Israel about this attitude to a Palestinian state. Will he therefore take this opportunity, which he did not take in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) at Question Time, to state with the utmost clarity the Government's attitude on a Palestinian state? Does self-determination include or exclude the right of the Palestinians to choose a state?
Will the Foreign Secretary endorse the wise words yesterday of Teddy Kollek, the Labour mayor of Jerusalem? He said that security and peace can come about only through peace negotiations. Mr. Kollek declared:
"When there is not even a faint light at the end of the tunnel, there is despair."
Finally, does the Foreign Secretary agree that everyone killed in Israel and the occupied territories—Arab and Jew, Israeli and Palestinian—is paying the unacceptable price of the failure to advance the peace process, and that anyone who refuses to participate in that peace process must accept a share of responsibility for those deaths?
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. He stated exactly the position that we all take. It is a great strength to our foreign policy and to the Foreign Secretary that, on all the basics throughout these anxious months, there has been a degree of national consensus. I confirm in particular that partial withdrawal, such as is floated from time to time, perhaps through misinformation from the Iraqis or by people of misguided goodwill, is not acceptable.
I confirm also that our aim is to increase pressures, including the pressure of sanctions, and to review the effect of those pressures before there is any question of the military option, the existence and importance of which the right hon. Gentleman also endorsed.
On 6 and 7 September we discussed the legal position. The right hon. Gentleman asked me not to dwell on that, so I will not, except to say that we are satisfied that the combination of article 51 and the repeated appeals for help which we have had from the Government of Kuwait would provide an adequate legal basis. If it were decided that the

339
military option was inevitable, how that would be implemented and what the timings and procedures would be is obviously not decided. But, as I said, I believe, in September, and as the Leader of the Opposition confirmed then, it would be important to do it in a way that maximised the support that the international community and the coalition that I have mentioned are giving to the enterprise against aggression. Meanwhile, we want to increase the peaceful pressures to ratchet up the strength of the Security Council resolutions. We are considering a new one, as I said.
The point about the individual responsibility of Iraqi officials and officers for acts that they may be ordered to carry out is important, and should not be lost sight of, as the matter is considered.
It was right to go to Israel. One of the things that I discovered there was the strong feeling in Israel that too many people neglected to visit the country as they swung around the middle east. I had an awkward and difficult time last Wednesday, for reasons that have been amply but not always accurately described. I was able to achieve a serviceable relationship with Israeli Ministers of a kind which I have not had before, but I was unable to balance that, as I hoped, with listening to the views of authoritative and respected Palestinian leaders. I met Mr. Peres who, as always, spoke as a wise Leader of the Opposition. I realised again that there is a healthy debate in Israel on matters that perplex us and make us anxious here, including the nature of the regime in the occupied territories.
We believe in the right to Palestinian self-determination, as I have stated for some time. We have never advocated a specific outcome and we have never specifically advocated a Palestinian state, as opposed to other outcomes that are conceivable and have been canvassed, such as a confederal link with Jordan. It is not for us to specify that. We say that that right exists and will have to be respected as part of a comprehensive and negotiated settlement, which must also include provision for the security of Israel.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's last point. After the killings in Jerusalem and the renewed cycle of violence, it is unfortunately inevitable that the Security Council will need and will be determined to devote time to this matter in the remaining days of our presidency of the Security Council and thereafter. It will be necessary for the Security Council to deal with both those issues in tandem for the time being. We must riot allow the international community to forget that anyone who is seriously interested in peace and tranquillity in the middle east must place the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait at the top of the agenda.
Several hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that we have two other statements this afternoon and an important debate on European legislation. I propose to allow questions on this statement to continue until 4.20 pm. I shall not call today those right hon. and hon. Members who spoke in the emergency debate, but shall give precedence to the 56 hon. Members who were unable to be called on that occasion. It would help me if hon. Members who were called to speak in the emergency debate did not rise now.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend take his mind to the situation that might exist if the United Nations resolutions were acted upon? A leader who would have feelings against the west and against America and who would probably be willing to use atomic weapons as a bargaining counter in the years ahead would be unsatisfactory for peace in the middle east. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way of bringing Iraq back into the international concomitance of nations would be a major change of regime within Iraq——
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
Sir Peter Emery:—and that the people of Iraq should consider that most carefully?
Mr. Hurd: They may well consider that, but it is riot a matter on which we can be decisive. My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that even if Saddam Hussein or Iraq were to comply fully with the Security Council resolutions, we would not have solved all the problems, and that when considering matters such as the retention of sanctions and the retention of forces, we would have to take into account the dangers that my hon. Friend has described.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that some misguided people are coming close to awarding medals to Saddam Hussein for releasing some of the hostages, whom he should never have seized in the first place? Is not it intolerable that people should suggest negotiations about territory that was seized illegally?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with both the right hon. Gentleman's points, which he put clearly.
Mr. Michael Jopling: As a result of Iraq giving away overnight to Iran all the things over which they fought wars for years and lost hundreds of thousands of lives, is my right hon. Friend certain in his mind that the border between Iran and Iraq will not become an area of sanctions busting?
Mr. Hurd: I discussed this with the Iranian Foreign Minister in New York who said, realistically, that there will always be a certain amount of traffic over those mountains. It is clearly not in Iran's interests that Saddam Hussein should succeed in this adventure. It is in Iran's interests that the adventure should be checked and reversed, and I believe that Iran will act accordingly.
Mr. James Lamond: The Foreign Secretary has spoken throughout his statement of the necessity for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, but he has not gone as far as several others in his party, including the Prime Minister, who have said that it is also necessary to destroy Iraq's nuclear weapons bases, chemical weapons and biological weapons. Has that part of the determination been dropped? How would we carry that out if Iraq withdrew from Kuwait?
Mr. Hurd: Our commitment is to the three requirements of the Security Council, which the Prime Minister and I have often enumerated. I have already dealt, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), with the situation that would arise and the steps that would have to be taken if the three requirements were peacefully accepted by Saddam Hussein. Even if that happened there would remain a job ahead of us.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one weapon that may have been underdeployed so far in the area is the weapon of information? Has he observed the reports that some Iraqi soldiers appeared to think that hostages were there as volunteers? The lack of information appears to go right to the top. The leadership of Iraq may underestimate the determination of the allies to use force if necessary. Therefore, will he work with the BBC and other such news agencies, which have a unique integrity throughout the world, to see whether more can be done to promote truths in the area in the right languages?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are doing precisely that. We are also working with friendly Arab Governments. When I went to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and when I discussed these matters again with the Kuwaiti Foreign Minister, I stressed exactly my hon. Friend's points. It is particularly important that Kuwaitis should bear witness to what is happening in Kuwait. I do not know about the House, but British people do not seem to have absorbed the nature of the horrors taking place in Kuwait. It would come best from eye witnesses and from Kuwaitis, with whom we are in touch. The Kuwaitis are conscious of the need to put the information across to us and to their Arab brethren.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Is the Secretary of State fully aware that there are now almost 500,000 Iraqi and allied service men in the region and that there is a high risk of accident and possible action? Is he satisfied that the rules of engagement are strictly understood, bearing it in mind that engagement might be the final option, and the subject of a determined decision by the forces' commanders? To what extent does he see signals that give more hope that sanctions are beginning to work?
Mr. Hurd: The rules of engagement are always important, for the reason that the hon. Gentleman stated. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues in other countries are working the matter out satisfactorily.
Sanctions are creating shortages. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the announcement about petrol rationing. Shortages are building up. I cannot say that those shortages will be decisive in the short term. However, the sanctions have been effective in the sense that the oil trade has stopped. I gave the figures for the Royal Navy. Other trade is down. Sanctions are effective and shortages will build up. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman at what stage they are likely to be decisive.
Sir Giles Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the extremely vulnerable yet crucial position of Jordan in the particular problems of the Gulf? Is he satisfied that there is sufficient support for the Hashemite monarchy to remain a staunch ally of the west as it has been for many years? Would he care to comment on the risk should the mob in the streets take over and Saddam be invited in?
Mr. Hurd: That has caused us a great deal of anxiety for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave. The Jordanian Government are making strenuous efforts to enforce sanctions. I believe that they accept and impress upon the Iraqis the need for Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. There is a great deal of misunderstanding and, indeed, bitterness between Jordan and the Arab states in the coalition
342
against the aggression. However, I believe that the two facts that I stated were accurate. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is hard to imagine anyone ruling Jordan better and more effectively than King Hussein does.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Foreign Secretary has provided us with a welcome opportunity to reaffirm the determination of the British people that the withdrawal from Kuwait by Iraq must be complete and unconditional. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the unanimity of view expressed by the international community in the resolutions of the Security Council is the most hopeful development for peace as it can betoken further healthy developments in the middle east?
Although the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right to emphasise the primacy of the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait, the Palestinian question is also a proper subject for the attention of that international consensual approach.
Can the right hon. Gentleman also report to the House on the visit of the Russian spokesman, Mr. Primakov, to Baghdad? Has he had any helpful information on the progress of those discussions?
Mr. Hurd: I agree that the coming together of the Security Council, particularly of the permanent members, offers a more general hope for the future. We want to keep that unity going on one subject after another, provided that that is realistic.
Mr. Primakov has spoken to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about his visit to Baghdad and also spoke to me about it on Saturday. The Soviet Union respects sanctions and its Government have spoken clearly and strenuously to the Iraqi Government about the need for withdrawal. There is no ambiguity about Mr. Primakov's stand on either matter.
Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that outside this House the public fear that the western nations are losing the propaganda war? Saddam Hussein has freed 33 very sick and old hostages, or what I would call prisoners, but as he holds about 10,000 people, that is scarcely an achievement about which we can be proud.
My right hon. Friend has spoken of the terrible tragedies that have occurred in Kuwait and one must ask what type of Kuwait we shall liberate. Will it be back to the desert? Will the Iraqis have scattered everyone and taken advantage of the weakness in the west to face up to responsibilities?
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
Mr. Hill: We must know from my right hon. Friend how long he believes that it will take the sanctions to bite so that Saddam Hussein capitulates.
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point and that is why I commented as I did earlier on the release of the hostages and the promised release of French hostages, about which we heard this morning.
My hon. Friend will be aware that our Government, together with the President of the United States and all his allies, must keep under review the working of sanctions. We must make a judgment about whether those and the other peaceful pressures will be effective or whether we

343
must have recourse to the alternative. It is neither possible nor sensible to start setting deadlines for that—one must exercise continual judgment.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Why is there such a transparent contrast between the immediate condemnation of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, which has resulted in 25 countries sending their armies to that region so that the force now totals a quarter of a million men and women, and the passive acceptance of the occupation of Jerusalem, the west bank and the Gaza strip for 23 years? In the past three years alone more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed and tens of thousands have been injured. How is it that, after all that, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has sent only three assistants from his office to inquire into such matters? Could it just be that the difference is that the Palestinians have no oil?
Mr. Hurd: The difference is that the two matters are different. Kuwait is occupied by Iraq as a result of an Iraqi act of aggression against Kuwait. The occupied territories are occupied by Israel as a result of an attack upon Israel. The occupation is wrong and does not provide a basis for Israel's legitimate request for security. However, the historical background is different and the Security Council resolutions are different.
In the case of the Arab-Israel question, when the suitable time comes we must reconcile the two things that arise out of geography and history, but for now we must get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. In the future, however, we must reconcile the rights of the Palestinians, which the hon. Gentleman rightly champions, with the natural anxieties of Israel for security that arise from her geography and history.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: While not seeking to make the same mistake as the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, (Mr. Nellist), may I say to my right hon. Friend that many of us would like the Israeli Government to realise how many friends they have lost during the past few years? Will he take every possible opportunity to impress on the ambassador here and the Government there that they can help to isolate this madman Hussein by acting honourably with regard to the Palestinians?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a matter of wisdom, which would involve some flexibility in the attitude of the Israeli Government, for example to the Secretary-General's decision to send a mission. I hope that that wisdom and flexibility will appear.
Mr. Bernie Grant: What is happening with regard to the United Nations' inquiry? We know that it is not going into Israel because that Government will not co-operate, but will the Foreign Secretary say whether there will be an inquiry? I ask that question because I am aware that a party of 16 black social workers, lawyers and others witnessed the shootings at Temple Mount. They have film and recordings of it and would like to submit them to the United Nations' inquiry.
Mr. Hurd: They should do so, because whether or not the Secretary-General's mission gains entry to Israel, he will certainly wish to present a report to the Security Council. Discussions and ideas about how representatives of the Secretary-General might visit Israel are still going
344
the rounds, so the idea is not a lost cause, which is why I made my appeal. The hon. Gentleman should advise his friends to submit their evidence to the Secretary-General.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Will my right hon. Friend tell us something about the measures that have been taken in relation to the financial aspect of sanctions? At the beginning of the debate on this subject reference was made to the importance that we all attach to ensuring that Iraq does not gain financially, and that credit and other financial measures are withdrawn from Iraq. What international co-ordination has there been to ensure that Iraq is totally cut off financially?
Mr. Hurd: I believe that the stringent financial measures are effective and right across the world, particulary in the financial centres, Iraqi accounts are frozen. She does not have access to foreign reserves or other resources, although she took a certain amount from Kuwait which is keeping her going for the time being. If my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member has evidence of attempts by financiers of any kind to get through the regulations I hope that they will let us or the United Nations sanctions committee know.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to place on record the praise of the House for the humanitarian and generous way in which the kingdom of Saudi Arabia has responded to the plight of Kuwaitis forced to flee from their country by providing free accommodation, food and clothing for them? Those of us who met the Association for Free Kuwait yesterday were told by its members that it was impossible to find adequate words to thank the Saudis for their help. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when Kuwait is finally restored to the Kuwaiti people it will, through punitive reparations on Saddam Hussein, be in the same physical state as it was before the invasion?
Mr. Hurd: That second point is the main reason why we are pressing ahead at the United Nations with the specific draft resolution on compensation. I agree with my hon. Friend's first point and saw evidence of it when I visited the Kuwaitis in Taif last month. The Saudis are practising the genuine version of Arab hospitality as compared with the ghastly distortion of it practised by Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that some—albeit a minority of us—in the Labour party are, quite simply, dismayed at his statement? Supposing military victory were attained, what would happen in the long term, after thousands of casualties and the oil fields burning from Basra to Kirkuk? What long-term assessment has been made of the number of casualties and of the effect in the rest of the Arab world, not least in Egypt, if blood were spilled? Some of us are profoundly unhappy, and frankly think that there should be diplomacy and talking and that peace plans should not be dismissed as necessarily bogus.
Mr. Hurd: Diplomacy and talking have been going on for some time, and I suppose that I am in charge of that on behalf of Britain. It is crucial to build up the peaceful pressures, a lot of which is diplomacy and talking, to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, and there is still a possibility that that will happen, provided that among those peaceful pressures is the knowledge that if he does not go in peace, he will be forced out. The hon. Gentleman

345
would take away that certainty. He is blurring it, and if he were to blur it from a position of authority, such as that of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), he would be diminishing the peaceful pressures on Saddam Hussein, which he does not want to do. I put this point seriously to a serious intervention. It is important that there should be a growing certainty in Saddam Hussein's mind that, one way or the other, it is either retreat or defeat; either he goes in peace or he is forced out.
Of course, the military option would bring destruction, dislocation and suffering, but the hon. Gentleman is not facing the alternative, which is to allow a simple, clear act of aggression to prevail and the aggressor to benefit from it. Behind all his talk, that is what he is prepared to contemplate. That is not safe. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Egypt, but if he talked to President Mubarak about that exact point, as I did last week, he would find that the President of Egypt's view is my view, not his.
Mr. Harry Barnes: How close are we to war in the middle east? What will be the military and political consequences, and what estimates have been made of the potential loss of human life, if such a war takes place? If it was unseemly for Saddam Hussein to haggle about hostages, will the Minister at least grant that it was as not unseemly for the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to haggle, because he achieved something?
Mr. Hurd: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I made my statement, but I did cover that point. It is not possible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence or for me to give specific estimates of what the course or consequence of the military option might be. I have stated the general considerations and why it is clear in my mind, and that of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), that the military option cannot be discounted. It exists—it must exist in reality—and that fact is a crucial part of the peaceful pressures to reverse the aggression.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend accept that all the forces in Saudi Arabia are on a high level of alert because there is no assurance that Iraq will not invade? If my right hon. Friend were to respond to the call from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) by telling Saddam Hussein that we would not use military aggression against him until we had gone back to the United Nations, would not that allow the Iraqi forces to relax until such a resolution was passed by the United Nations?
Mr. Hurd: I have been careful to give no such assurance, as my hon. Friend knows. He is right to say that all the forces in the Gulf have to be in a high state of readiness. The immediate danger which existed in early August of a further attack on Saudi Arabia is now, obviously, less likely, but one cannot rule out any action by this man.
Mr. Ian McCartney: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets members of the Kuwaiti royal family, will he obtain from them a commitment that the children who were illegally adopted by Kuwaiti citizens before Iraq's occupation of Kuwait will be returned?
346
Although they are small in number, and appear to have been forgotten about, the mothers of those children are distraught because they see no hope, even after the Kuwaiti Government has been re-established, of their children being returned to Britain. Will the Secretary of State secure a commitment from the Kuwaiti royal family that one of their first actions, in return for freedom being restored to their country, will be to return British children who were illegally adopted by Kuwaiti citizens before the invasion?
Mr. Hurd: I am not familiar with the situation to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he has not already written to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I shall be grateful if he will do so.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Since full and effective enforcement of the economic embargo is important in achieving a satisfactory outcome to the crisis in the foreseeable future, and as front-line states such as Jordan, Egypt and Turkey are vital to that purpose, can my right hon. Friend bring the House up to date on the further steps taken, notably by Japan and Germany, to increase financial contributions to the front-line states, to which such support is vital if they are to play an effective part in applying economic embargoes?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right. On 1 October, the European Community decided to make provision from the 1990–91 budget for 1·5 billion ecu of support for Egypt, Turkey and Jordan—always provided that Jordan continues to make strenuous efforts to apply sanctions. I expect that additionally Germany will make an individual contribution. It has already announced that it will. When I visited Japan, I urged that country's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister to do more, and a few days later they announced a doubling of Japan's contribution. Germany and Japan are barred by law from sending ships, aircraft or men,, but are now making substantial financial contributions.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Many of my Bangladeshi constituents have relatives who fled Kuwait, and who are now destitute in transit camps on the Jordanian and Turkish border. Has the Secretary of State visited those camps, and are there any plans to aid the people who remain in them? My Bangladeshi constituents feel that all the attention has centred on European refugees and that their relatives are being ignored.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady's constituents may have that impression, but it is not an accurate one. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, at my invitation, visited the frontier and the camps a few weeks ago. Britain was among the first to give help—particularly to the International Office of Migration, which has been co-ordinating flights out of Jordan of the refugees to which the hon. Lady referred. A substantially smaller number of refugees remain, and the movement of people homeward to countries such as Bangladesh has been speedy. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the burden of Saddam Hussein's aggression on Bangladesh and other poor countries is very great.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his skilful and robust handling of the crisis, which has greatly enhanced our country's standing in that important part of the world.

347
Although I appreciate that my right hon. Friend cannot set a timetable for how long it will be before economic sanctions are deemed ineffective and the military option will have to be exercised, he will be aware of the high state of readiness of British forces in the Gulf—whom I and a number of my hon. Friends have visited. Does he agree that the situation cannot be allowed to drag on, and that, although Saddam Hussein must be given the shortest possible time to do the right thing, we must then exercise the military option?
Mr. Hurd: I agree that the situation cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely, which is why the President of the United States and the British Government, among others, will have to take stock of the effectiveness of the peaceful pressures to which I referred and then take a decision, which will not be easy. Nevertheless, it is not a decision that can be shirked.
Mr. Paul Flynn: How does the Secretary of State react to the evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed terrifying weapons against which our allies have no defence? I refer to the fuel air explosive weapon, whose effect has been described as being as devastating as that of a small-scale nuclear weapon, and to biological weapons whose effects cannot be confined to the battlefield and will continue for decades. Will he investigate as a matter of urgency whether the assistance given by China in supplying lithium hydride to Iraq, by the firm of lndustrias Cadoen in Chile, which has been helping Iraq with the FAE weapon, by our country, by Holland and by Germany has finally come to an end, and assure us that, when the crisis is over, he will make it a main plank of his new campaign to build a new world order to try to banish these terrifying weapons from the face of the earth?
Mr. Hurd: We take this very seriously and we follow up all reports such as the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. He will know of the precautions that have been taken in this respect. He will also have heard the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who tackled me on this in a more general way in the first supplementary question on this statement.
Supposing that Saddam Hussein complied with the three existing Security Council resolutions, withdrew from Kuwait, let the hostages go and restored the Kuwaiti Government, we should still have a problem on our hands.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that it has not been possible to call all hon. Members who have been rising, but I think that every one of them was called during Question Time——
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Not my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan).
Mr. Speaker: He was called on Question 16 and also in the emergency debate. We shall undoubtedly return to this subject.

Social Security Benefits (Uprating)
4.21 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the uprating of social security benefits. This will take place for most benefits in the first full week of the tax year—that is to say, the week beginning 8 April. The necessary statutory instruments applying both to Great Britain and Northern Ireland will in due course be laid before the House for debate.
As is customary, I will deal first with the main national insurance benefits, including most notably the retirement pension which now goes to some 10 million people. The basis for the uprating is the latest available figure for the increase in the retail prices index: the 10·9 per cent. rise recorded for the year to September 1990.
The retirement pension will accordingly rise by £5·10 per week for a single person, from £46·90 to £52, and by £8·15 per week for a couple from £75·10 to £83·25. This increase alone will cost about £2·3 billion, underlining once again our clear and continuing commitment to maintaining the pension's value.
Unemployment benefit will rise from £37·35 to £41·40 for a single person and from £60·40 to £66·95 for a couple; and sickness benefit from £35·70 to £39·60 for a single person and from £57·80 to £64·10 for a couple.
National insurance invalidity benefit will go up in line with the retirement pension. There will also be a 10·9 per cent. increase in all other non-income-related benefits for disabled people or those who are sick for a long period—severe disablement allowance, industrial injuries benefits, war disablement pensions, invalid care allowance, mobility allowance and attendance allowance. The 615,000 people now receiving mobility allowance will see it rise by nearly £3 per week, to £29·10. For the 750,000 people now receiving attendance allowance, there will be an increase of £2·75, to £27·80 in the lower rate, and of over £4, to £41·65 in the higher rate.
The age-related additions known as invalidity allowances, currently confined to those receiving invalidity benefit but being extended in December to give up to £10 per week extra to some 100,000 people receiving the non-contributory severe disablement allowance, will rise further in April to a maximum of £11·10.
Similarly, 10·9 per cent. increases will take place in widows pensions including widowed mothers allowance, war pensions, and all public service pensions, together with the special Ministry of Defence payment to the pre-1973 war widows, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will raise from £40 to £44·36 per week.
For the income-related benefits—income support, housing benefit, community charge benefit and family credit—the uprating will be based, again as usual, on the RPI less housing costs. This is because, for those receiving these benefits, help with rent is available through housing benefit or help with mortgage interest through income support itself.
This index rose by 8·1 per cent. in the year to September 1990, and the relevant benefit rates, with one exception to which I will come later, will go up accordingly. Thus, income support for a single person under 25 will go from £28·80 to £31·15, the rate for an older single person from £36·70 to £39·65, and the higher pensioner premium from

349
£17·05 to £18·45. For a family on income support with two children aged 10 and 12, benefit will rise by £7·75 per week to £103·30, plus full mortgage interest if they have been on benefit for more than 16 weeks, or full rent if they are tenants, and 80 per cent. of their community charge.
As the House is aware, statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay are both paid through employers. The link between the two schemes is frankly somewhat artificial, resting more on considerations of administrative convenience than on consistency in either structure or purpose. I have concluded that the sensible development of policy in both fields would now be better served by treating them separately.
First, I propose to build on the restructuring of SSP undertaken last year, taking account of the considerations that I outlined to the House at that time. Occupational sick pay schemes have grown to such an extent that more than 90 per cent. of the work force now work for employers providing this cover, reflecting what is in my view a proper acceptance by employers of a much greater responsibility to cover short-term sickness among their employees. This in turn means that, for the great majority of those in work, the rates of SSP bear little or no relation to the amount that they actually receive when sick. In those circumstances, it is better for additional resources from the taxpayer to be concentrated more clearly on those least likely to have occupational provision, or in other areas of social security for which employers cannot be expected to provide.
Therefore, I propose to uprate fully, from £39·25 to £43·50, the lower of the two SSP rates, which goes to the lower-paid employees who are generally less likely to be covered by occupational schemes to extend the coverage of this rate across the whole range of earnings bands within which employers pay lower rates of contributions, which currently covers employees earning less than £175 a week, and to leave the higher rate of SSP unchanged at £52·50. These changes will reduce expenditure by about £100 million in 1991–92, while fully protecting the lower-paid and with little or no effect for the great majority of others.
I intend also to adjust the arrangements under which employers are fully reimbursed, by deduction from their remittances of national insurance contributions, for the whole of their expenditure on SSP plus an amount to cover payments of such contributions on SSP itself. I propose instead to move to 80 per cent. reimbursement. This will reduce public expenditure in this area by about £180 million in 1991–92, in addition to the £100 million to which I have just referred. At the same time, however, I propose to make some offsetting reductions in the rates of employers' national insurance contributions. Full details will be given in the normal statement about contributions which is made at the time of the Chancellor's autumn statement, but I can say now that my intention is to reduce each of the lower rates—those which currently apply in respect of employees earning up to £175—by at least one quarter of a per cent. and to reduce the standard rate by 0·05 per cent. These changes will reduce employers' contributions by over £200 million, and take account also of the compensation employers currently receive for contributions paid on SSP itself. They will go a considerable way in helping employers, particularly
350
smaller employers who tend to have lower-paid employees, to meet any extra costs which might otherwise arise from the new arrangements. Legislation will be required.
The arrangements for statutory maternity pay, where occupational cover is very much less extensive, will be left entirely unchanged except for any minor modifications needed in consequence of the separation from SSP. That separation, however, enables me to go further on the standard rate of statutory maternity pay than I have proposed for SSP. I intend not only to increase it by the RPI, which would take it from £39·25 to £43·50, but by a further £1 a week to £44·50. An additional £1 will also be added to the national insurance maternity allowance, taking it from £35·70 to £40·60 instead of the £3960 which an RPI uprating alone would have indicated. There will thus be a real increase in benefit for some 315,000 mothers-to-be in the course of a year, at a cost of about £5 million
.
Apart from this increase in maternity pay, my proposals on SSP, which I believe strike a sensible new balance in the partnership between the state and employers which has developed in this field, open the way to a number of other important improvements, both small and large.
In turning to those improvements, I should make one point clearly to the House—that support for families does not relate only to families with children, important though that is. It must acknowledge responsibilities towards the old as well as the young, and not least the particular pressures that families can face arising from disability, or the need for special care. In framing my proposals I have sought to take account of all those strands.
I come first to the needs of disabled people and their carers. We are already carrying through the major programme described in my uprating statement last year. Last April we made real increases in the disability premiums in income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit, including in particular those for children, extended mobility allowance to the deaf-blind, and extended attendance allowance to disabled babies under two. This month we have introduced a carers' premium in the income-related benefits, and extended attendance allowance to meet the special needs of the terminally ill. In December we shall make the increases in severe disablement allowance to which I have already referred, and we are preparing new benefits for introduction in 1992 to help those disabled people who wish to work and further to extend help with disability costs.
Against that background, I cannot of course propose today further measures on the same scale, but what I can and will do is to make five more specific improvements particularly directed at the needs of some of the most severely disabled people and their carers.
The independent living fund, now providing extra help—averaging £74 per week but in some cases several hundred pounds a week—to some 6,000 severely disabled people in the community, will have its resources nearly doubled to £62 million next year. It will thus have risen twelvefold, from an initial £5 million, in only three years.
We shall make an additional grant to Motability of £1 million per year to enhance the assistance that it can give with the expensive adaptation of cars which severely disabled people often need.
I intend, too, to modify the mobility allowance regulations to help those particularly unfortunate people

351
who suffer the amputation of both legs. The House will be aware of two recent cases—Mrs. Sandra Stones in Durham and Sergeant Andy Mudd in Colchester—where either mobility allowance was withdrawn or doubt was cast on continuing entitlement. While cases in doubt may be resolved by review or appeal, as I am glad to say has already happened in the case of Sergeant Mudd, we ought to do everything possible to avoid this sort of uncertainty and the distress that it can cause. I therefore propose an amendment to put the payment of mobility allowance in such cases beyond doubt.
I propose also two further useful improvements for carers. The amount which can be earned without affecting entitlement to invalid care allowance, increased last year from £12 to £20 per week, will in April go up by a further 50 per cent. to £30 per week. I intend to provide that the carers' premium, just introduced in income support, which as things stand would cease immediately on the death of the person being cared for, can continue to be paid for up to eight weeks thereafter.
With regard to pensioners, as I have said on a number of occasions in the House and elsewhere, in welcoming the rise in pensioners' real average net incomes which has taken place as a result of the spread of occupational and personal pensions and the growth of savings, we must not overlook those who have not yet gained from those trends. I therefore propose to make this year a real increase in the basic pensioner premium for those aged 60 to 74 in income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit, which will go up by £1 per week more for a single pensioner, and £1·50 more for a couple, than in a straightforward uprating. It will thus rise by £1·95 from £11·80 to £13·75 for a single pensioner and by £2·95 from £17·95 to £20·90 for a couple, contributing to total increases of £4·90 and £7·60 respectively in their income support.
This will cost nearly £80 million. It will assist some 400,000 pensioners directly through income support, and well over 1·5 million through housing benefit and community charge benefit. Taken together with the premium increases for the older and more disabled pensioners which took place in October 1989, it means that over 18 months there will have been a real increase in every one of the premiums applying to around 6 million less well-off pensioners, at a total cost of about £300 million.
I am making a major upward adjustment in income support in a field which brings together the interests of both elderly and disabled people and the families to which they belong—the limits relating to residential care and nursing homes.
The survey of costs we commissioned from Price Waterhouse to give us additional information in this field is being placed in the Library today. In brief, it shows that, while the limits for residential care are reasonably close to median costs across the country, those for nursing homes are significantly too low; but it does not provide evidence of a sufficiently clear pattern of geographical variation, except for Greater London, to justify the introduction of further such variations at this stage.
What I now propose takes account both of the Price Waterhouse results and of the many other representations to us by voluntary and charitable bodies and organisations of home owners, as well as by many hon. Members on behalf of their constituents.
For residential care, the basic limit will rise by £5 per week to £160. There will be larger increases of £15 to £185
352
per week for the category covering the very dependent and blind elderly, which includes, for example, Alzheimer's disease cases; and for those covering mentally handicapped, mentally ill and physically disabled people.
For nursing homes, the increases will be much larger—£45 per week, bringing the total to £255 per week, for the main category catering for the elderly, and also for the mentally ill; an increase of £35, bringing the total to £260 per week, for the mentally handicapped; and an increase of £35, bringing the total to £290 a week, for the physically disabled. On this occasion, the increase for terminal illness homes will be somewhat smaller, an increase of £15, bringing the total to £275 a week, taking account of the fact that this type of home received the largest increases last year, that the distinction between these homes and others is becoming increasingly artificial, and that voluntary hospices—many of which do not seek to make use of income support anyway—are now receiving extra financial help specially geared to their needs under the arrangements introduced this year by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Additionally, I propose to introduce a special further nursing home supplement in Greater London to take it from £23 to £33 per week. Thus for an ordinary nursing home in Greater London the overall increase will be £55 per week.
The total cost of the increases will be some £225 million. Together with those made in April and August this year, income support expenditure on those in homes will have risen by more than £400 million per year in quite a short period—over and above the more than £1 billion that it had already reached by the end of March this year.
As the House knows, pending the changes now planned for 1993, the income support limits in this field are, and always have been, designed to help towards not only income maintenance but also housing and care costs. It has never been the intention, nor is it sensible, that in the generality of cases housing benefit itself should be available as an alternative to income support. An anomaly exists in the regulations, which has enabled such claims to be made, and in the light of the large increases in limits which I have announced, I intend to consult on amendments to re-establish the policy intention more clearly.
Last, but not least, I intend to make an increase in child benefit, which is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support. It will not, however, surprise the House, in view of what I said earlier about considering the needs of families more broadly and the major improvements that I have just announced, that I am not able simply to uprate it across the board, which would have a gross cost of some £500 million and a net cost of some £380 million.
In fulfilling my statutory duty of review, I have therefore looked not only at whether there should be an increase but at the form it should take to make the most effective use of the resources that I am able to make available. I have concluded that the right course this year is to make an increase which gives a worthwhile amount to all mothers, and which will be particularly welcome to new mothers because it recognises that for the great majority of parents the arrival of the first child has much the largest impact on their finances, not only because of the initial costs that they incur but because, in a world where the great majority of women work while they are childless but where most feel it necessary or right to give up work, or to

353
work less, for some considerable time thereafter, it is frequently associated with a sharp reduction in the family income.
I therefore propose this year an increase which acknowledges that fact by making an additional payment for the first or eldest eligible child of £1 per week, normally payable to the mother, of course, and in addition to the continued payment of £7·25 per week for each child. As it will go to every family, and will be larger than a retail prices index increase in one-parent benefit—itself, indeed, defined as a payment for the first or eldest child—would have been, I do not propose on this occasion to increase that benefit as well.
The measure will complement what we have already done in recent years to steer some £350 million of real extra help to low-income families through income support and family credit. It will give an extra £1 per week in child benefit to every mother in nearly 7 million families, at a gross cost of more than £350 million and a net cost of £260 million.
By choosing what I believe to be sensible priorities, I have been able to make a number of important improvements in social security, especially for families, without adding overall to what is in any case the very large cost this year of maintaining our uprating commitments.
What I have announced helps families with children and families-to-be. It helps large numbers of less-well-off pensioners. It will ease the anxieties of families concerned with the care of elderly or disabled relatives, and of those relatives themselves, and it builds on what we are already doing to give greater help to disabled people. In short, it carries forward the reshaping of our social security system, which was conceived in the 1940s, to meet the needs of the 1990s.
Mr. Michael Meacher: I welcome the small but useful increases in statutory maternity pay, in independent living fund resources and in the basic pensioner premium. Those are long overdue and will certainly bring some relief to a number of hard-pressed groups. Welcome as they are, however, they will not appease the deep anger felt by people with disabilities that these various minor improvements are being funded by much deeper cuts in the budget for disabled people over the period ahead.
We unreservedly welcome the significant increase in nursing home income support, which is necessary to prevent the increasing level of closures and evictions already occurring. Those are important additions, but they must be balanced—and, indeed, have been largely paid for—by the cuts in statutory sick pay, which amount to £280 million a year.
For child benefit, I cannot give the same welcome. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to recall that in the Tory party manifesto for the 1987 election he and his colleagues gave an unequivocal pledge that
"Child benefit will continue to be paid as now, and direct to the mother."
Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, having broken that explicit promise for the fourth year running, the Government have forfeited any claim not only to be the party of the family but even to basic honesty? Will he confirm that, had child benefit been raised each year as the Government promised, he would today be announcing a
354
rate of more than £9·50 per week for each child—£2·30 per week higher than the rate at which it was frozen four years ago? Will he confirm that an average family with three children, even after taking account of the extra benefit for the first child that has just been announced, will this year be deprived of more than £300 which the Government promised and have since withheld? That sum is equal to almost 3p on income tax for a family on average earnings.
Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that paying an extra pound a week for the first child only, with nothing for the others, is a mere fig leaf to cover the Government's deeply unpopular policy of perpetual freeze and, moreover, has been prompted by by-election panic? What is the principle behind it? If, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is to compensate the mother for the drop in earnings at the birth of the first child, what compensation is £1 per week for a loss of earnings of perhaps £100 per week or more?
Is it not clear that the Government's real motive for this bit of window dressing is that it is cheaper? By letting child benefit wither on the vine, is it not manifest that the Government still have no family policy worth the name? Uprating child benefit for all children, at least in line with inflation, is the litmus test of commitment to the family because the Government cannot be in favour of the family while cutting benefits for children. By that test, the Government have failed.
Is the right hon. Gentleman proud that for the 12th year running the Government are denying any rise in living standards to the 2 million poorest pensioners, who are wholly dependent on the basic retirement pension? Is he proud that, as a result, the basic pension, which represented almost a quarter of average earnings in 1979, is now, even after his announcement, worth only a sixth? Will he confirm that had the Government not broken Labour's uprating link with earnings he would be announcing today a single person's pension of not £52 per week but £65 per week and a married couple's pension of not £83 per week but £105 per week? Will he admit that, as a result of the breaking of the pensions link with earnings a decade ago, the Exchequer has cumulatively saved no less than £22,000 million at the expense of pensioners? Does it not reveal the Government's real priorities when they choose to remove more than £20 billion which should have gone to pensioners, and which under Labour would have gone to pensioners, and to use it instead to fund a cascade of tax relief for the rich?
In particular, will the right hon. Gentleman further consider the plight of two of the poorest groups in society, who will remain vulnerable following his statement? The first consists of the 100,000 frail and disabled——
Mr. Tim Janman rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Not in the middle of questions on a statement.
Mr. Meacher: The first consists of the 100,000 frail and disabled elderly people in private residential and nursing homes who depend on income support. As I said, we welcome the increase in income support that the right hon. Gentleman announced, but is he aware that the Independent Healthcare Association estimates that maximum state support levels currently fall short of by more than £100 per week fees actually charged for a nursing home and by nearly £40 per week for a typical residential home? Is it not, therefore, clear that the

355
announced increases of only £5 per week for residential homes and £15, £35 and £45 for nursing and other homes will still leave many thousands of frail elderly people desperately worried about problems of growing debt and possible eviction?
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that 130,000 claimants in desperate need are entirely omitted from his statement? They are the losers from the Fowler social security changes in 1988 who are on transitional payments and who, next April, will enter their fourth year running without any increase in benefit at all. How can the Government justify giving discounts on electricity bills this year to investors in the privatisation while pensioners and low-income families are struggling to pay fuel bills and some get no rebates and no increases in their benefits either?
There was one other important omission from the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Will he now recognise that pensioners and others on income support who for the first time are being made to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax are not being fully compensated as Ministers claimed that they would be? That is partly because of clawbacks, partly because the poll tax turned out to be higher than forecast, and partly because of large regional variations. As the Prime Minister has said that income support claimants are meant to be fully compensated, will the right hon. Gentleman now undertake to make good that shortfall, and will he also ensure that the poll tax compensation element is separately identified within income support and uprated each year in line with the average increase in poll tax? Several polls have detected a clear change of mood in the country, which is now rejecting the endless enrichment of the better off at the expense of the less well off and the poor. The inadequacies and the gaps in the statement made by the Secretary of State today illustrate clearly the extent to which the Government are failing to meet growing public concern about the indefensible extremes of wealth and poverty in our society today.
Mr. Newton: It was almost with a sense of relief that I noted, by the end of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, that he was back to his usual overheated form. I was quite taken aback by the muted nature of his earlier comments, which seemed to suggest that he thought that I had done some rather good things. I am grateful to him for recognising that at the outset.
The hon. Gentleman raised a wide variety of questions, and I will deal with as many as I can. First, he made the ludicrous suggestion that my proposals on child benefit somehow breached the pledge that he accurately quoted. No one has seriously contended that the number of occasions on which there has been no increase in child benefit has been inconsistent with the pledge.
Ms. Clare Short: We have said that.
Mr. Newton: The Opposition may have said it, but they have never managed to get anyone else to believe it. Given that fact, it is beyond belief that now that we propose to increase child benefit we are accused of breaking the pledge.
Another of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions should be knocked firmly on the head—the suggestion that what I have announced today, whether in respect of child benefit or in any other major respect, is in some way the result of a sudden change that has taken place in the past few days,
356
let alone since last Thursday. The proposals are precisely what I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury nearly a fortnight ago—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Newton: The third major suggestion that the hon. Gentleman sought to make was that the Government were not interested in the needs of families. I think that I had the support of a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House when I said in my statement that family policy is not only a matter of helping families with children. Important though that is, we must also take into account the needs of elderly and disabled people and their families. As the whole of my statement showed, we have sought to make changes that help families across the whole spectrum of their need and in a sensible and balanced way.
It is rich for the hon. Gentleman to talk about pledges to pensioners. If I remember rightly, he was a social security Minister when the last Labour Government fiddled the way in which they uprated pensions, precisely to avoid fulfilling their commitment to uprate in line with earnings or prices, whichever were the higher. So I am not prepared to listen to lectures from the hon. Gentleman on that.
I await with interest the next occasion on which the hon. Gentleman quotes from an organisation of private home owners to justify the suggestion that what they would like by way of increases in the residential care and home limits—although of course I understand that that is what they would like—is to be preferred to the evidence that the hon. Gentleman can read for himself in the Price Waterhouse survey. The increases in the limits for nursing homes are the largest ever made. They will greatly reduce anxieties and the hon. Gentleman should welcome them as warmly as others will.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the House is put in great difficulty by the fact that we have three statements on one day—especially on a day on which the main business has to end at 7 pm. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure is here, it may be worth suggesting that we might look into whether statements of such great importance should be printed and placed in the Vote Office so that hon. Members may study them before asking questions.
As we have another statement today, as well as a very important debate on the scrutiny of European legislation, and as the contents of the statements are debatable and could perhaps be discussed during our debate on the Queen's Speech, I propose to allow questions on the social security statement to go on for no more than 20 minutes—until 5.20 pm.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: What would the figure be if the current benefit levels this year were uprated by 10·9 per cent? Would they come to more or less than the package announced this afternoon? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, for an additional £120 million net, he could have uprated child benefit across the board? Is it not hypocritical for a Government who have had £100 billion-worth of proceeds from oil and gas and £40 billion-worth of privatisation

357
proceeds, and who profess an interest in promoting family policy, to refuse year after year to uprate child benefit fully?
Also, it is profoundly unsatisfactory to have crisis Downing street summits as a way of managing this country's benefit policy. Far too many people depend on it for that. What was the Prime Minister's impact on the policy change? What is the future for child benefit in the Secretary of State's hands?—[Interruption.]
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I missed the hon. Gentleman's last phrase in the slight hubbub. I can only repeat that what I have announced on all the major points today is precisely what I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury nearly a fortnight ago.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's other points, I can only say that of course I should have liked to do all sorts of other things, as any Secretary of State for Social Security would, but if I had adopted the policy that the hon. Gentleman has been urging on me in respect of child benefit it would have been much more difficult for me to do what I have done for residential care and nursing homes. In balancing the needs of families, I believe that I have struck about the right balance.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has helped the family through the whole age range. That is extremely important. He will not be surprised to learn that I welcome in particular the uprating of the family allowance, as I still think of it, for the first child. That will be of enormous assistance to mothers when they have to stop work and if they wish to stay at home and look after children. On behalf of them, including my daughter who is to have a child at any moment, I thank my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I reciprocate her good wishes by sending my good wishes to her daughter.
Mr. Frank Field: How much have families lost as a result of the Government not indexing child benefit fully during their stewardship? Does he agree that if it has been politically expedient at this distance from the election to pump an extra £230 million into the child benefit scheme—and I welcome that—it would be folly for a party to enter an election advocating the abolition of a scheme which is clearly popular among one third of the voters unless that party was drawing up a suicide note for the voters?
Mr. Newton: First, the calculation which the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to make, which his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) tried to get me to make earlier, is artificial in the extreme. As with some of the pension calculations, had those sums of money been put into social security instead of being deployed in other ways, contribution rates would have been higher and tax rates would have been higher including taxes paid by the selfsame families about whom the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is concerned.
With regard to the other point raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, I can only refer him to the sentence in my statement which states:
358
"child benefit … is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support."
Sir Norman Fowler: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his statement today? May I particularly congratulate him on the extra support that he has provided for families? Will he clarify and perhaps emphasise one point? Will he give an assurance that there is no intention to change the general child benefit system to which we as a party and as a Government have been committed?
Mr. Newton: I have just underlined the relevant sentence in my statement in answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field):
"Child benefit … is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support."
Of course that does not exclude consideration of other ways of helping families. However, that should give my right hon. Friend—whose views in this area I obviously greatly respect, having worked rather closely with him for six years—the reassurance that he wants.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is today's statement the last word before next April on the subject of improved community charge benefits, which are so important to so many people on low incomes, particularly disabled people? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many disabled people who used to benefit under the old rate rebate system for adaptations are suffering and are as much as £400 worse off as a result of the community charge system? Does he accept that RADAR has dozens of cases of people who are worse off in that respect? That issue must be seriously considered.
Mr. Newton: I am obviously aware of the point that is frequently made in that area. Equally, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the concession in respect of the rating system was specifically related to adaptations for disabled people's houses. It is difficult to accommodate that within the community charge system. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I am not planning a further statement.
Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his uprating in respect of the disabled and particularly the extra money for the independent living fund will be welcomed by Conservative Members? Will he therefore consider modifying his White Paper proposals and make the ILF a permanent statutory feature of our total form of help for the disabled?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can undertake to do the latter, but we shall be looking with great care at the arrangements for 1993 when local authorities will take over new responsibilities for community care and care for disabled people and others.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Why did the right hon. Gentleman decide to recoup part of the cost of the child benefit change by refusing to uprate the single-parent additional premium when those are usually the poorest parents? Will he explain the thinking which led to the selection of the figure of £ 1 for the eldest child when he said

359
that it was partly to compensate for the loss of the woman's earnings? Women's wages are low, but not that low.
Mr. Newton: I am not, of course, suggesting that the problem to which I referred in my statement can be met entirely through the social security system. However, it is sensible to recognise within that system the obvious contemporary reality of what happens to family incomes when the first child is born. As for the £1, that relates to the large sum of money which I felt able to make available in that area alongside the equally large sums of money that I wish to deploy in other areas which are also important to many families.
Sir Ian Gilmour: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his partial uprating of child benefit while deeply regretting that it has not been uprated in full. What my right hon. Friend has done is a great deal better than nothing. As the only countries in the world which give more for the first child are Malta and Iran, can my right hon. Friend explain what particularly persuaded the Government to follow their example?
Mr. Newton: I cannot speak for the rationale in other countries. However, it may well be that that goes back, as ours did with the old family allowance system, to a different world in which many women gave up work when they were married, not when they had children. The world has changed dramatically in recent years and over the last generation or so. I believe that it is sensible to recognise that in the social security system.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the social security review to which he referred, many severely disabled people lost the additional supplementary benefit payments which were suitable for their special needs and they have now become heavily dependent on the independent living fund? Despite the doubling of that in the Secretary of State's announcement, that is still neither adequate nor permanent and that is causing deep distress among the most disabled people. Can we consider something more permanent?
Mr. Newton: I have obviously been aware for a long time of the right hon. Gentleman's concern in this matter and I very much respect him for that. However, the independent living fund has, to a very substantial extent, met not only the problems about which he was concerned at the point of transition to the new scheme, but has gone well beyond that to help people who would not have been helped under the old scheme. I have said that we intend to deploy additional resources in it and I believe that that will maintain its value as an important source of assistance for the people with whom the right hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, by the arrangements that he has announced for increasing payments to those in nursing homes, he will have laid to rest a tremendous amount of anxiety, particularly in the south-east? He will not only have brought immediate relief to the anguish of relatives but he will have built some base on which homes can plan their financial futures, particularly in the interim between now and the implementation of the community charge.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that she will think it right for me to acknowledge that, in referring to representations by hon. Members on behalf of their constituents in considering these matters, she was one of those whom I had very much in mind.
Rev. Martin Smyth: How many pensioners will lose, especially with the withdrawal of housing benefits and the new uprating? That spectre has existed for years. How many more will be caught in the trap as a result of this uprating? I was aware of the Secretary of State's answer concerning Price Waterhouse. Mencap has said that the residential care allowance should have gone up to about £225, failing which some homes might close and others might not open. Did Price Waterhouse say anything about the possible growth of the cardboard city?
Mr. Newton: The Price Waterhouse report, a copy of which I have placed in the Library, does not go into quite as much detail in respect of individual categories of home, for sample reasons, as the hon. Gentleman or indeed I might like. Perhaps it would be better if the hon. Gentleman looked at the report before pursuing me further on such points of detail.
I was not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman meant in his earlier point. I have said that an anomaly has appeared, which seems to be making it possible for some people to make claims to housing benefit when it is absolutely clear that the income support limit is meant to embrace housing costs. That is not very sensible, and we need to tidy it up.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on commandeering the largest budget for pensions and benefits that this country has ever seen? Does he agree that it would be wise to consider also who is paying for all of it and that the burden of taxation still falls most heavily on ordinary families, often with children? They are also the ones who would gain most from a modest cut in tax rates and the ones who would suffer most if tax rates were forced to be increased in the way in which they would have to be if Labour's promises were ever fulfilled.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has restored a healthy perspective to some of the things that we hear from the Opposition Benches. My only reservation about what she said is that I am not really sure whether I should like to be accused of commandeering resources. I prefer to think of myself as doing good work.
Mr. John Battle: Before the Secretary of State gets away with masquerading as the family friend, or, perhaps more particularly, as the friend of the first born, are he and the Cabinet aware that £1 does not buy even one packet of 10 disposable nappies for the baby? They cost £1·24. Is he aware that a pair of shoes for a five-year-old costs about £15 and that an anorak for an eight-year-old now costs £12 to £15? How on earth can the first-born get assistance from that kind of increase? Why will the Secretary of State not return to his original pledge, or would he rather retitle child benefit and from now on call it first-born benefit as that is what it is proving to be?
Mr. Newton: I have no intention of renaming it because I have made it absolutely clear that the payments continue for all children, except that I am making an increase in respect of the first. As to the rest of the hon. Gentleman's

361
remarks, no one—not even the hon. Gentleman in his most extravagant moments, and they are pretty extravagant—and not even the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), has suggested that he expects child benefit to be at a level that would fully meet the costs of all children in all families. That has never been the intention, let alone the reality. What my pound does is to make a useful additional contribution.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent statement and for the way in which he has targeted additional resources to those groups most in need—for example, families and the disabled—the way in which he has doubled resources for the independent living fund, and substantially increased income support for those in residential homes and in nursing homes. I do not wish to take from my right hon. Friend the praise that will be heaped upon him, but will he give an assurance that he will seriously reconsider the uprating of child benefit in future years not just for the first child but for all children as it is the most effective of universal benefits?
Mr. Newton: Until the last few seconds I was going to say that I had better quit while I was ahead. On my hon. Friend's last remarks, the only assurance that I can properly give my hon. Friend is that, just as I have demonstrated that I have carried out in good faith my statutory duty to review this year, so I shall continue in future years.
Mrs. Sylvia Heal (Mid-Staffordshire): While welcoming some of the small increases that the Secretary of State has announced, I must express my regret and that of many people with disabilities that there has been no increase in the earnings disregard. It was first introduced in 1988, and the sum was then set at £15. In effect, that means that the small number of people who are working and who have had pay rises have received no increase in their income. When will the Government break the link between dependency and disability?
Mr. Newton: Possibly the hon. Lady has missed the fact that one of the really substantial new benefit improvements that we are working on at the moment with a view to introducing it in 1992 is what we originally called disability employment credit, which some other people have called partial incapacity benefit. It is designed to find a much more constructive solution to the problem by enabling people to work and enjoy continued benefit but to get off income support and into a different kind of benefit that will help them while they are working.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement will be very welcome to carers and dependants with special needs and also to those who wish to live independently and to the 10 million pensioners and the parents of 12 million children?
To see only 12 Labour Back Benchers shows how much the Opposition care.
Does my right hon. Friend also accept that his meeting commitments on inflation-proofing of many benefits and pensions and finding £350 million for parents and children is much to be welcomed?
To those who are worried about child benefit going to the well-off, may I point out that the value of two personal
362
allowances with the married man's allowance and mortgage relief allowance is equivalent to 12 child benefits? Perhaps the hard-hearted could look at those before getting at children.
Mr. Newton: I will not join in the aggression of my hon. Friend's remarks. I welcome his second remark. I shall have to study his third remark with some care.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the Secretary of State aware that he has not increased child benefit as he claimed, that the accurate description is that he has increased benefit for some children, and that by freezing the rest he has effectively cut it for other children? Is he aware that most mothers will not accept the ludicrous rationale in his statement about the first-born having a far greater financial impact than subsequent children in the family and that most mothers cannot distinguish between the needs of the first-born and subsequent children in the family? Does not his position appear more ludicrous because he is really saying that, in the case of a mother who has twins when childbearing for the first time, the child who was born a few minutes earlier than the other is worth a pound more?
Mr. Newton: The latter question is a good one, and I shall reflect on it. I am sure that we shall be able to find a solution. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I do not think that anybody could read into my remarks, either in my statement or subsequently, the suggestion that there was a particular difference in costs per child. However, I said that the impact on families is greater with the first child because of the simple, observable fact that at that point the household income tends to fall.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I welcome his commitment to two matters with which I am concerned. I welcome the commitment to child benefit continuing, although I should have liked it to be raised more. I also welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement regarding nursing homes and residential homes.
Will my right hon. Friend clarify one point regarding sufferers of Alzheimer's disease? He knows that I have a great interest in that matter. Quite often, nursing homes cannot cope with people suffering from Alzheimer's disease and families are asked to remove them to more specialised homes which provide terminal care but are not hospices. Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether such individuals and their families will be entitled to the higher rate of benefit to pay for that care?
Mr. Newton: It is rather difficult for me to do precisely what my hon. Friend has asked, although I shall not disguise the fact that she was another hon. Friend whom I had in mind when making the statement—hence the reference to Alzheimer's disease. Because the position depends on whether we are talking about a residential care home or a nursing home, and in which part of the country, and because I cannot specify particular limits for particular diseases, the provisions would depend on all the circumstances.
Mr. John McAllion: Does the Secretary of State accept that his announcement about child benefit will mean absolutely nothing to the millions of children in families who depend on income support because the extra pound that will be awarded to them in child benefit will

363
mean £1 lost in benefit entitlement? Will he accept that the time has now come to exclude child benefit completely from income support assessments so that its application will be genuinely universal and so that we do not have the nonsense that those who need the benefit most are those who are excluded from it?
Mr. Newton: The latter point does not really make sense in terms of any sensible operation of the system. The normal offset between child benefit and income support will operate this year as on other occasions when child benefit has been increased. It is important that the hon. Gentleman should understand that another effect of the operation of this system is that those on income support will effectively receive the amount that they would have received if child benefit had been fully uprated across the board.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) has intimated to me that because of the pressure on time today he does not intend to move his 10-minute Bill on licensing reform, for which I am sure the whole House will thank him, I propose, therefore, to allow questions on this matter to continue for a further 10 minutes, but then we must move on.
Mr. Timothy Raison: Although I believe that the general uprating of child benefit is still essential, I, too, think that my right hon. Friend has done well in what was clearly a different public expenditure round in achieving additional resources for child benefit. His statement that child benefit will remain a strong element in our policy will be widely welcomed. Does it mean that any alternative ideas of proceeding by way of child tax allowances have now been dropped and will the new extra benefit for the first child require primary legislation?
Mr. Newton: No, the extra benefit for the first child does not require primary legislation. Indeed, one of the advantages of that provision is that it will be possible for me to make the payments effective from April next year, at the normal uprating time. Obviously, child tax allowances are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and nothing that I have said this afternoon rules out any consideration that he might want to give to complementary measures. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) for welcoming my statement.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Surely the Secretary of State will accept that far more people receive residential care support than nursing home support, yet his statement increases residential care support by only 3 per cent. Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to accept the extra personal stress, tension and the loss in quality of care that will inevitably accompany his statement, especially in those parts of cities where residential care homes have now become a substantial industry? What has the right hon. Gentleman to say to the home owners and to the residents of those homes? Does he propose to put any gate or restraint on accepting more people currently in hospital care into that type of residential care?
Mr. Newton: The last point is, of course, primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of
364
the plans, which have recently been deferred, for operating a different system from 1993. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I can only ask him to read the Price Waterhouse survey—I appreciate that he has not yet had the time to do so—which dealt with the numbers of people in the two types of home. Although the number of people in residential care homes is larger than the number in nursing homes, as the number in nursing homes is moving towards being half the total I do not entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point. However, the main point is that the disparity in costs as against our income support limit is clearly much greater in nursing homes. It therefore seems sensible to put the extra resources principally there.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: My right hon. Friend has obviously spent considerable time putting together this detailed and welcome package, so will he totally scotch the Opposition's idea that it was rushed together last night?
Mr. Newton: Anybody who believes that the statement was put together hastily last night will believe anything. I have now said twice and, in view of my hon. Friend's question, will say a third time that the major elements in what I have just announced were agreed with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury nearly a fortnight ago.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: How many disabled people will still be below the poverty line in spite of today's minor improvements? Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that, although a mother's income drops considerably if she gives up work as a result of the birth of her first child, it remains pretty low between her first and second children if she is out of work or even if she takes a low-paid part-time job, which is the lot of the vast majority of Britain's young mothers?
Mr. Newton: I am not sure what definition the hon. Lady was using in her point about disabled people. However, she can check that last year we significantly increased the disability premium, including the premium for disabled children, and made a wide range of other improvements in disability benefits. I forgot to comment earlier on the comments made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West on this matter, but contrary to the impression that he is seeking to create, the provisions will substantially increase the amount of help given to disabled people in the next few years.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: May I join in welcoming the partial uprating of child benefit, but advise my right hon. Friend that the decision to give the increase in respect of the first-born appears to be a radical change in the system of child benefit that we have had thus far? If we seek to provide most assistance to those most in need, would it not be fairer to recognise that some of the largest families are some of the least well-off families? Might it not therefore be better to have a smaller uprating for all children rather than a larger uprating only for the first?
Mr. Newton: These things are obviously matters of judgment, and I have outlined the reasons for my judgment. Larger families are, on the whole, much more likely to be receiving one of the income-related benefits, including family credit. About 40 per cent. of families with

365
more than three children are being helped either by income support or family credit, which we have improved substantially in recent years.
Mr. Dave Nellist: The Secretary of State said that the arrival of the first child is most frequently associated with a sharp reduction in family income. What real effect does he expect £1 a week to have on that, especially when, with £1 a week, it will take about one and half years to save up for a second-hand pram, and more than three years to save for a new cot? We should compare that with the position of directors earning £70,000 a year who, in the past 10 years, have received £600 per week in tax cuts from the Government. Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that most parents will see his announcement as being a transparent attempt at Elastoplast politics by Tory Ministers who are on £1,000 per week and have not a clue about the real costs of bringing up children?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that the nearly 7 million mothers who will receive an extra pound a week in child benefit will engage in the kind of political posturing in which the hon. Gentleman indulges.
Mr. David Nicholson: At a time of a tough spending round, with other Departments pressing for increases in real resources, my right hon. Friend deserves warm congratulations for having secured these nuggets. He will recall the meaning of that expression from an earlier incarnation. Is he aware that we welcome the fact that, despite the attention that will rightly be given to the increase in spending on the family, my right hon. Friend has not forgotten the poorer pensioners and the long-term sick and disabled?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because that is precisely what I have sought to do—to bring forward what I regard as a balanced package, looking broadly at the needs of families. I sense that most of my right hon. and hon. Friends think that that was the right thing to do.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Nothing that the Secretary of State has said today will compensate those pensioners who have been crippled with £20, £30 and £40 per month poll tax bills and who will receive only £5
366
perweek extra as a result of his statement today, notwithstanding the fact that the wealthiest 1 per cent. in our society have received more than £26,000 million from the Government in tax cuts in the past 10 years. The pensioner in Downing street is living on £8 million per year from the taxpayer. That keeps her in Downing street and Chequers and as she gallivants around the world while 10 million other pensioners have to make do with an extra £5 per week. Does not that sum up the Government's attitude to the welfare state?
Mr. Newton: In this statement, we have fully fulfilled our commitments to raise the retirement pension and to steer some additional help to less-well-off pensioners. But for the taxation and economic policies that the Government have pursued over 10 years and more, it would have been far more difficult to sustain the improvements that I have announced this afternoon.
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on so effectively fighting his corner on behalf of all those mothers who depend on child benefit and have lived in uncertainty for the past three years.
Will he, however, acknowledge that there have been difficulties in giving help to the most needy families by targeting family credit? The money was there, but families were not always forthcoming. I hope that that lesson on targeting will help to convince him, as it has convinced me, that the present procedure for child benefit is the most popular and should remain a universal benefit. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right not to cause a divide by separating the under-fives from older children.
Could I also ask——
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. Newton: I suppose that I, too, had better be brief.
I hear what my hon. Friend says and I am grateful to her. I am not sure that I want to refer to "fighting my corner" with the Chief Secretary. As I have said three times, we agreed on these matters a fortnight ago.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very sorry that I could not call those hon. Members who wished to speak. I shall certainly bear them in mind when we return to the subject.

Terrorist Attacks (Northern Ireland)
5.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I regret to report that in the past two days seven people have been murdered by the Provisional IRA in three attacks in Northern Ireland. We must be grateful that a fourth attempted attack failed. This follows a number of other terrorist attacks in recent weeks, in which members of both communities have been brutally murdered. I know that the House will join me in extending sympathy to the families of all those killed and injured and also to those used as hostages in these atrocities.
First, at approximately 11.25 am yesterday, Mr. William Aiken, a taxi driver, was at the entrance to the Royal Belfast hospital for sick children. Two unmasked gunmen approached his Ford Sierra car, shot him in the head, and made off towards the Falls road. Mr. Aiken died a short time later from his injuries. The RUC are investigating and have appealed for witnesses.
Shortly after 4 o'clock this morning, a massive bomb exploded at the permanent vehicle checkpoint on the Buncrana road out of Londonderry, a few hundred yards from the border with the Irish Republic. The bomb is estimated to have consisted of about 750 kg of home-made explosive. It is thought that the bomb was contained in a vehicle which was driven into a search bay at the checkpoint. As a result of this attack, five soldiers were killed and nine injured, one very seriously.
The soldiers killed were serving with the 1st battalion the King's Regiment, based at Ballykelly. A number of civilian motorists in the area at the time of the explosion narrowly escaped death or injury. The checkpoint and about 25 houses in a nearby estate were extensively damaged; some residents were injured and many other houses sustained blast damage.
Prior to the attack, a house in Londonderry was taken over by terrorists and the householder abducted while his family was held hostage. He is still missing and there is grave concern about his safety. The follow-up operation by the security forces on both sides of the border is continuing and close co-operation is being maintained with the Garda, who have arrested a number of men earlier today.
In a separate terrorist attack at around 4.15 this morning, a bomb exploded at the permament vehicle checkpoint at Cloghogue on the main Al road south of Newry, some three miles from the border with the Irish Republic. It is believed that the bomb was contained in a van which had earlier been hijacked by terrorists near Newry and was driven into the checkpoint. An elderly man had been forced by terrorists to drive this vehicle while his family were held hostage.
As a result of this attack, one soldier was killed and 11 soldiers and two RUC officers were slightly injured. The soldier killed was serving with the 2nd battalion Royal Irish Rangers. Fortunately, a shouted warning was able to be given, thus preventing further loss of life. The driver of the vehicle received a broken leg as a result of the explosion and is now in hospital. Homes, a church and a primary school were all damaged in the attack. A follow-up operation by the security forces is now under way.
In a further incident at about 7.45 this morning, terrorists made an unsuccessful bomb attack against
368
Lisanelly barracks in Omagh. The terrorists had previously taken over a house in Gortin and assaulted the householder. They then placed an explosive device in his car, tied him to his seat, and forced him to drive the vehicle to Omagh. Fortunately, he was released by the sentry before the bomb partially detonated, and there were no casualties. The security forces are now carrying out a follow-up operation to make the bomb safe.
I am sure that the whole House will join me in utter condemnation of these appalling attacks. One civilian and six soldiers have been killed. A civilian is missing. A number of civilians and members of the security forces have been injured and one is very seriously ill. The security forces personnel were carrying out their proper duties in Northern Ireland for the safety of the whole community. Today's attacks have also seen the callous exploitation by the terrorists of members of the public in mounting these attacks. Not only has the IRA once again damaged and destroyed houses, schools and churches, leaving families injured, devastated and homeless; it has sunk to new levels of depravity by using people, whose families have been held hostage, as human bombs. It is hard to imagine anything more evil than tying a man into his car laden with explosives and then forcing him to drive to where the bomb was detonated.
The reaction of humane men and women the world over at crimes of this enormity is one of outrage, and justified anger. It is also, in the case of Northern Ireland, one of infinite sadness at this further and futile waste of human life. I can, however, assure the House that, horrible as these murders have been, they have not advanced the cause of those who perpetrated them by a single millimetre—indeed, they have set it back still further.
The security forces—to whom, today more than ever, I pay the warmest of tributes—will continue to defend the community and to bring terrorists to justice. They undertake this difficult and dangerous task on behalf of the whole community—and we owe an immense debt of gratitude to them.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: On behalf of the Opposition, I join the Secretary of State in extending our sympathy to the families of the victims and to all those whose lives have been so severely affected by the actions of the Provisional IRA and by the Ulster Freedom Fighters. As well as extending sympathy to the families of those murdered in the past 36 hours, the House will want to extend its sympathy to the families of Mr. Craig and Mr. McGuinness.
The murder of Mr. Aiken yesterday morning was an appalling overture to this morning's carnage. The IRA's choice of a children's hospital as a suitable venue for murder has sickened many people in Britain, Northern Ireland and particularly west Belfast. The House will wish to pay tribute to the efforts of both the unions and 'he management to ensure that no sections of the community will be deprived of the services of an internationally renowned children's hospital because of the activities of sectarian assassins.
I have heard—perhaps the Secretary of State can confirm it—that regrettably there has been another murder this afternoon. It was tit for tat for the murder of Mr. Aiken. To that unfortunate victim's family we also extend our sympathy.
This morning's atrocities also inspire us with horror. The death and destruction inflicted only highlights the

369
political and moral bankruptcy of the IRA. As the Secretary of State has said, it is difficult to imagine anything more evil than the treatment meted out to the men forced to drive car bombs while their families were held hostage and did not know whether they would see their fathers and husbands again as they departed as human bombs.
If the IRA believes that such murders can further its cause, it is only deluding itself. It cannot offer anything positive for the future of Ireland—it offers only dead ends and graveyards. We hope that the security forces will soon bring the perpetrators of those evil deeds to justice. We welcome the co-operation of the Irish authorities in that respect.
The House will want to join me in thanking the Northern Ireland emergency services, the Housing Executive and social services staff for their efforts since the early hours of the morning to cope with the aftermath of the personal and environmental damage inflicted, particularly on Benview estate.
The Secretary of State and his advisers will no doubt want to review the security situation, particularly the policy of maintaining permanent vehicle checkpoints.
The House trusts that the Secretary of State will continue the fight against the paramilitaries on the basis that only the determined and persistent application of the rule of law can ultimately end the violence in Ireland.
Mr. Brooke: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone in which he has spoken. I share his condemnation of the events at the hospital for sick children yesterday. I can confirm that a further incident has occurred today and that the body of a taxi driver has been found in Dungannon. It is reasonable to assume that it is yet another tit-for-tat murder.
I share the hon. Gentleman's praise for the authorities who have worked to cope with the aftermath of last night's events. The lessons that could be learnt from such episodes will be learnt and, above all, the conduct of the security forces will continue, as always, under the rule of law.
Mr. Michael Mates: In reinforcing my right hon. Friend's determination and that of the security forces—rightly commended by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—to continue to do a difficult job, will he use all the efforts of his considerable propaganda machine to get the message across to citizens north and south in the island of Ireland that, by sheltering people who are prepared to stoop so low to commit ever more ghastly crimes, they are aiding, perhaps passively, the cause of the terrorists?
The best thing that citizens on both sides of the border can do is to tell the security forces where those murderers are, so that they can be brought to justice. Given the turn the IRA has taken in its depravity, my right hon. Friend should warn such citizens that they might well be used next as human bombs to be delivered to the security forces.
Mr. Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend for his tribute to the security forces. I confirm that there is a constant appeal to members of the public throughout the community—we also receive assistance from the republic—for help to bring such terrorists to justice.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence uses the words "propaganda machine", is that exactly a parliamentary term?
Mr. Speaker: I did not judge it to be out of order in this context.
Mr. John D. Taylor: The Secretary of State has made a grave statement to the House this afternoon. He referred not only to the immediate incidents that occurred in the past 24 hours, but to earlier incidents that have occurred in the past few weeks.
In the past few weeks, there has been a regrettable upsurge in IRA activity across Northern Ireland and, unfortunately, that activity involved the deaths of two of my constituents. Constable Louis Robinson was killed on the border as he travelled back from holiday in the Republic of Ireland and Constable Samuel Todd was shot dead as he handled his dog on the streets of Belfast.
Right hon. and hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Bench join the Secretary of State in expressing our sympathy to the families whose relatives have been killed and injured. In so doing, we speak for the entire Protestant community of Northern Ireland and at least 75 per cent. of the Roman Catholic community. Regrettably today, almost 25 per cent. of the Roman Catholic community vote for Provisional Sinn Fein, as in west Belfast.
We join the Secretary of State in condemning the latest low level of depravity exercised by the IRA earlier this morning, when its members tied the driver of a car to the time bomb that he was instructed to drive in the hope that he would be blown up into small bits. I hope that that did not happen. The IRA has reduced itself to a terrible low by such action.
There are three questions that I should like to ask the Secretary of State. The first relates to the prompt action and co-operation of the Garda Siochana in apprehending suspected terrorists in Donegal. Will that lead to anything? When the Government signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they sold it to many hon. Members on the basis that it would bring about improved extradition. Five years later, we know to our regret that, successful as the Garda Siochana is in capturing wanted terrorists, they are never extradited by the authorities back to Northern Ireland. Tomorrow, when the Secretary of State meets the Dublin Government authorities, will he ensure that extradition is the No. 1 item on the agenda?
The second issue relates to border roads. I have already mentioned that one of my constituents was murdered on a border road coming back from the Republic of Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) visited the republic last week and he was not allowed to use the roads: he had to fly to Dublin. I went to the republic on Friday and discovered that, even though I was accompanied by security forces, I was forbidden to use two of the main roads between Northern Ireland and the republic. Has the Secretary of State yet advised the Prime Minister that the British Government have surrendered authority over two of the main roads in Northern Ireland leading across the border into the republic?
Finally, I should like to ask the Secretary of State about dog handlers. My constituent was shot through the window of his stationary van. For more than a year, the small number of dog handlers that are employed in the

371
Royal Ulster Constabulary have requested bullet-proof glass in their vans. That request has been consistently refused on the ground of lack of finance. It would take so little money to provide bullet-proof glass in the few vans used by dog handlers—perhaps the life of my constituent could have been saved. Will the Secretary of State please address that problem?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, speaking as he does for those sitting on the Ulster Unionist Bench. I join him in extending sympathy to the families of his two constituents, of whom I am aware.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the apprehension of suspects by the Garda today and to extradition. I shall see the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the republic tomorrow at a meeting of the Conference, and I guarantee that extradition will take up a large part of our discussion.
I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about security on particular roads. The security forces must necessarily make their own decisions about what is required to provide safe passage and security on those roads. I should be happy, however, to enter into a separate dialogue with the right hon. Gentleman on that matter.
His question about dog handlers and their cars is not strictly germane to today's statement, but I am grateful to him for raising that matter, which I shall pursue.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I should like first to join in the expressions of sympathy to the relatives of the men killed in the outrages. They died to protect all the people in Northern Ireland, regardless of their political or religious faith. Is the Secretary of state aware that the men who commit such crimes are depraved? They revel in slaughter and are way beyond persuasion to show mercy and deaf to pleas for pity. They reject Christ's teaching about the sanctity of human life.
During the past 20 years, from the Dispatch Box, successive Secretaries of State have promised a security review after each atrocity. We have had those security reviews, expressions of sympathy, condolences, platitudes—everything—but the truth is that terrorists continue to kill innocent people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. The people of Northern Ireland expect constitutional politicians to respond to the outrages by redoubling their efforts to make political advance in Northern Ireland. They also expect the Government——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but will he be kind enough to ask questions rather than make a speech that should be made on another occasion?
Mr. Kilfedder: I am putting it to the Secretary of State that the people of Northern Ireland, who have seen the Government send an armada to the Falkland Islands and forces to the Gulf, expect the Government to send sufficient forces to Northern Ireland and keep them there until this evil is eradicated.
Mr. Brooke: The same word "depravity" was included in my statement. Of course, it would be difficult for any Government, in an environment polluted by terrorists, to be able to guarantee total security to the citizens of this land. The defeat of terrorism involves more than purely the working of the security forces, central though they are
372
to it. More people have been charged and convicted in relation to terrorist offences during the current year than in the previous one.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Speaking on behalf, I hope, of all people in the north of Ireland who value life, irrespective of their political persuasions, I wish to condemn this and other murders, and to offer my sympathy to the bereaved. I ask anyone in the north of Ireland with any information whatsoever about those who perpetrated the recent acts to make it available to the police, so that those responsible may be brought to justice.
Early this morning, I stood at the scene in my constituency of the murder of one of the soldiers in Cloghogue. Once again, I saw the grisly remains of an IRA night of carnage.
The murders at Derry, Cloghogue and Belfast, and the potential murder at Omagh, were particularly cynical, cowardly and evil. They were cynical because they involved hijacking and kidnapping people, and taking their families as hostages. They were cowardly because, on those occasions, the IRA, rather than do its own dirty work, took innocent members of the public and made them drive its bombs to the scenes of murderous destruction. They were evil because, above all else, they added to the appalling violence that is tearing the heart and soul out of the fabric of Northern Irish life. Will the Secretary of State reinforce my view that those murders were evil, cowardly and cynical?
Mr. Brooke: I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the vehemence of his condemnation. I know the extent to which his constituency in particular has been stricken by murder during the course of this year. I am sure that the House is grateful for the manner in which he has just spoken.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I endorse the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State, but is he satisfied with the co-operation that he has received from the Southern Irish Government? It certainly looks as if the excellent work of the Garda Siochana could not have come about were it not for the progress made under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Will he comment generally on future co-operation with the Southern Irish Government on cross-border security matters?
Mr. Brooke: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Garda's actions today and the co-operation that we have received from it. Intensive investigations are in progress on both sides of the border, and I reported the arrest of a number of men by the Garda. I shall be seeing Mr. Collins, the Irish Foreign Minister, at a conference tomorrow, when we shall discuss the border issue and its consequences for security.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Secretary of State not agree that the justification for the cowardly killings by the Provisional IRA over the years that it represents the aspirations of people in all of Ireland is disproved by the fact that its total vote is about 2 per cent. of the people of Ireland? What we hear from the elected representatives in the north is the true voice of the people of Ireland. All the Provisional IRA does is prevent any political action and, sadly, encourages tit-for-tat murders.
I shall ask a precise question. As someone IA ho no longer has a detailed knowledge of the subject, I thought

373
that the use of large agricultural nitrate bombs, topped up with small amounts of commercial explosive and commercial detonators, had declined but it seems to be increasing. Do we no longer know the origin of the commercial part of such devices by markings and scientific tests? Surely we could find out where the commercial parts for such bombs come from.
Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the total lack of popular support in democratic terms enjoyed by the terrorists. As to his specific question about fertiliser, as far as we can ascertain, much of what is used is commercial, but of long standing.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend convinced that static security checkpoints are the best way to impose security on roads in Northern Ireland? Does he think that there is something to be said for a review of their success and the possibility of introducing mobile checkpoints, as suggested by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)?
Mr. Brooke: There is a need to control movement across the border to interdict the movement of terrorists and terrorist munitions, to reassure the local community that maximum control is exercised over the border area and to provide protection to security force bases and installations. Clearly, as I said earlier, we shall review matters arising out of the recent incidents. The House is aware that about 1,000 mobile vehicle checkpoints are mounted every night in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I also join in extending heartfelt sympathy on behalf of my constituents to the relatives of all those who have suffered bereavement because of the latest barbaric IRA bombings. My constituent, Cyril John Smith, was a young man serving with the Royal Irish Rangers. Like those in the King's
374
Regiment, who courageously took on a role to protect the community and give service to all its sections, he was murdered. The lives of those people have been taken from them by evil, depraved men.
Will the Secretary of State undertake to ensure that those young men's lives will not have been sacrificed in vain? Will he deprive the IRA of its objective, and ensure that both politically and militarily the Government will bring an end to the carnage that we have suffered for 20 years? Will he further consider the reasonable justification for limited selective internment for those believed to be involved in terrorist activity? Since the IRA has declared war on our society, will he also give serious consideration to bringing in legislation to ensure that those who are convicted are held in prison for as long as this war of theirs is waged on our people?
Mr. Brooke: I join the hon. Gentleman in what he said about his constituent, to whom I pay a particular tribute for his contribution to the security forces, and in saying that the House is concerned that those lives should not have been spent in vain, that democracy continues to be defended and that the terrorism is brought to an end in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that other judges will take the view that selective internment is not the most constructive way forward. I would not use the particular words used by the hon. Gentleman in his last remarks, but I am conscious that we are dealing with vicious criminals and that the sooner their activities cease the better for the whole of the kingdom.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise to those hon. Members whom I have not been able to call, but we must move on.

Terrorist Attacks (Northern Ireland)

  SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That the matter of Education in Scotland, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Procedure
Mr. Speaker: We come now to the five motions on the Order paper.
Mr. Nigel Spearing rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
I suggest that the five motions be debated together. I have selected all the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I remind the House that all the outstanding Questions will be put at 7 o'clock.
Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for rising when you were on your feet, but you will understand that I did so because of your suggestion that the motions be taken together. You will know that the five motions on the Order Paper, which must, by order of the House last Friday, be completed, if moved, by 7 pm, are on two separate and distinct subjects.
The first two motions refer to questions and a report from the Select Committee on Procedure and subsequent Standing Orders on which there may be some debate. The next three motions relate to the important topic of the scrutiny of EC legislation, for which there are substantial and significant proposals which have been arrived at after considerable debate, and to Standing Orders from the Leader of the House, to which there are amendments which, as you have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, you have kindly selected.
If those motions are taken together, as you suggest, Mr. Speaker, they would involve two separate topics. The second one is complex enough on its own and, in view of the time constraint rightly or wrongly agreed by the House, may we at least start by discussing the first two on their own?
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman correctly mentioned, the motion to take them together was passed last Friday, and that being so I do not think that I have any authority to say that they should now be taken separately. I understand that the first two motions are not very controversial. The debate may therefore centre upon motions 3, 4 and 5, which are of great importance to the House.
Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling. On cursory examination, the order of the House on Friday referred to all the motions together, but do I take it that they should and could not be separated, although they are separate motions on the Order Paper? That is surely a novelty of which the House should take note.
Mr. Speaker: There is no obligation on the Government to move the motions at 7 pm, but the order passed last Friday put all five motions together. The vote will be taken at 7 pm, but it would be up to the Leader of the House not to move any specific motion if he felt that there had been insufficient time to debate it.
6.3 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I understand the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), but we should try to make headway along the lines which you, Mr. Speaker, foreshadowed in your
376
original response. These two sets of recommendations emerged from considered proposals by the Procedure Committee. The first two, as you pointed out, have riot been the subject of any controversy that I have been able to detect; the next three were the subject of a debate lasting some five hours before we rose and two of those three embody recommendations agreed with the Scrutiny Committee. There is one issue of substance to be discussed on that trio of motions, and that is embodied in the set of amendments standing in the name of the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee. On that basis, I shall proceed on the footing that the debate deals with oral questions and EC procedure.
I beg to move,
That this House agrees with the recommendations contained in the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of this Session (House of Commons Paper No. 379).
Mr. Spearing: Despite what I think was a ruling from Mr. Speaker, who has just departed, will the Leader of the House confirm that it would be possible tor the Government to deal with motions 1 and 2 in one debate and to move motions 3, 4 and 5 if there was time later? Do I understand from what the Leader of the House has said that he is moving motions 1 to 5 at this moment?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As Mr. Speaker pointed out, the motions are moved one by one, but they are debated together and all five are now being debated. I have sa far moved the first one and on that basis I am commencing the debate.
The first motion is one of two dealing with questions. We have less time than I would have hoped to deal with the matter, but I did deal with it at some length on a previous occasion, so I shall try to proceed expeditiously in the light of the time available.
The first two motions on oral questions deal essentially with the number of oral questions that appear on the Order Paper, the proportion of them reached and the method by which they are tabled. I content myself with saying that the Procedure Committee's recommendations are sound and sensible, and can be justified on their merits. They will give us substantial cost savings, as well as achieving a major simplification of the Order Paper. The one fact that I will produce is that the total cost of printing questions and answers last Session is estimated at £1·38 million. If adopted, the recommendations in the report could lead to savings of up to £750,000 in printing costs alone, so there is everything to be said in their favour.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Are we clear that questions must be personally handed into the Table Office by the Member concerned and that no colleague can do so, and that the whole scandal of syndication, for such it is, and handing in great wads of questions will come to an end?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: One of the central purposes of the recommendation is to tackle so-called syndication. The recommendations in paragraph 35 of the report are intended to achieve just that result. It says:
"oral questions should be tabled by a Member in person, or by another Member acting on his or her behalf … no Member should be permitted to table more than two oral questions per Minister (one for himself and one for another Member), subject to the existing rations for individual Members".

377
The recommendations are well considered and were widely circulated before the Committee reached its conclusion.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Will my right hon. and learned Friend, either now or at some later stage, give us a breakdown of the £1·38 million to show how much each question costs?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall try to give the standard answer to that. It is always larger than one thinks, because it has gone up since last time.
Mr. Tim Smith: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the new Standing Orders relating to oral questions incorporate all the Procedure Committee's recommendations? I refer to the instruction that
"Notices of questions shall be given by Members in writing to the Table Office."
Does that mean that right hon. and hon. Members must turn up in person at the Table Office to hand in their questions?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I understand it, the new Standing Orders embody the Committee's recommendations. Certain practical aspects of them need to be handled in the Table Office, and in commending them, as we do in one of the motions, we give our authority to the Table Office to proceed in that way.
The measures relating to European Standing Committees were debated on 28 June, and I explained then the ways in which the Government's response was intended to help bring our scrutiny procedures up to date. I indicated that, in the light of the debate, the Government would be drawing up detailed proposals to put before the House with the aim of operating the new arrangements from the start of the new Session.
The third motion on the Order Paper would repeal Standing Order No. 102 and establish three new Standing Committees. The fourth motion would amend Standing Order No. 127 in respect of the terms of reference of the Scrutiny Committee, and the fifth motion is a resolution of the House to supersede that of 13 October 1980.
The motion relating to Standing Order No. 127 was agreed after discussion with the Scrutiny Committee, and I am grateful to its Chairman for its help. The measure offers a useful, albeit modest, extension of the Committee's terms of reference that I know it welcomes. The draft resolution was also agreed with the Scrutiny Committee and fully reflects recommendation 13 of the Procedure Committee's report. It embodies the Government's previous undertaking that the resolution would cover any proposal awaiting scrutiny as well as any recommended for debate.
I turn to the substantive proposals relating to European Standing Committees. The amendment to Standing Order No. 102 will establish three new Committees. The one outstanding point on which there is a significant difference of view is the proposal in paragraphs (1) and (2) that all documents recommended for debate will automatically stand referred to one of those Committees unless a motion is tabled to hold a debate on the Floor of the House.
The amendments that have been tabled would replace that arrangement with a variant of the present referral system, increasing the so-called 20-up rule to a 40-up rule. However, if, as we hope, the majority of debates will in
378
future take place in Committee, it seems logical that a motion should only be tabled for the exception rather than the rule.
The new arrangements will allow more effective scrutiny in Committee, so it is crucial that they are allowed to get under way and be given a chance to work. It will be open to the Scrutiny Committee to recommend that a particular document be debated on the Floor of the House if it regards it as especially important, and the Government would naturally take any such recommendation into account. There would also be the normal consultations through the usual channels.
Against that background, I invite the House to agree to the Government's proposals. I am of course prepared to give a commitment that the new system of referral will be reviewed at the end of the first Session of operation, along with other aspects of the new arrangement.
I may add that the fourth amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South is a necessary technical amendment that the Government are glad to accept.
I hope that other details of the operation of the new Committees will be clear from our previous debate and from the proposals that the Government have tabled. In the light of the time available, and because there was broad agreement on most points in our earlier debate, I do not propose to go into those other aspects in detail—particularly bearing in mind our willingness to review the arrangements at the end of the next Session.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The most crucial aspect of my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks is the procedure for referral, to allow a debate to take place on the Floor of the House. The arrangements that my right hon. and learned Friend announced appear to hand all power to the Government. The Government alone will make the decision—after some consultation through the usual channels, if the Opposition are lucky. I simply want to record my belief that such a scheme will not be acceptable to that minority who seek to question European documents—often without the necessary approval of members of their own Front Bench, yet with enormous approval from the country at large.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's point fortifies itself, in a sense. He wants to ensure that representations made by the kind of minority with which he associates himself are given a proper hearing. We seek to ensure that views not normally heard at the end of the day's business, which would detain the House for a long time, may be advanced in the European Standing Committees at which any right hon. or hon. Member is entitled to speak. In that way, such representations will be considered at a better time of day by specialised Committees in which Ministers will be required to give evidence as well as speak to the proposals under consideration. The method of scrutiny will be more thorough and will incommode the House as a whole less frequently. However, it will still be possible to make representations for matters to be debated on the Floor of the House, as I described.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Why is my right hon. and learned Friend opposing a less rigorous means of enforcing proper procedures in the face of a vehement minority or even majority? To get 40 right hon. and hon. Members to stand in their places requires a degree of organisation and fleetness of foot that is difficult

379
to achieve. It is only suggested that such a thing should be made possible. It would not destroy the tenor of my right hon. and learned Friend's argument that such matters should usually be considered in Committee.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend reflects a point made by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee in our earlier debate who emphasised that, in the main, the same will happen, whatever the balance of the proposed arrangements, and that the majority of documents would anyway be considered in Standing Committee. We are only suggesting that, during the initial period, that should happen automatically, but that representations can be made if right hon. or hon. Members want to follow a different course.
Nevertheless, we hope to see the Committees operating normally and acceptably in the way that I have described. Clearly, that topic can be the subject of further discussion, as my hon. Friend's interventions indicated. Subject to that, I commend the other arrangements as reflecting the gist of the recommendations made by the Procedure Committee and endorsed in the last debate. My hon. Friends have both identified areas for discussion that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) may care to develop. In other words, they have spoken to his amendment. I commend the motion to the House.
6.18 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: I can begin by wholly agreeing with the Leader of the House in his proposed changes for dealing with oral questions. I am sure that will be met with a sigh of relief—particularly by members of Opposition Front Benches who have had to organise against the fusillade organised by Government Whips in an attempt to pre-empt Question Time.
Mr. Greg Knight: That is an outrageous suggestion.
Dr. Cunningham: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I, as both a participant in and victim of that system, know very well how it operates—and I for one will not be sorry to see it come to an end.
As for the cost of parliamentary questions in general, I hope that hon. Members will reflect on the fact that, if they support the unanimous report of the Computer Sub-Committee, which will give us an on-line information system for Members, some of the need to table questions—particularly written—will disappear. I hope that that report will command support when it is brought before the House, because it will make the seeking and dissemination of information far more efficient and cost-effective.
As the House knows, I and the Government have some differences of view on the manner in which we deal with EC legislation. Those differences were set out at length—as was the Government's position—on 28 June this year. I shall briefly summarise my objections to what the Leader of the House is asking the House to agree. Despite my differences with the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, I hope that we can come to a decision this evening and not put it off yet again. We can then have a trial period.
One of the most important statements made by the Leader of the House today was also said by him on 28 June:
380
"So, for strictly practical and not for philosophical reasons, we propose to start by setting up three Committees and to review the matter at the end of the first Session."—[Offical Report, 28 June 1990; Vol. 175, c.528.]
I welcome the fact that that commitment to a review has been put on record again this evening.
My reservations concern, first, the practicability of three separate Committees. I should have preferred the idea, in the evidence submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), of a European Grand Committee—but I am happy to have a trial. Secondly, I share the fairly widespread reservation about the House conceding a right to the Executive, whichever party happens to be in power. I favour the House strengthening its position vis-a-vis the Executive, not weakening it. Perhaps the Leader of the House can find room for a concession on this matter. I also hope that he will say a little more about how the review of the trial period will be carried out at the end of the first Session in which these proposals have been in practice.
6.22 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I shall be as brief as I can because of the shortage of time for the debate.
It is obvious that the influence and power of European Community regulations and laws over United Kingdom citizens have increased in the past, are increasing today and will increase much more in future. While this Parliament in Westminster can do little to stop that extension of power over our sovereignty, it is my view and that of the Procedure Committee that it is essential that Parliament should more fully consider, and that more Members should come to understand, debate and comment upon, the plethora of regulations being churned out by the Community before they are confirmed.
The motions on the Order Paper establish an entirely new procedure to ensure that this can be achieved. They do so by moving from debates late at night to consideration in proper business hours, in the morning in Committee. They ensure that not only the nominated members of Committees but any Member can attend a Committee and, if he can catch the Chair's eye, participate in the deliberations there. They provide that Ministers responsible for the regulations or the legislation being proposed by the Community may be cross-questioned in a way similar to what happens in a Select Committee before a motion that can be amended, debated and voted on by the Committee. And they will ensure that for a Session of Parliament a small band of Members will be appointed to a Committee who should be able to become expert in the subject referred to that European Standing Committee.
The consideration of documents referred to the European Standing Committee and the dates and times of these meetings will be announced by the Leader of the House during his weekly statement on proceedings and will be included in the party Whips. So everyone in the House is being given the opportunity and the encouragement not only to know what regulations are coming from Brussels but to take part in the consideration of those regulations and to ensure that the Minister in charge knows the views of interested Members before he returns to Brussels for the final decision on the regulation.
Although the Committee recommended that there should be five European Standing Committees—we rejected the idea of a Grand Committee because we believed that it would be permanently in session and we do

381
not believe that that would make sense—we were quite willing to see three appointed initially. I know that the Government will keep that under review, as they have given an undertaking to that effect.
In the subject reference to the Committees in motion No. 3 at the top of page 6588 on the Order Paper, finance and taxation have not been mentioned, yet they are the third largest of the subjects of regulations and documents passed by the Community. Supposedly, they would be taken by the third Committee, but as they feature in many of the regulations now and may well continue to do so in future, they should be noted as a subject for the third Committee. I stress that, because the Procedure Committee hopes that, as only a limited number of Members—10 in all—are appointed to each Committee, Members especially interested in the subjects covered by those Committees will apply to be appointed to them. So hon. Members who are interested in finance should realise that they should be particularly interested in the third Committee.
I believe that this is a major improvement, because, for the first time, a really informed core of Members will consider European legislation on which they have expertise. Under the present system, when a document is referred to Committee, that Committee provides a random selection—I was going to say a ragbag—of Members to constitute a Committee examining a subject in which they may have no interest and about which they may have little information.
Mr. Tim Smith: Does my hon. Friend know how the subject matters were allocated to the Standing Committees? Would it not have been more sensible to put finance, taxation, trade and industry together in one Committee—for the reasons that he has just given?
Sir Peter Emery: It might well have been. I can only tell my hon. Friend that the allocations were made as suggested in the resolution. It works out rather well, in view of the figures for the past two years: the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment—the AGE Committee—have been concerned with about 506 documents; the Departments of Trade and Industry and Transport—presumably the TIT Committee—with 318; and finance and taxation Departments—presumably the FAT Committee—with 321. So the subjects are fairly evenly spread.
It is not immediately obvious from the wording of motions Nos. 1 and 2 that the outcome of those motions will be to try to overcome the relatively new procedure for the syndication of questions and to cut down the number of—I was going to say useless—oral questions on the Order Paper which are never reached but which appear day after day.
The House should know that Mr. Speaker has the power, reinforced by motion No. 1, to introduce the new structure as outlined in the Procedure Committee's report. The most important effect of that will be that large bunches of questions will no longer be allowed to be handed in by a Whip or a Back-Bench party committee officer, or anyone else.
I have no doubt that ingenious organisations may still try to get around these new regulations—that always happens—which lay down that a Member or, if he cannot
382
be present, a Member on his behalf can hand in a question to the Table Office, but I hope that the House will accept the opinion of the Procedure Committee that the syndication of questions is bad for Parliament, that it removes the initial intention behind questions and that it limits the power of the ordinary Member to have matters that concern him or his constituents dealt with at Question Time.
I understand the concern felt by a number of hon. Members, particularly those serving on the Scrutiny Committee, which has resulted in the tabling of the amendments. However, as we have so much from the Government at this stage, rather than delay the approval of these matters by yet another debate, I urge my hon. Friends to take the assurance given by the Leader of the House that this matter will be kept under review. In turn, I will give an assurance that the Procedure Committee will keep the matter under review so that, if it appears that the recommendation being made by the Scrutiny Committee, that matters should be taken on the Floor of the House, is not being carried out by the Government, we would so report to the Leader of the House.
Mr. Robert Hicks: I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, which is also worried about what might be described as the external dimension. I understand why my hon. Friend's Committee has come to its conclusions, but the message that goes out from the House to the Council of Ministers, the European Commission, or whatever European authority it may be, may be downgraded as a consequence of our referring that issue to a Committee rather than taking it on the Floor of the House. Whether we are pro or anti-European, or however we may be judged as standing in the European context, we are all concerned about that.
Sir Peter Emery: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. One cannot deny, because there are no absolute facts that would allow us to deny, that that is possible. However, there is a counter-argument: that there has never been any suggestion that there was a different interpretation of the views of the House, either by a Minister when he goes to Brussels, or by Brussels itself, depending on whether the matter had been debated on the Floor of the House or referred to a Standing Committee. Therefore, I find it difficult to believe that that would be the case now.
I hope that the assurance that I give my hon. Friend—obviously I want to see co-operation between my Committee and the Scrutiny Committee—that if it should feel that its recommendation that matters should be debated on the Floor of the House is seen not to be followed through by the Government, we shall look at this and report after 12 months. I hope that this is of assistance both to the Government and to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee.
I thank the Leader of the House for his comments about the work of my Committee, but he is due much greater thanks for the fact that, for the first time since the days of Norman St. John-Stevas, we have a Leader of the House who is interested in modernising and making more effective the work of the House, and who is willing to do something about it. If he is not careful, the Leader of the House will establish a reputation as a great reformer.
6.33 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I apologise for the slight tone of acerbity with which I raised points of order at the beginning of the debate. When the business motion appeared on the Order Paper on Friday, one would have thought on a casual glance that, although we had a guillotine at 7 o'clock, we would notionally have two and a half hours of debate, and if there were a statement, perhaps two hours. However, a motion such as this is an open invitation to certain quarters to pile on the statements, and we are left not with one and a half or two and a half hours but one, for two subjects. That is not a good advertisement for the way in which we go about our business. Hence my concern at the beginning.
I pay tribute to the hard work of the Select Committee on Procedure and its report No. 622 of 1989, in which it went into the whole matter at great length and came up with some solutions, which we debated on 18 June. The exception to the agreement was the matter to which I shall come in a moment. I thank the Leader of the House for the way in which, with one exception, he has dealt with these matters.
As I said in that debate, the Select Committee has produced a special report, which was published the night before, HC512, in which we suggested that there should be a mutual agreement between the Select Committee on European Legislation and the Government on the terms of the proposed new Standing Order No. 127. The Leader of the House agreed with us, and that debate set a record in the number of recommendations accepted. I am glad to pay tribute to the Leader of the House, who has introduced Standing Order No. 127, under motion No. 4. There is mutual accord on that.
There is mutual accord on motion No. 5, which is important because it replaces a resolution of the House of October 1980, which, for the first time, set down the structure by which the House influences—I will not use any stronger word—the efforts, decisions and work of Ministers in the Council of Ministers. That report, in the name of the then Mr. St. John-Stevas, and the resolution attached to his name, are what we are now debating. The Committee has had regular correspondence, and I have had regular meetings, with successive Leaders of the House—the right hon. Members for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham) and for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). We thank them for their work, which is now updated and incorporated in the motion that we hope to pass today.
I now pass on rapidly, because time does not allow for any further comment on those matters, to the motion about which there is a certain amount of disagreement. The amendments to the proposed Standing Order No. 102 are the unanimous view of the Select Committee on European Legislation. That Committee has on it a spectrum of both the parties and of the approach taken by hon. Members to the European Community. We are a procedural and scrutiny Committee, and we discharge the responsibilities put on us by the House in respect of the conduct of the Executive, irrespective of the merits of the matter. That is one of the central processes of the House. I am glad to say that my colleagues go about their work in that manner, and that enables us to discharge our duty with reasonable efficacy. That gives point to the fact that we are presenting these amendments unanimously.
384
The proposed Standing Order No. 102 implements a good many of the proposals made by the Select Committee on Procedure, as we have heard. In particular, it sets up three Special Standing Committees with a procedure of questioning Ministers for an hour before debating the merits of any EEC proposals. There have been comments about how that will work, the number of members on each Committee and the welcome continuation of the practice of allowing hon. Members to go to the Committees to question and debate matters. There have been remarks about the small forum, but I shall go no further than point that out.
However, there has been a fundamental difference of opinion over the manner in which it is decided which documents go to Committee and which go to the Floor of the House. In the past, the convention was that, if it was suggested that a subject was more suitable for consideration by a Select Committee, because it was a technical matter or one about which special knowledge was required, we said so. The Government moved a motion on the Floor of the House at 3.30 pm and the House agreed to it. That represents the choice of the House over how to deal with its own business.
The new Standing Order that has been moved by the Leader of the House would change all that. He made no bones about it in our debate on 28 June. Everything will go upstairs, unless a motion moved on the Floor of the House by a Minister of the Crown says otherwise. That sticks in the Committee's craw.
In conclusion, I shall read the recommendation in the Select Committee's report of 1989–90, HC512:
"The Committee therefore rejects the Government's view that automatic referral is necessary to ensure that the changes envisaged in the Procedure Committee's report are carried through. It recommends that the revised arrangements should continue to be based on the principle that the House itself makes the reference to the Standing Committee. In this context, the Government should feel free to table a motion of referral to a Special Standing Committee on European Community Documents in respect of all documents where it has not identified a clear argument against debate in such a forum."
In other words, unless there is a good argument for debate on the Floor of the House, upstairs it goes. No one would disagree with that, but that must be the House's decision, not that of the Government. The latter represents an intrusion of Executive power on the Floor of the House, power which has historically been resisted.
The Leader of the House kindly said that there will be a review after a year. During that year the Government will probably watch their Ps and Qs. The Procedure Committee has agreed to review the matter. If it works well, as I hope it will, why not enshrine it in Standing Orders? Our amendments would put it there. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Leader of the House will say that, for reasons of parliamentary scrutiny and the international reputation that our work on European Community legislation is gaining, it would be a great pity if the House lost that little bit of power. It has been noted abroad that we have that power, and it is greatly admired. I should be very sorry if this Leader of the House were to be responsible for its diminution.
6.42 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: I heartily endorse all that has been said by the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, the hon.

385
Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), in particular his tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for the work that they have done on the issue.
Although I accept with gratitude my right hon. and learned Friend's undertaking that after a year he will review the referral of matters to Select Committees, I must point out that "temporary" is a difficult term. Something that is temporary tends to become very permanent. It is difficult to change Standing Orders of the House. It takes a long time to produce reports and to get action on them taken on the Floor of the House. I am therefore cynical about the word "temporary."
I believe that it would be a mistake. First, we should lose unanimity that could not easily be regained. Secondly, because the terms of reference of the Select Committee on European Legislation would be broadened, reports would be produced that the Committee could recommend should be debated on the Floor of the House. For example, before the Madrid meeting of the Council of Ministers at which decisions were to be taken on whether Britain should join the exchange rate mechanism and on whether there should be monetary union, along the lines of the Delors report, reports were published by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and the European Legislation Select Committee.
The Government and the Conservative party believed that debate on the Floor of the House immediately before the county council elections would reveal divisions in the Conservative party which, politically, they could do without. I fully respect that political reason, but it is a very bad reason for the House avoiding a debate on an important constitutional issue.
By means of this motion we should be handing to the Executive the ability to repeat an appalling decision that was politically motivated. As the terms of reference are to be widened, more issues should be debated on the Floor of the House. The European Council is now the principal policy-making body of the Community. It meets in secret; we have to guess what its agenda is. Nevertheless, we manage to do so. We need to be able to debate those matters on the Floor of the House, on the recommendation of the Select Committee on European Legislation. Whether or not those matters should be debated on the Floor of the House should not be decided by the political party that is in power.
I have noted that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is keen, while in opposition, on strengthening the procedures of the House of Commons, but I wonder whether, when he gets into government, he will be quite so keen.
Dr. Cunningham: I said whichever party formed the Executive.
Mr. Wells: Exactly. However, whichever party is in power is reluctant to give it up and hand it back to the Floor of the House of Commons. I hope, therefore, that we shall not agree to the motion. It gives to the Executive the power to decide whether debates shall take place on important issues. I hope that the Select Committee on European Legislation will bring more of those issues to the Floor of the House because of the broadening of its terms
386
of reference. The motion would stultify that aim. That would be a great pity, since the Leader of the House has introduced a major reform which, with that exception, will serve the House well.
6.47 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: The 40-Member issue is relevant. I am sure that the Government will eventually concede the point, in order to please us all. The great majority of hon. Members do not have the slightest idea about the volume of European legislation. The only circumstances in which I envisage the 40-Member procedure being used is when all hon. Members receive a letter from the National Farmers Union and have to rise accordingly.
Is not there a danger that we are engaged in a conspiracy of silence to hide from the people of Britain what is happening? These are not minor regulations. They are fundamental measures that will change dramatically the laws of our country. It is not just one issue but several.
Yesterday we debated the exchange rate mechanism. Our trade figures with Germany are important. When I tabled a question a week ago I was told that I could obtain the information from the Library. All trade questions used to be published in Hansard, but during the past five months they have not been found there. They are transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and we are told that we can obtain the information from the Library.
There are three different formulae for determining what are trade figures. Hon. Members are therefore placed in difficulty. The same applies to the mountains of food. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told us at the Conservative party conference that the mountains of food had been wiped out because of the Government's reforms. Apparently, the mountains of food are increasing again because those reforms have not worked. Hon. Members cannot obtain information, however, about the size of the mountains. They are referred to a database in the House of Commons Library.
All European Community legislation used to be debated late at night because, we were told, most hon. Members would not be there; they did not want to listen to the debates. Not many hon. Members attended the debates and the Press Gallery was almost empty. But instead of having debates on the Floor of the House when hon. Members are beginning to pay some attention to European Community legislation, we intend to transfer consideration of that legislation to three Committees. The Committee members will be hand-picked. Hon. Members can go along and speak if they know what is coming up. However, we know that that will not happen.
We have to think of the public. I had a telephone message last night when I arrived home at 12.10 am. Somebody telephoned to say, "Mr. Taylor, I understand that the Government are banning the shooting of magpies and that you apparently have to obtain some licence. I just want to say that if you do not stop this, there will be another Eastbourne in Southend, East." The telephone went dead. I am sure that the call was from Rochford. That poor chap does not have the slightest idea that I can do nothing about whether we shoot magpies or need licences, as it is a decision of the EEC.
I had five letters this morning from nice ladies saying, "Dear Mr. Taylor, I understand that our laws to protect our cattle from being exported live are being stopped. Will

387
you please vote against it?" I had to write to those poor souls explaining that as a Member of Parliament I can do nothing about it. It will be decided by the Council of Ministers on a majority vote, irrespective of the views of Spanish fishermen or myself.
I am convinced that by referring these dramatic and important issues to a Standing Committee we are simply adding to the volume of silence. We are told by everyone that the Leader of the House is a great democrat. If he wants to ensure that we take these issues seriously, there is a simple answer. Instead of debating them after 10 o'clock at night and into the small hours or instead of referring them to a hand-picked Committee which will do its job and probably take the opportunity to visit Brussels and Japan at the same time, we could quite easily allow one day a week to discuss EEC issues. People would then hear about them and Ministers would be obliged to say what is going on. I do not think that it matters whether they are debated in Committee or on the Floor of the House or at any hour because they do not influence anything.
The Leader of the House's splendid motion No. 5 says that no Minister of the Crown can give agreement to any proposal that has not been scrutinised. That sounds fabulous. It sounds like a step forward in democracy. However, agreement is different from a common position, as the Leader of the House will be aware. Subsection (4) of the motion says that any Minister can agree to anything despite the scrutiny if he feels that there are special circumstances, and he must report those to the Committee. It is a load of codswallop. There is no democratic control on our laws because the courts, since interim relief, have the power to stop a United Kingdom law and say that it is dead. Even if 635 hon. Members voted against regulations, it would not influence the decision of the EEC one bit.
We do not need to look for more comforting scrutiny, which we all know is bogus and irrelevant. We need to tell the people of the United Kingdom what is going on. We should not give them propaganda but let them know the extent to which our democracy has faded away and, in my view, is disappearing. Hon. Members may think that that is dangerous because the public may wonder what is the point of voting in an election—whether it be for Conservatives, Labour or the Social and Liberal Democrats—when more and more decisions are being seized under article 100A of the EEC.
I am sure that the Leader of the House will say that I am unduly pessimistic and that Ministers take account of hon. Members' views. I am sure that they do, but he will be aware that in the EEC decisions are often made on a horse-trading basis. We say that we will support one country on a certain matter if we can have the support of others in other Committees. I am afraid—all hon. Members present are aware of this—that this is simply part of a long-term process of trying to deny information and deny people's right to know what is going on and to know how our sovereignty has disappeared shamefully.
Whether the Minister thinks that this is good or bad, whether one is pro-EEC or hates the EEC, whether one thinks great things are being achieved or rubbish is being achieved, our primary duty is to let the people of Britain know what on earth is going on. The only way to do that is not to pass on crucial changes affecting every person in Britain by referring them to pleasant sub-committees which will meet in the morning allowing the vast majority of hon. Members to relax. They will not have to wait up
388
until 11 o'clock at night to hear what is going on. They can simply say, "Someone else is doing it and, if they do not do their job, it is not my fault."
In those circumstances, the motion we are considering in one hour—not five hours or 20 hours—will achieve nothing except that the people of Britain will know a little less about a subject on which they are not being informed.
6.54 pm
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House wishes to reply soon, so I shall be brief. I take some comfort from the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) who expressed the importance of the Committees. However, I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to take on board one or two points.
I echo the great concern voiced by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the role of the Executive in this matter. I am also concerned that ordinary hon. Members will not be able to vote on the Standing Committees. It is fine that they should be able to listen and speak but they should be able to vote. If not, the value of the Committees will be downgraded and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, they will become irrelevant and people will not take them seriously. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, even at this late stage, to take on board those points.
6.55 pm
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to hon. Members for having condensed their remarks effectively in the short time allowed to us.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who would have liked us to have more time. I had not been planning to have so many statements this afternoon. The third statement was totally unexpected and we could not have done without it. I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides for the generosity of the tributes they have paid to me which are alarming in their scale. I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) takes the same view, even on that humanitarian subject. However, as always, I listened with interest to what he said. I suspect that, to a large extent, it echoed his speech in the debate in June which lasted five hours. Therefore, it is wrong to say that these matters have not been considered at some length.
Mr. William Cash: May I ask about the word "legislation" in the Standing Order? Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that he will keep it under review? The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) was that we wanted to look at the Madrid matters in advance of the debate. Would it be possible to consider that?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot answer that question now. However, there has been an agreed widening of the scope of the work that can be done by the Scrutiny Committee. We shall have to see how far that works out in practice.
The average printing cost per question is £38 and the preparation cost is £53 for a written question and £87 for an oral question. Therefore, there will be a substantial

389
saving as a result of the recommendations which, I am glad to say, have commanded total support on both sides of the House.
We shall have to think about the best way of carrying out the review of the procedures once they have been in place for 12 months. It will be helpful to know that the Procedure Committee intends to have our performance under review during the 12 months ahead and I have no doubt that the Scrutiny Committee will continue to scrutinise it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) drew attention to an important point about the allocation of subjects. He is right to believe that the Treasury is included in the third group. It includes the Treasury—including Customs and Excise—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office and the Departments of Health, Social Security, Employment, Energy and Education and Science. It will be helpful to have that set out clearly. They are allocated on the basis that the work will be roughly evenly distributed. That is provisional and we shall have to see how it works out in practice.
The key issue in the debate turned on the question of automaticity under Standing Order No. 102 and there is a clear divergence of views about that. I do not accept the point advanced by some hon. Members that the remission of the questions for study by the new Standing Committees implies any devaluation of the view that the House takes about scrutiny. They are special bodies and they will have new and extended procedures. That should be recognised.
There is bound to be the question of whether it is right for this matter to be decided on the proposals before us or on the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). We shall have to see how we get on, and hon. Members will certainly bear that in mind. On that basis, I commend the motion and the subsequent motions to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 21.

Division No. 333]

[7.00 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Allen, Graham

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Arbuthnot, James

Buck, Sir Antony

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Budgen, Nicholas

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Burns, Simon

Ashby, David

Butcher, John

Atkins, Robert

Butler, Chris

Atkinson, David

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Carrington, Matthew

Baldry, Tony

Cash, William

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Barron, Kevin

Chapman, Sydney

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

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

Bendall, Vivian

Colvin, Michael

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Conway, Derek

Bermingham, Gerald

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Cope, Rt Hon John

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Cormack, Patrick

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Cunningham, Dr John

Bottomley, Peter

Curry, David

Brazier, Julian

Dalyell, Tam

Bright, Graham

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

Dixon, Don

Browne, John (Winchester)

Dorrell, Stephen

390

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Leighton, Ron

Dunn, Bob

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Lightbown, David

Emery, Sir Peter

Lilley, Peter

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Evennett, David

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Fallon, Michael

Lord, Michael

Favell, Tony

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Fearn, Ronald

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Maclean, David

Fishburn, John Dudley

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fisher, Mark

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Flannery, Martin

Madden, Max

Flynn, Paul.

Major, Rt Hon John

Fookes, Dame Janet

Malins, Humfrey

Forman, Nigel

Mans, Keith

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Maples, John

Forth, Eric

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Foster, Derek

Mates, Michael

Fox, Sir Marcus

Maude, Hon Francis

Freeman, Roger

Meale, Alan

Gale, Roger

Miller, Sir Hal

Gardiner, George

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mitchell, Sir David

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Moss, Malcolm

Goodlad, Alastair

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Mudd, David

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Needham, Richard

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Neubert, Michael

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Grist, Ian

Norris, Steve

Hague, William

O'Brien, William

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hanley, Jeremy

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hannam, John

Page, Richard

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

Paice, James

Harris, David

Patnick, Irvine

Haselhurst, Alan

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hawkins, Christopher

Pawsey, James

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Portillo, Michael

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Powell, William (Corby)

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hill, James

Raffan, Keith

Hind, Kenneth

Redwood, John

Home Robertson, John

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hood, Jimmy

Rhodes James, Robert

Hordern, Sir Peter

Riddick, Graham

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

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Robertson, George

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Rooker, Jeff

Howells, Geraint

Rost, Peter

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Rowe, Andrew

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Rowlands, Ted

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Ryder, Richard

Hunter, Andrew

Sackville, Hon Tom

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Irvine, Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

Jack, Michael

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Jackson, Robert

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Janman, Tim

Sheerman, Barry

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Shelton, Sir William

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Shersby, Michael

Key, Robert

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Kilfedder, James

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Kirkhope, Timothy

Steen, Anthony

Knapman, Roger

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Summerson, Hugo

Knowles, Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Knox, David

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Lawrence, Ivan

Tracey, Richard

Lee, John (Pendle)

Trippier, David

391

Trotter, Neville

Wray, Jimmy

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Yeo, Tim

Wareing, Robert N.

Young, Sir George(Acton)

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, Sir John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wilkinson, John

Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tim Boswell.

Wood, Timothy

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

NOES

Beggs, Roy

Patchett, Terry

Clay, Bob

Primarolo, Dawn

Corbyn, Jeremy

Ross, William(Londonderry E)

Cryer, Bob

Salmond, Alex

Forsythe, Clifford(Antrim S)

Sillars, Jim

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Skinner, Dennis

Graham, Thomas

Welsh, Andrew(Angus E)

Grant, Bernie(Tottenham)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Hughes, John(Coventry NE)

Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

Tellers for the Noes:

Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)

Mr. George Buckley and Mr. Harry Barnes.

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Nellist, Dave

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House agrees with the recommendations contained in the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of this Session (House of Commons Paper No. 379).
It being after Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put at that hour by the Order [18 October].

Procedure

  QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS, ETC.
  Motion made and Question put,
  That with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament Standing Order No. 17 (Questions to Members) and Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of motions, amendments and questions) be repealed and the following Standing Orders be made—

  QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS, ETC.

    Time for taking questions
    (1)—Questions shall be taken on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, after private business has been disposed of.
    (2) No question shall be taken after half-past three o'clock, except questions which have not appeared on the paper but which are in Mr. Speaker's opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business.
    (3) Any questions tabled for written answer on a day on which the House does not sit by reason of the continuance of a previous sitting shall be deemed to be questions for written answer on the next sitting day and shall appear on the Order Paper for that day.

    Notices of questions, motions and amendments
    (1)—Notices of questions shall be given by Members in writing to the Table Office.
    (2) A notice of a question, or of an amendment to a motion standing on the Order Paper for which no day has been fixed or of the addition of a name in support of such a motion or amendment, which is given after half-past ten o'clock in the evening shall be treated for all purposes as if it were a notice handed in after the rising of the House.
    (3) A Member shall indicate on the notice of any question whether it is for oral, written or priority written answer.
    (4) Where a Member has indicated that a question is for priority written answer the Minister shall cause an answer to be given to the Member on the date for which notice has been given, provided that the requirement of notice shall be the same for such questions as that prescribed in this order for questions for oral answer.
    (5) Notice of a question for oral answer may not be given on a day earlier than ten sitting days before the day for answer, provided that, where that earliest day would otherwise fall on a Friday, the earliest day on which such notice may be given will instead be the previous sitting day.
    (6) Notice of any question for oral answer must appear at latest on the notice paper circulated two days (excluding Saturday and Sunday) before that on which an answer is desired.
    (7) When it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of less than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purpose of calculating the period in paragraph (5) of this order.
    (8) When notice shall have been given of a Motion for the adjournment of the House for more than three days Mr. Speaker may cause to have printed and circulated with the Vote a memorandum superseding the provisions of paragraphs (5) and (6) of this order and instead setting out the earliest day on which notice of questions for oral answer may be given for each of the first ten sitting days after that adjournment, provided that each such day shall as far as practicable fall on the same day of the week as that on which the question is to be answered and shall not be fewer than fourteen days before the day for answer; and also setting out the latest day for notice of questions for oral answer on each of the first two sitting days following that adjournment provided that each such day shall not be fewer than two days (excluding Saturday and Sunday) before the day for answer.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
    The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 2.

    Division No. 334]

    [7.13 p.m

    AYES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Allen, Graham

    Dover, Den

    Arbuthnot, James

    Dunn, Bob

    Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    Fallon, Michael

    Atkins, Robert

    Favell, Tony

    Atkinson, David

    Fearn, Ronald

    Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)

    Flannery, Martin

    Baker, Nicholas(Dorset N)

    Flynn, Paul

    Baldry, Tony

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Banks, Tony(Newham NW)

    Forsyth, Michael(Stirling)

    Barron, Kevin

    Forsythe, Clifford(Antrim S)

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Forth, Eric

    Beggs, Roy

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Bendall, Vivian

    Freeman, Roger

    Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)

    Gale, Roger

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Gardiner, George

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Boswell, Tim

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Bottomley, Peter

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Bright, Graham

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Greenway, Harry(Ealing N)

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

    Greenway, John(Ryedale)

    Browne, John(Winchester)

    Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)

    Bruce, Ian(Dorset South)

    Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Grist, Ian

    Burns, Simon

    Grylls, Michael

    Butcher, John

    Hague, William

    Butler, Chris

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Carlisle, John,(Luton N)

    Hannam, John

    Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

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

    Carrington, Matthew

    Harris, David

    Cash, William

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Chapman, Sydney

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen(Wolv' NE)

    Colvin, Michael

    Hicks, Robert(Cornwall SE)

    Conway, Derek

    Hill, James

    Coombs, Simon(Swindon)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Home Robertson, John

    Corbett, Robin

    Hood, Jimmy

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Cormack, Patrick

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

    Cryer, Bob

    Howarth, G.(Cannock & B'wd)

    Curry, David

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Dalyell, Tam

    Howells, Geraint

    Davis, David(Boothferry)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Dixon, Don

    Hughes, John(Coventry NE)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)

    393

    Hughes, Simon(Southwark)

    Paice, James

    Hunt, David(Wirral W)

    Patchett, Terry

    Hunter, Andrew

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Irvine, Michael

    Pawsey, James

    Jack, Michael

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Jackson, Robert

    Portillo, Michael

    Janman, Tim

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Jones, Ieuan(Ynys Môn)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Raffan, Keith

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Redwood, John

    Key, Robert

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Kilfedder, James

    Riddick, Graham

    King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)

    Knapman, Roger

    Rooker, Jeff

    Knight, Dame Jill(Edgbaston)

    Rost, Peter

    Knowles, Michael

    Ryder, Richard

    Knox, David

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Salmond, Alex

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lee, John(Pendle)

    Shaw, David(Dover)

    Lightbown, David

    Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)

    Lilley, Peter

    Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb')

    Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Shelton, Sir William

    Lord, Michael

    Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

    McKay, Allen(Barnsley West)

    Sillars, Jim

    MacKay, Andrew(E Berkshire)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Maclean, David

    Skinner, Dennis

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Spearing, Nigel

    Madden, Max

    Spicer, Sir Jim(Dorset W)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Malins, Humfrey

    Steen, Anthony

    Mans, Keith

    Stewart, Allan(Eastwood)

    Maples, John

    Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)

    Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Martin, David(Portsmouth S)

    Taylor, Ian(Esher)

    Mates, Michael

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

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Taylor, John M(Solihull)

    Meale, Alan

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Michael, Alun

    Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)

    Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)

    Tracey, Richard

    Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)

    Trotter, Neville

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Waller, Gary

    Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)

    Wells, Bowen

    Moss, Malcolm

    Welsh, Andrew(Angus E)

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Needham, Richard

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Nellist, Dave

    Wood, Timothy

    Neubert, Michael

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Yeo, Tim

    Nicholson, David(Taunton)

    Young, Sir George(Acton)

    Norris, Steve

    O'Brien, William

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. Neil Hamilton.

    Page, Richard

    NOES

    Davies, Ron(Caerphilly)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Graham, Thomas

    Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. George Buckley.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament—
  A. Standing Order No. 102 (Standing Committees on European Community Documents) be repealed, and the following Standing Order be made:

  EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES

    European Standing Committees
    (1) There shall be three Standing Committees, called European Standing Committees, to which shall stand referred for consideration on Motion, unless the House otherwise
    394
    orders, such European Community Documents as defined in Standing Order No. 127 (Select Committee on European Legislation) as may be recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation for further consideration.
    (2) If a Motion that specified European Community Documents as aforesaid shall not stand referred to a European Standing Committee is made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, the Question thereon shall be put forthwith.
    (3) Each European Standing Committee shall consist of ten Members nominated for the duration of a Session by the Committee of Selection; and in nominating such Members, the Committee of Selection shall—

    (i) have regard to the qualifications of the Members nominated and to the composition of the House; and

    (ii) have power to discharge Members from time to time, and to appoint others in substitution.

    (4) The quorum of a European Standing Committee shall be two, excluding the Chairman.
    (5) Any Member, though not nominated to a European Standing Committee, may take part in the Committee's proceedings, but such Member shall not make any Motion, vote or be counted in the quorum; provided that a Minister of the Crown who is a Member of this House but not nominated to the Committee may make a Motion as provided in paragraph (7) and (8) below; and the Government may appoint the precedence of Notices of Motion to be considered in each Committee.
    (6) The several European Standing Committees, and the principal subject matter of the European Community Documents to be referred to each, shall be as set out below; and in making recommendations for further consideration, the Select Committee on European Legislation shall specify the Committee to which in its opinion the Documents ought to be referred; and subject to paragraph (2) of this Order, the Documents shall be referred to that Committee accordingly.

    European Standing Committees

    Principal subject matter

    Matters within the responsibility of the following Departments—

    A

    Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Environment; and Forestry Commission (and analogous responsibilities of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices)

    B

    Trade and Industry; Transport (and analogous responsibilities of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices)

    C

    Other Departments.

    (7) The Chairman may permit a Minister of the Crown to make a statement and to answer questions thereon put by Members, in respect of each Motion relative to a European Community Document or Documents referred to a European Standing Committee of which a Minister shall have given notice; but no question shall be taken after the expiry of a period of one hour from the commencement of the said statement.
    (8) Following the conclusion of the proceedings under the previous paragraph, the Motion referred to therein may be made, to which Amendments may be moved; and, if proceedings thereon have not been previously concluded, the Chairman shall interrupt the consideration of such Motion and Amendments when the Committee shall have sat for a period of two and a half hours, and shall then put forwith successively:

    (a) the Question on any Amendment already proposed from the Chair; and

    (b) the main Question (or the main Question, as amended).

    The Committee shall thereupon report to the House any Resolution to which it has come, without any further Question being put.
    (9) If any Motion is made in the House in relation to any European Community Document in respect of which a Resolution has been reported to the House in accordance with paragraph (8) of this Order, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put successively—

    395

    (a) the Question on any Amendment selected by him which may be moved;

    (b) the main Question (or the main Question, as amended);

    and proceedings in pursuance of this paragraph, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.
    (10) With modifications provided in this Order, the following Standing Orders shall apply to European Standing Committees:

    No. 85 (Chairmen of standing committees);

    No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees);

    No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees); and

    B. the following consequential Amendments to Standing Orders be made:
    in Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
    line 15, after 'documents' insert '(other than in pursuance of paragraph (9) of Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees))'.
    line 37, leave out from 'Orders' to end of line 46 and insert 'No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees) and No. 102 (European Standing Committees) "European Community Documents" shall be as defined in Standing Order No. 127 (Select Committee on European Legislation)'.
    in Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees),
    leave out from the beginning of line 8 to `measures'in line 9;
    in Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees),
    line 3, leave out 'and';
    line 5, at end, insert 'and
    (d) a European Standing Committee';
    line 10, leave out from 'instruments' to 'or' in line 12;
    in Standing Order No. 87, line 6, after 'amendment' insert 'other than a motion or an amendment in a European Standing Committee under Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees)';
    in Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing
    committees), line 2, after 'been' insert 'or stands'
    in Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees), line 2, after 'Committee,' insert 'and Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees)';
    leave out from beginning of line 11 to 'shall' in line 13, and insert, 'of a motion relative to a European Community Document or Documents or an amendment thereto given under Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees).
    line 25, at end insert 'or (in the case of European Standing Committees) by paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees)'.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]
    Amendment proposed to the Question: Leave out
    paragraphs (1) and (2) and insert—
    '(1) There shall be three standing committees, called European Standing Committees, for the consideration of European Community documents (as defined in Standing Order No. 127 (Select Committee on European Legislation)), referred to them.
    (2) Where notice has been given of a motion relating to a European Community document, a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that the said document be referred to such a committee, and the Question thereupon shall be put forthwith; and if, on the Question thereupon shall be put forthwith; and if, on the Question being put, not fewer than forty Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, Mr. Speaker shall declare that the noes have it.'.—[Mr. Spearing.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 138.

    Division No. 335]

    [7.24 pm

    AYES

    Allen, Graham

    Barnes, Harry(Derbyshire NE)

    Banks, Tony(Newham NW)

    Barron, Kevin

    396

    Buckley, George J.

    Nellist, Dave

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Neubert, Michael

    Cash, William

    O'Brien, William

    Clay, Bob

    O'Neill, Martin

    Coombs, Anthony(Wyre F'rest)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Dalyell, Tam

    Patchett, Terry

    Dixon, Don

    Pike, Peter L.

    Flynn, Paul

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Raffan, Keith

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Salmond, Alex

    Graham, Thomas

    Sillars, Jim

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

    Skinner, Dennis

    Home Robertson, John

    Spearing, Nigel

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Taylor, Teddy(S'end E)

    Hughes, John(Coventry NE)

    Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)

    Hughes, Simon(Southwark)

    Wells, Bowen

    Illsley, Eric

    Welsh, Andrew(Angus E)

    Irvine, Michael

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Knapman, Roger

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Knowles, Michael

    Wray, Jimmy

    Leighton, Ron

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    McKay, Allen(Barnsley West)

    Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Jimmy Hood.

    Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

    Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)

    NOES

    Arbuthnot, James

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Atkins, Robert

    Grist, Ian

    Atkinson, David

    Hague, William

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Baldry, Tony

    Hannam, John

    Beggs, Roy

    Harris, David

    Bendall, Vivian

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Hind, Kenneth

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Bottomley, Peter

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

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Bowis, John

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Bright, Graham

    Howells, Geraint

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Jack, Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Jackson, Robert

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Janman, Tim

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Carrington, Matthew

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Key, Robert

    Chapman, Sydney

    Kilfedder, James

    Chope, Christopher

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

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

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Colvin, Michael

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Conway, Derek

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Cormack, Patrick

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Curry, David

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

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

    Lightbown, David

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Lilley, Peter

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Dover, Den

    Lord, Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Emery, Sir Peter

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Fallon, Michael

    Maclean, David

    Favell, Tony

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Mans, Keith

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Maples, John

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Forth, Eric

    Mates, Michael

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Freeman, Roger

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Gale, Roger

    Moss, Malcolm

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Needham, Richard

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Page, Richard

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Paice, James

    397

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Steen, Anthony

    Pawsey, James

    Stewart, Allan(Eastwood)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)

    Portillo, Michael

    Summerson, Hugo

    Redwood, John

    Taylor, Ian(Esher)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

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

    Riddick, Graham

    Taylor, John M(Solihull)

    Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Rost, Peter

    Tracey, Richard

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Trotter, Neville

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)

    Wilkinson, John

    Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb')

    Wood, Timothy

    Shelton, Sir William

    Young, Sir George(Acton)

    Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

    Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Spicer, Sir Jim(Dorset W)

    Mr. Irvine Patrick and Mr. Tim Boswell.

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Amendment accordingly negatived.
    Amendment made to the Question: No. 4, as a further consequential Amendment to Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees), line 1 at the beginning insert:
    'Subject to the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees)'.—[Mr. Spearing.]
    Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament Standing Order No. 127 (Select Committee on European Legislation) be amended by leaving out paragraph (1) and inserting:
  (1) There shall be a select committee, to be called the Select Committee on European Legislation, to examine European Community Documents and—

  (a) to report its opinion on the legal and political importance of each such document and, where it considers appropriate, to report also on the reasons for its opinion and on any matters of principle, policy or law which may be affected;

  (b) to make recommendations for the further consideration of any such document pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees); and

  (c) to consider any issue arising upon any such document or group of documents.

  The expression 'European Community Documents' means—

  (i) any proposal under the Community Treaties for legislation by the Council of Ministers;

  (ii) any document which is published for submission to the European Council or the Council of Ministers;

  (iii) any document (not falling within (ii) above) which is published by one Community institution for or with a view to submission to another Community institution and which does not relate exclusively to consideration of any proposal for legislation;

  (iv) any other document relating to European Community matters deposited in the House by a Minister of the Crown.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

  The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 2.

  Division No. 336]

  [7.35 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Banks, Tony(Newham NW)

  Allen, Graham

  Barnes, Harry(Derbyshire NE)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Barron, Kevin

  Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)

  Beggs, Roy

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Bendall, Vivian

  Atkins, Robert

  Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)

  Atkinson, David

  Benyon, W.

  Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  398

  Boswell, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter

  Kilfedder, James

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)

  Bowis, John

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Brazier, Julian

  Knapman, Roger

  Bright, Graham

  Knight, Greg(Derby North)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Knowles, Michael

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

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Browne, John(Winchester)

  Lester, Jim(Broxtowe)

  Buckley, George J.

  Lightbown, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Lilley, Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Livsey, Richard

  Butler, Chris

  Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Carrington, Matthew

  Lord, Michael

  Cash, William

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  McKay, Allen(Barnsley West)

  Chapman, Sydney

  MacKay, Andrew(E Berkshire)

  Chope, Christopher

  Maclean, David

  Churchill, Mr

  McLoughlin, Patrick

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

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Mans, Keith

  Coombs, Anthony(Wyre F'rest)

  Maples, John

  Coombs, Simon(Swindon)

  Martin, David(Portsmouth S)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Mellor, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)

  Couchman, James

  Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)

  Curry, David

  Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Moss, Malcolm

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

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Dixon, Don

  Needham, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Neubert, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, David(Taunton)

  Fallon, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Flynn, Paul

  O'Brien, William

  Forsythe, Clifford(Antrim S)

  Page, Richard

  Forth, Eric

  Paice, James

  Freeman, Roger

  Patnick, Irvine

  Gale, Roger

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Portillo, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Raffan, Keith

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Redwood, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Riddick, Graham

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)

  Graham, Thomas

  Ryder, Richard

  Greenway, Harry(Ealing N)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Greenway, John(Ryedale)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)

  Salmond, Alex

  Grist, Ian

  Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)

  Hague, William

  Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb')

  Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

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

  Sillars, Jim

  Harris, David

  Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Spicer, Sir Jim(Dorset W)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Summerson, Hugo

  Home Robertson, John

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Hood, Jimmy

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

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Taylor, John M(Solihull)

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

  Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

  Howarth, G.(Cannock & B'wd)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)

  Howells, Geraint

  Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Tracey, Richard

  Hughes, John(Coventry NE)

  Wells, Bowen

  Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)

  Welsh, Andrew(Angus E)

  Hughes, Simon(Southwark)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Hunt, David(Wirral W)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Illsley, Eric

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Irvine, Michael

  Young, Sir George(Acton)

  Jack, Michael

  Jackson, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  399

  NOES

  Patchett, Terry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Peter L. Pike.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That in the opinion of this House:—
  (1) No Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council of Ministers to any proposal for European Community legislation—

  (a) which is still subject to scrutiny (that is, on which the Select Committee on European Legislation has not completed its scrutiny) or

  (b) which is awaiting consideration by the House (that is, which has been recommended by the Select Committee for consideration pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees) but in respect of which the House has not come to a Resolution, either on a Resolution reported by a European Standing Committee or otherwise);

  (2) In this Resolution, any reference to agreement to a proposal includes, in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in co-operation with the European Parliament, agreement to a common position.
  (3) The Minister concerned may, however, give agreement:—

  (a) to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny if he considers that it is confidential, routine or trivial or is substantially the same as a proposal on which scrutiny has been completed;

  (b) to a proposal which is awaiting consideration by the House if the Select Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld pending consideration.

  (4) The Minister concerned may also give agreement to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny or awaiting consideration by the House if he decides that for special reasons agreement should be given; but he should explain his reasons—

  (i) in every such case, to the Select Committee at the first opportunity after reaching his decision; and

  (ii) in the case of a proposal awaiting consideration by the House, to the House at the first opportunity after giving agreement.

  (5) In relation to any proposal which requires adoption by unanimity, abstention shall, for the purposes of paragraph (4), be treated as giving agreement.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Roger Knapman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to motion No. 5, paragraph (5) of which states:
  "abstention shall, for the purposes of paragraph (4), be treated as giving agreement."
  Is there any precedent in the history of British Parliaments for abstention being treated as agreement?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should not go so far as to say that there was a precedent, but I can inform the hon. Gentleman that it is certainly not a matter for the Chair.
  The House having divided: Ayes 165, Noes 8.

  Division No. 337]

  [7.46pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Baker, Nicholas(Dorset N)

  Allen, Graham

  Banks, Tony(Newham NW)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Barnes, Harry(Derbyshire NE)

  Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)

  Barron, Kevin

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Beggs, Roy

  Atkins, Robert

  Bendall, Vivian

  Atkinson, David

  Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)

  Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)

  Benyon, W.

  400

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Boswell, Tim

  Leighton, Ron

  Bottomley, Peter

  Lester, Jim(Broxtowe)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Lightbown, David

  Bowis, John

  Lilley, Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Livsey, Richard

  Bright, Graham

  Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Browne, John(Winchester)

  Lord, Michael

  Buckley, George J.

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Budgen, Nicholas

  McKay, Allen(Barnsley West)

  Burns, Simon

  MacKay, Andrew(E Berkshire)

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Maclean, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Mans, Keith

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Maples, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Martin, David(Portsmouth S)

  Churchill, Mr

  Mellor, David

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

  Michael, Alun

  Colvin, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)

  Conway, Derek

  Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Cormack, Patrick

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Curry, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Dalyell, Tam

  Needham, Richard

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

  Neubert, Michael

  Davis, David(Boothferry)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Dixon, Don

  Nicholson, David(Taunton)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Norris, Steve

  Dover, Den

  O'Brien, William

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Paice, James

  Flynn, Paul

  Patchett, Terry

  Forsythe, Clifford(Antrim S)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Freeman, Roger

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Pike, Peter L.

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Raffan, Keith

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Redwood, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Graham, Thomas

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Greenway, Harry(Ealing N)

  Salmond, Alex

  Greenway, John(Ryedale)

  Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)

  Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)

  Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb')

  Grist, Ian

  Shelton, Sir William

  Hague, William

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Sillars, Jim

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

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Harris, David

  Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Steen, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Summerson, Hugo

  Home Robertson, John

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

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

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

  Taylor, John M(Solihull)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Howell, Rt Hon David(G'dford)

  Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)

  Howells, Geraint

  Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)

  Tracey, Richard

  Hughes, Simon(Southwark)

  Wells, Bowen

  Hunt, David(Wirral W)

  Welsh, Andrew(Angus E)

  Irvine, Michael

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Jack, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Jackson, Robert

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Young, Sir George(Acton)

  Key, Robert

  Kilfedder, James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)

  Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Knight, Greg(Derby North)

  Knowles, Michael

  401

  NOES

  Clay, Bob

  Skinner, Dennis

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Taylor, Teddy(S'end E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Cryer, Bob

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Knapman, Roger

  Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Bill Michie.

  Nellist, Dave

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Redbridge London Borough Council Bill [By Order]
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on the Question [15 October], That the Lords amendment be now considered
Redbridge London Borough Council Bill [By Order]
  Clause 6

    As TO TRANSFER OF RIGHTS
    Which amendment was: in page 4, lines 9 to 17, leave out clause 6.
    Question again proposed, That the Lords amendment be now considered.
    7.57 pm
    Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may recall that the Bill has been the subject of some controversy and, indeed, difficulty. When it was last considered an amendment was moved. The House considered an amendment which did not refer to anything. As a consequence of the belated discovery of that fact during the debate, the proposer withdrew the amendment because clearly the House could not debate something which was not there. Could you agree to allow us to start from the beginning? We had two and a quarter hours of debate in a vacuum as it were. It seems to me that it would be better to agree for the purposes of time that the debate was about to begin now because on the last occasion it was about, literally, nothing.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: In the first instance, the motion to which the right hon. Gentleman—I should say hon. Gentleman; I am giving him titles that he does not have—referred was not withdrawn. The debate was adjourned. The hon. Gentleman knows that the powers of the Chair do not include a power to make that debate null and void. No occupant of the Chair has that power. Therefore, this is a resumed debate, with which we must now continue. If I remember correctly—I remember the debate well—Mr. Harry Barnes had the Floor.
    Mr. Michael Neubert: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I remain somewhat perplexed about the position of the printed Bill that we are about to discuss. You will recall that the original Bill that was deposited was dated 16 November 1988. The later Bill, which I have in print, was dated 23 November 1989. The two Bills now available in the Vote Office are dated, respectively, 28 February 1990 and 25 May 1990. Should we come to debate clause 6 and the amendment to it, it is not clear to me which of the two Bills we are discussing. That clause is in the Bill dated 28 February 1990, but it does not appear in the one dated 25 May 1990.
    I would consider it odd if it was within our procedures to discuss an outdated edition of a printed Bill, but even if that was so, is it not a contempt of the House that the Bill should have been printed in anticipation of the deletion of clause 6 even before the House had considered that matter?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: One Bill is the Commons' Bill and one Bill is the Lords'. The Bill before me is the correct one. The Vote Office, being efficient as ever, has both the Bills and all that hon. Gentlemen have to do is ask for the correct one.

    403
    I would be generous enough to offer my copy to the hon. Member for Romford (M r. Neubert), but, as we are debating it, I think that I should have it by the Chair.
    Mr. William O'Brien: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In addition to the two Bills to which reference has been made we have received a statement on behalf of the promoters in support of the consideration of the Lords amendment. Paragraph 3 of that statement says:
    "Clause 6 of the Bill dealt with the power to transfer market rights conferred by the Bill. In view of the decision to make the amendment referred to above, clause 6 became otiose and was struck out at Committee Stage in the House of Lords."
    I challenge that argument. When I made inquiries as to when the amendment was made, I was informed that when the Bill left the Opposed Private Bill Committee in the House of Lords it was in the same condition as it was when it left the House of Commons. We are now told that that Committee made the amendment. The report of that Committee should be made available, but, having asked for it, I have been told that it is unavailable.
    If we are told that an amendment was made, we are entitled to see the business before the Committee when that amendment was made. I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, about how to obtain the report of those Committee proceedings so that we know exactly why the amendment was made. I have been unable to obtain that information and, therefore, I request that this business be adjourned until we receive it. Yet again we are approaching a debate without the evidence needed to consider the amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I cannot go behind decisions that were taken in the Lords. The question before us is perfectly in order, as is all the documentation. Points of order are taking time out of a resumed debate. We have already spent more than two hours on the procedural motion. The matters that hon. Gentlemen are seeking to raise now could be raised in the general debate when I should be happy to listen to them. I call Mr. Barnes.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: I am afraid that I must start by raising a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    We adjourned the debate on 15 October until today to get ourselves out of a great difficulty—we were debating something that did not exist. Many clever speeches were made, and I take my hat off to those hon. Members who were able to talk for two and a quarter hours about material which did not exist but which was loosely linked to the Bill. The amendment that had been moved, however, related to nothing.
    I believe that we should start again from scratch and that the promoters should move that the amendment be considered. We should then be able to debate the items correctly. I put my case in a letter to Mr. Speaker and no doubt it was considered before this debate.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman approached Mr. Speaker about this matter, but the Chair has no authority to make null and void and erase a debate which was proper and had taken place. We must now continue that resumed debate. The Bills and all the papers are available to the House this time.
    Mr. Barnes: In that case I now need to argue why we should vote against the amendment being considered.
    404
    The main reason not to consider the amendment is to give Redbridge council time to put its house in order, especially as the Bill is a procedural mess. That would give the council an opportunity to consider the role of the parliamentary agents, Sharpe Pritchard.
    In the previous debate on this matter the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) said:
    "Redbridge's parliamentary agents are Sharpe Pritchard who are well known to hon. Members."—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 994.]
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that you have heard several points of order already, but I have another point of order that is extremely important to the Chair and to the House.
    When we previously debated the Bill a number of Conservative Members who are deeply involved in this matter spoke and, therefore, under the normal rules of procedure, they would be disallowed from speaking today. However, they were speaking about a clause that was not in the Bill. In effect, now that we know about clause 6, they have not taken part in the proceedings.
    Mr. Dave Nellist: Good one.
    Mr. Skinner: For the purposes of proper procedure, and as those hon. Members have a vested interest in this matter, those who spoke about a clause which was not in the Bill should now have the right to speak to clause 6. If not, those hon. Members and, in particular, their constituents, will be disfranchised in this debate.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely good point. It is most ingenious, but, unfortunately, at this stage I cannot change our practice to change the rules of debate. Hon. Members who have spoken before may intervene, but I cannot change the practice now to allow them to speak. I must say, however, that the hon. Gentleman raised a most ingenious point of order—one of the best I have heard in my time in the Chair.
    Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We know that there is a procedure in the House whereby an hon. Member can ask the permission of the House to speak again in a debate. Sometimes Ministers exercise that right when they are introducing new Bills. In those circumstances, if Conservative Members who took part in the previous debate on the non-clause asked permission to speak again, would that be allowed? I know that someone might object, but that is another story.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I cannot anticipate that but, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it is for the House to determine the answer.
    Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has great validity and I endorse its sentiments. In view of that, would you accept a manuscript amendment to the Standing Orders—a procedure that is widely followed in the House?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That was a very good try on the hon. Gentleman's part, but I am not going to wear it this time.
    Mr. Neubert: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If it is not open to you under the

    405
    Standing Orders to make such special arrangements in the special circumstances of the business being adjourned on Monday 15 October, would you be prepared, if asked to judge the adequacy of the time given to the debate, to make allowances for the fact that a good deal of our time during the previous debate was spent debating a matter that was out of order? We were asked to discuss a clause that did not appear in the Bill and much of the debate was taken up with points of order about just that.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I see that this evening our time is also being taken up with points of order. The hon. Gentleman must now leave the matter to the discretion of the Chair.
    Mr. Allen McKay: On the ruling that you have just made, Madam Deputy Speaker, you said that if we ask for the permission of the House to speak again, it will be up to the House to decide yea or nay. I take it that if there were to be a division of opinion, there would also be a Division of the House on whether that Member could speak.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: No, no—one voice only is our normal practice. It is the practice of the House that if one voice is raised in opposition, so be it. It is not up to the Chair.
    Mr. Barnes: I thought that the point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the disfranchisement of the hon. Members who spoke in the previous debate was important. That was why I included it in my letter to Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said it with much more style and panache than could be contained in my letter.
    The point that I was making was that we should vote against the amendment because Redbridge council is in something of a mess over the measure. I was quoting from the hon. Member for Romford, who said:
    "Redbridge's parliamentary agents are Sharpe Pritchard who are well known to hon. Members. Their no doubt expensive services enjoy a high reputation in the House."
    However, they may not enjoy such a high reputation following the procedures in which we have been involved. A great mistake had been made when the debate had to be adjourned on 15 October.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the debate was not adjourned in the sense of an ordinary conclusion, but came to an end in unusual circumstances because the Bill was withdrawn? The debate had to come to an end because the sponsor had to withdraw the Bill and left the House with nothing to debate. That emphasises the importance of the procedural points that we are making.
    Mr. Barnes: The measure was, in practice and de facto, withdrawn, but unfortunately the sponsor moved an adjournment, so formerly we were in that position. I wrote to Mr. Speaker in an attempt to claim that, despite how the words appeared on paper at the end of the debate, the reality was that the officials and, to a large extent, the Chair were in a considerable mess about what was taking place. I was asked by Mr. Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair to allow the sponsor to get us out of that mess, which he did by moping the adjournment. Now, we have been hoist by the petard of the adjournment having been moved. But in reality it was a convenient means of killing
    406
    off the debate. That is why I felt that we should start the whole thing again and enfranchise the hon. Members who had previously spoken, but Madam Deputy Speaker's ruling was different, so I must pursue the debate.
    I was quoting from the hon. Member for Romford in the debate of 15 October, when he talked about the expensive services of Sharpe Pritchard and said that the firm would be well known to hon. Members. He continued:
    "Proceedings on the Bill have been under way for nearly two years if one dates them from the printing of the Bill on 16 November 1988. Redbridge residents must have been paying a packet all this time."—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 994.]
    They certainly have been paying a packet and, presumably, have had to pay an extra packet in having the Bill reprinted to make it available for us today. They also have the problem of all the mess that was created on 15 October when the parliamentary agents were present.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just been up to the Private Bill Office and seen the only copy of the report of the Lords Committee stage. While I clearly did not have time to go through all five days' proceedings, it is, I am informed, practice for House of Lords Committees to announce their findings at the end of the Committee stage. At the end of the Committee stage of this Bill all that is on record is that the Bill should proceed. There is no mention of clause 6 being taken out. It seems that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may have been misinformed. Clearly, the House cannot debate a House of Lords amendment that has not been made.
    8.15 pm
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is something which the Chair cannot go into now. The matter before the House—the procedural motion that we are debating—is perfectly in order.
    Mr. Skinner: My point of order is different, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    The Redbridge London Borough Council Bill was first introduced by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne); when we debated it last week the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) spoke on behalf of the promoters. The hon. Member for Ilford, South introduced the Bill, and the hon. Member for Ilford, North was allowed by the Chair to stop the proceedings. If someone who is not promoting the Bill in the House—such as the hon. Member for Ilford, North, who was not at the beginning—is allowed to stop it, it should be right and proper for any other Member, whether Opposition or Conservative, to be able to say, "Let us adjourn again." If the hon. Member for Ilford, North can do that, as he did on the last occasion, why cannot we do it now and get on to something else?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: It would be in order for the Chair to decide whether that motion was acceptable.
    Mr. Skinner: I shall move it then.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: It would not be acceptable.
    Mr. Eric Insley: Further to the matter that has been under discussion, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    407
    The second and third paragraphs of the statement put out on behalf of the Bill's promoters refer to a decision made in another place to make an amendment that led to clause 6 becoming otiose and being struck out at Committee stage in the House of Lords. If clause 6 became otiose, an amendment could not appear to leave out clause 6 in the Bill. How can we have a statement saying that the clause is no longer relevant, is otiose and should be struck out, and yet we are discussing an amendment to leave out clause 6? Surely, logically, the decision to leave out clause 6 has been arrived at in another place and we are simply being asked to justify or rubber-stamp a mistake made in another place because the amendment was not properly constructed. The statement contradicts the Bill.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: We are not talking about that. The House has been asked to determine for itself whether, when we reach the amendment, we should decide to omit it from the Bill.
    Mr. Illsley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not know whether there can be a further point of order, but the hon. Gentleman appears to want to delay the debate.
    Mr. Illsley: How can we determine what was in the minds of their Lordships in leaving out clause 6? We are being asked to determine whether clause 6 should stand on its own in our opinion, but we cannot see the reasoning behind the decision by their Lordships, the promoters or whoever to leave out clause 6.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The House determines for itself whether amendments should be made and clauses left out or withdrawn. Those are matters that the House determines during the course of debate.
    Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    You were not in the Chair when we discussed the matter last week, but we found that, although there are 1,100 people qualified to sit in the House of Lords, not one of them spoke on the issue. Therefore, not only is the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) right about the matter, but it went through the House of Lords like a dose of Epsom salts. It was not moved by the person who first moved it in this House because the sponsor—the man who is commonly known on these Benches as the man with the monocle, Erich von Stroheim II—was not here to do it. It really is a cock-up of tremendous magnitude.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not raising a point of order; he is raising perfectly legitimate points of debate and, perhaps, substance. If we can proceed with the debate, I shall be delighted to call him.
    Mr. Barnes: On 15 October my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said that our debate was like something out of Monty Python. Further proof of that is the fact that I might end up making the longest speech that I have ever made while saying nothing because there have been so many interventions and points of order.
    Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend will know that when a Bill comes from the other place it is handed by a gentleman in a wig to the Serjeant at Arms who then holds it—balances it—and gives it to an usher who carries it round the No Lobby in order to give it to somebody who then gives it to
    408
    one of the Clerks. In all that handling, some sheet of paper with clause 6 on it may have dropped out. Has my hon. Friend investigated that possibility to see whether the missing clause is on a piece of paper in an odd corner somewhere?
    Mr. Barnes: I am afraid that I understand nothing about procedural mysteries and details. I am just the hon. Member who walked in here like a little boy lost, picked up the Bill and saw that the emperor had no clothes and that we were discussing nothing. When I said that, the debate was stopped. If I had made some investigations I might have been able to discover some other great procedural anomalies between here and the other place, but I am afraid that I have not.
    Mr. O'Brien: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I feel strongly about this. The report of the Third Reading debate in the other place on 14 June says:
    "Redbridge London Borough Council Bill. Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with an amendment."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 June 1990; Vol. 520, c. 414.]
    But nowhere is there any record of an amendment. it is only referred to. So how can this House consider an amendment from the other place that has not been made? Nowhere is there a record of an amendment being made by the other place to the Bill to the effect that clause 6 should be erased. How can this House consider an amendment that has not been made? May we have some guidance, because the procedure that we are following tonight seems very strange?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for the deliberations of the other place. The amendment that I have before me tonight has come from the other place, and therefore our proceedings tonight are in order.
    Mr. O'Brien: Further to my point of order, Maclam Deputy Speaker. Who made the amendment in the other place? No Member of the other place is recorded as making such an amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: As I say, the Chair is not responsible for deliberations in the other place. There is no judgment that the Chair can pass on that. The amendment has come from the other place and I am assured by the authorities of the House that it is perfectly in order.
    Mr. Neubert: Further to that point of order, Maclam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said that the Bill was given its Third Reading in the other place on 14 June. You will recall that I drew to your attention a copy of the Bill printed in May this year without that clause. On first glance, that would seem to imply that the amendment was proposed and enacted in Committee in the other place. Yet my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) assures us that, according to the record, that is not so. I think that we are owed an explanation.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I cannot assure my hon. Friend or the House that there was no such amendment in Committee in the other place because I did not have a chance to read all five volumes of the Committee's proceedings. But I am assured by the Private Bill Office that the usual procedure in the other place is to make recommendations on a Bill at the end, and I assure the House that at the end no such amendment was recorded.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House can be assured that the Private Bill Office is correct in presenting the Lords amendment. It is in order.
    Mr. Nellist: On a different point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware, as most hon. Members are, that the other place has a strange, but presumably on many occasions useful, procedure by which the House adjourns during pleasure. It is a quaint and rather nice phrase. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, accept a motion from the Floor that our proceedings be adjourned for a similar period, which I understand is about an hour, so that the Clerks of this House can contact the Clerks of the other place to discover whether the points made by Conservative Members are correct? If they are, it would save a lot of embarrassment all round if the matter were put right before something wrong was done tonight.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: No. Hon. Members are making a good try in raising points of order, but our proceedings are in order, as is the documentation before us, or it would not be here.
    Mr. Kevin Barron: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that it would be right to say that the Chair at all times protects Members of the House and the records of the House. As I understand it, after the Committee proceedings in the other place a private Bill is then placed on the Table of what is called the Lord Chancellor's counsel, which may or may not be comprised of Members of the other place but who are lawyers. They then amend the private Bill without any record of the proceedings being made available to hon. Members which would enable them to discover why such amendments were made. That is what happened in the case of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Amendments to that were made by the Lord Chancellor's counsel and there were no records of that. Are there any records of such procedures in the other place at which we could look so that we could discover why the clause was removed from the Bill?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair has many responsibilities and much authority, but it does not extend to the other place.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a serious matter. According to the Order Paper we are considering that the Lords amendment to the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill be now considered. We have had two documents from the Vote Office, one of which says that in the parliamentary Session 1989–90 the Lords amendment is, in effect, to leave out clause 6. It is stapled to another document which had been issued by Sharpe Pritchard, parliamentary agents.
    There must be some limit to the extent to which an outside body can insert an amendment which is to be considered by Parliament without any authority other than their claim that it is a Lords amendment. There is none of the other documentation that is usually available to the House of Commons to verify that it is a Lords amendment. We have only the word of the parliamentary agents. Frankly, that is not something which, in my experience and I am sure in yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, the House has ever taken as proof that the amendment was considered by the other place.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: This is a procedure that has been going on for many years——
    Mr. Cryer: It is wrong.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: It may well be wrong, but it is not for the Chair to amend that procedure at this stage. I simply tell hon. Members that this is a procedure which has been accepted by the House for a long time.
    Mr. Barnes: I was discussing Sharpe Pritchard, parliamentary agents, who have also been mentioned in many points of order, and suggesting that Redbridge borough council should have an opportunity to get itself new parliamentary agents. Given the money that Sharpe Pritchard made out of this and the inept and incompetent way in which it handled the matter, especially in connection with the debate on 15 October, the company should be known as "Sharp Practice" rather than Sharpe Pritchard.
    Mr. Cryer: Sharpe Pritchard may not be at fault, because, although the usual practice has been described, it is not the usual practice for parliamentary agents to put forward amendments as being made in the other place when there is no evidence that such amendments were ever made. All parliamentary agents are meant to do is to transmit information about decisions that have been made in this House or another place. If parliamentary agents transmit information about uncorroborated amendments made in another place, it means that they can insert their own decisions into the proceedings of this House, which must be unprecedented. Perhaps my hon. Friend will dwell on how the blame should be apportioned. Presumably Sharpe Pritchard had evidence of the amendment being made, so I wonder whether it provided any of that documentation to my hon. Friend to justify its action.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Barnes: It would have been helpful if the documentation from Sharpe Pritchard had included such evidence. If it at least referred to the relevant parliamentary papers, right hon. and hon. Members could then check in the Library whether everything was in order. Sharpe Pritchard's payments should presumably be based on such arrangements. If Sharpe Pritchard are not to blame but someone in Parliament, then that too should be a subject for examination.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the value of photocopies in clarifying our procedure? The two sheets from Sharpe Pritchard are photocopies. Given that the Bill was withdrawn on a previous occasion, one wonders why Sharpe Pritchard did not go to the trouble of photocopying a document from the other place which would allow us to decide beyond peradventure, as the lawyers expensively say, whether the Lords made the decision in question. Perhaps, however, Sharpe Pritchard cannot locate such a document, in which case it appears that decisions are made not by the geriatric wing in the Lords or even by this House, but by paid agents. That undermines the constitution.
    Mr. Barnes: I agree that here are serious constitutional implications.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your predecessor in the Chair ruled that these proceedings are in order because an amendment was sent

    411
    from another place, notwithstanding the fact that there is no evidence available to right hon. and hon. Members that such an amendment was made. So far as I have been able to ascertain today, no such amendment was made in Committee or on Third Reading. We are therefore not clear at what stage it was made. Let us suppose that a mistake has been made in another place. What would be the consequence if this House voted for an amendment from another place which had never been properly made?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I assure the hon. Gentleman and the whole House that the Chair is indivisible. I have been listening to the proceedings, and it seems a pity that right hon. and hon. Members are spending time on points of order which are perfectly legitimate points in making the argument that the Lords amendment should not be considered. I think that it would be better if the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who has been frequently interrupted, now had my protection and was allowed to continue his speech.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept that you listened to the earlier proceedings and have taken account of everything that happened, and from your point of view it is just as well that you did so as we might otherwise be on the second round, and we do not want to subject you to that.
    This House is portrayed as the mother of Parliaments and the best of its kind in the world. I do not agree, but that is neither here nor there. The Prime Minister goes trotting off to eastern European countries saying, "Why don't you follow our model?" I am not kidding. Should anyone follow a model in which 1,100 people in the House of Lords, who never open their mouths but just take the money and run, send an amendment to this House, only for us to find that it has not been included in the Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East had to draw attention to that fact, and the Bill's sponsor is not even present—he has gone on a fact-finding trip somewhere and got his mate to move it, but that hon. Gentleman refuses to talk and will not tell us what has happened to the clause. At 9.15 pm he comes to the Chamber and says, "Sorry, we can't find the clause—you've been debating fresh air, so we'll withdraw it."
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have been round that course umpteen times. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East should be permitted to continue his speech.
    Mr. Barnes: I was making the point that there is something odd about Sharpe Pritchard's activities, so it would be advantageous to Redbridge council to vote for consideration of this measure at a later stage because that would give the council time to find fresh parliamentary agents.
    Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend made the point that Sharpe Pritchard made a mistake. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) mentioned the Lord Chancellor's counsel. The promoters must have access to more information than right hon. and hon. Members do or they could not have included the statement that clause 6 was considered otiose and had been struck from the Bill. How could the promoters so confidently make that statement when the information was not available to right hon. and hon. Members? No one has sought to explain to us why there are so many confusing issues surrounding clause 6.
    Mr. Barnes: It would not surprise me if Sharpe Pritchard as the agents and promoters know more about what is going on than we do. We are very short on information about the procedures that have been adopted, and Sharpe Pritchard has not seen fit to provide us with sufficient information to reach a reasonable judgment. The information that hon. Members have been able to dig out throws doubt on whether the amendment has been properly passed by due procedure in another place.
    Mr. Illsley: It is clear that the promoters know more than we do because they confidently stated that clause 6 was struck out because it was considered otiose, so why has none of the Bill's supporters come to the House today to explain the promoters' confident statement about clause 6 and to explain who was responsible for striking it out?
    Mr. Barnes: It is true that the parliamentary agents should attempt to explain the procedures that have been followed, but if Sharpe Pritchard has not done so there is a duty on the sponsor, who is represented today by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) is in Uruguay. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Ilford, South should still be able to communicate with the hon. Member for Ilford, North, as should the parliamentary agents, so that the hon. Gentleman can explain to the House the procedures that have been observed.
    On 15 October, the hon. Member for Ilford, North introduced this measure. I will read out his entire speech, because it was short:
    "I beg to move, That the amendment be now considered. Hon. Members may wonder why I rise to speak to the Bill. It is because my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) is with an IPU delegation in Uruguay. He sends his apologies for not being able to be here. I shall say nothing more about the Bill because it has been debated in both Houses and in Committee."—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 983.]
    Like other hon. Members, I do not believe that it has been debated in the House of Lords. In any case, that was the whole explanation that we have had, together with a small statement from the parliamentary agents which came out the second time around.
    We are completely in the dark, and it is right that points of order about procedural improprieties should be raised and considered. We are not protecting Redbridge, although it is beginning to be involved—we are protecting parliamentary procedures and processes, and the constitution.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The crux of the matter that we have now been debating for more than 45 minutes is a simple point that could be easily resolved. Was the amendment made in the House of Lords? If so, was it made in Committee notwithstanding its apparent absence from the record? Was it made in some other way to which we are not privy? Or was it made on Third Reading? The agents are sitting listening to this debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North is present, so it would be an extremely easy matter to give this information to the House. As it has not been given, however, we are entitled to assume that the amendment was not properly made, in which case the debate should not continue because we are debating an amendment that was never made, so the debate has no standing.
    Mr. Barnes: I certainly feel that the hon. Member for Ilford, North is obliged to explain the whole process to us

    413
    and to fill in the blanks in our understanding. He might want to do that in a series of interventions or he might want to wait until after my brief speech. I will happily give way to him if he wants to explain matters more fully.
    I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has refused on occasion to allow a measure through on the nod unless the promoters got up and explained in detail what it contained. That led on one occasion—the Adelphi Estate Bill—to a veritable Monty Python show. The Bill was presented without explanation, until my hon. Friend forced some explanation of it. I am sure that a video replay of that occasion could be provided for the House.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you have been following proceedings with your usual care and attention, you will recall my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asking about hon. Members who have already spoken in the last debate, which turned out to be a non-debate. Madam Deputy Speaker was asked whether they should not be able to speak again. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) may be intimidated by this procedural difficulty, but I think that your colleague in the Chair made it clear that if such hon. Members sought the leave of the House, they could speak again unless there was an objection. Can you confirm that?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is an expert in parliamentary procedure, but he did not get it quite right. The last debate was in order; it was adjourned, so we resumed it this evening. Certainly, if any hon. Member who has already spoken wants to speak again he will need the leave of the House to do so. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) would not need the leave of the House if he wished to speak again, but I have noticed that a number of hon. Members have been encouraging him to do so. It is difficult for him to do so, however, when an hon. Member is still on his feet.
    Mr. Barnes: I am quite prepared to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to clarify matters, or if he wants to move the adjournment so that he can pull together all the threads of this awkward situation and present us with the details that we require. He seems not to want to take up my offer——
    Mr. Barron: Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the Lord Chancellor's counsel in another place became involved before the Bill had had its Third Reading, so that was when there was an opportunity to object to amendments made without debate. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) should know those procedures, as he is here to promote the Bill tonight.
    Mr. Barnes: Taking over as the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Ilford, North must be aware of what the debates have covered so far. He could have drawn on that to explain the general position and then allowed questions about the procedural oddities——
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    In view of the unsatisfactory pace of this procedure, and given the many difficulties which you and your
    414
    colleagues in the Chair have noticed, would it be in order to adjourn the debate until the Bill's sponsor returns from Uruguay? That seems the sensible thing to do.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That would not be in order. The debate is perfectly in order and we should get on with it. We really do not want delaying tactics.
    Mr. Barnes: I know that hon. Members are keenly following the thread of my speech, the points of which all follow on logically from each other. So far I have said that we should vote against considering the amendment. The only way to avert a major constitutional crisis and save both the face of Sharpe Pritchard and the procedures of the House is to vote against this measure. That would give Redbridge council the chance to get new parliamentary agents, because Sharpe Pritchard must be to blame for what happened on 15 October, when we had to debate without the correct documentation and even without copies of the Bill itself.
    On 15 October the hon. Member for Romford also mentioned the role of public relations consultants:
    "Redbridge is also being advised by a well-known firm of public relations consultants … the consultants are being paid £50,000, plus £4,000 a month for expenses".—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 995.]
    Those public relations consultants are doing a fine job. So far, the publicity that they have generated has been about the Bill being killed off on 15 October and about its being resurrected today, when we have revealed the huge difficulties associated with it. This is a proper debate, which has involved almost every hon. Member in the Chamber, apart from the sponsor, all of whom have shown that there are many different procedural problems. Although I have made only two points so far, we have covered a great deal of ground within those two points because of the points of order and intervention.
    Mr. Illsley: I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend has to say. Did he suggest that the public relations company was prolonging proceedings on the Bill so as to extend its retainer and its fee?
    Mr. Barnes: I do not know what the role of public relations consultants is, but presumably it is to sell the notion of the Redbridge Bill and make it popular. Therefore, they should have handled things in a different way. I do not know what their relationship is with Sharpe Pritchard, but as public relations consultants they should have handed lots of information and explanations to hon. Members, especially those who are liable to be in the Chamber to debate the Bill. Such information would make Members of Parliament more likely to accept what was there because it would seem that a fair job was being done. However, that has not happened and the public relations on the Bill have been disastrous.
    Mr. Allen McKay: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out to the Chair that, as the sponsor of the Bill is in Uruaguay and we have a stand-in, it would be sensible to adjourn the debate until the sponsor returns. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is a generous person. Despite the fact that, judging by the sheaves of paper in his hand, he could go on for another hour and 10 minutes, I suggest that he cuts short his speech so as to allow the stand-in to explain the situation before we vote on the Bill.
    Mr. Barnes: If the hon. Member for Ilford, North told us that he would speak fully to put us in the picture and explain what has happened, which would be a considerable contribution, although we should still need to cross-examine him, I should be willing to end my speech. I would do, what I imagined that I had come here to do, which is to make a few brief points. I am sure that other hon. Members would assist me by allowing me to finish my speech quickly so as to enable the hon. Member to enlighten us. If no great enlightenment came from his speech, I might be allowed a second bite of the cherry if the House gave me leave to speak again.
    The hon. Member for Ilford, North gives us no sign that he wishes to join the debate, so I shall continue with my speech and my reasons why we should vote against the amendment. Should we do so, we would give Redbridge council the chance to come to its senses and reorganise itself. I understand that it is now two years since the council first made the decision to pursue this matter.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Redbridge council decided to promote the Bill in 1980, and began the consultative exercise. No one has explained to this House, nor to the House of Lords, why clause 6 was included to start with, so my hon. Friend has every right to ask the sponsor to explain both that and why it is now to be taken out.
    Mr. Barnes: That seems eminently sensible. I am more than willing to give way to the hon. Member for Ilford, North. I feel a bit like a yo-yo, jumping up and down as all sorts of interventions have been made by various Members—except the one hon. Member who could clarify the situation for us and help us to overcome the problems that we face. If he does not do SO, we shall believe that the problem is insurmountable and we shall vote against the Bill.
    Mr. Skinner: After all these hours during the passage of the Bill, we are having one hell of a job getting the sponsor to say anything. Could it be, as we have suggested before, that because the Tories have a majority of 150 these private Bill merchants think that they can just slip Bills through the House of Commons because not all the Tories need to be kept here? They will be got here at the time prescribed by the Whips. The Whips will tell them when to come along and vote on the closure. The sponsor does not speak because the last thing that he wants is for people to understand the Bill. He is interested in getting the closure by getting the troops into the Lobby, out of the dining rooms and the 16 bars. They walk in and the shop stewards—the Whips—are on the door. If they ask what they are voting for, the Whips say, "Never mind about that, get into the Aye Lobby", or the No Lobby, as the case may be. That shows up this Parliament for what it is.
    The private Bill procedure is being used in a scandalous fashion by the Tory Government. There is no better example of that than the proceedings on this Bill. The sponsor refuses to tell us why clause 6 was there in the first place or why it is now being taken out. They do not care because they will be using the big block vote to hustle the Bill through—all those people will come rushing out of the woodwork to be told by the Whips how to vote.
    Mr. Barnes: I am aware of the procedures adopted to ensure that private Bills that the Government support get through, especially as I have recently had experience on the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, which we
    416
    were discussing on Monday. The power of the Whips descended not merely into the House but into the Committee so that the Government could control the situation. I will not go too far down that road because we are discussing the Redbridge Bill, although the other matters link in because similar procedures are followed.
    We have now been told that the Redbridge Bill has been around for 10 years, although it was drafted only a couple of years ago. The decision to make this move was taken with a majority of one on the council, and since that time there have been changes in the make-up of the council, which is presumably facing an election now. What does the council think about the Lords amendment? We have no information on that, although we have an hon. Member who can correct me if what I say is incorrect, and give details about the position.
    Redbridge borough council has been faced during the last two years with a whole host of changes which have affected its position. There is the uniform business rale. There is also the poll tax. There have been other changes in local government finance. The council's financial position has changed as well as its political make-up. Next year, however, the position will have changed again because after the next election there will be a Labour Government, so within a year there will be new financial arrangements for local government. The people of Redbridge, as well as many members of Redbridge borough council, do not want the Bill.
    9 pm
    Mr. Neubert: I shall seek to test the spirit of the proceedings by requesting permission to intervene for a second time in the debate. In case I am denied that opportunity, I will refer to the authority given for the promotion of the Bill within Redbridge borough council. Since a week ago last Monday, I have established the precise voting figures in Redbridge borough council when the Bill was first mooted for promotion. Of the 63 Redbridge borough councillors, nine were not present at the relevant meeting, 12 abstained in the vote on whether to promote the Bill, 10 voted against its promotion and 32 voted for it.
    The Local Government Act 1972 requires, in section 239(2), that
    "A resolution of a local authority to promote or oppose a Bill under subsection (1) above shall be—
    (a) passed by a majority of the whole number of the members of the authority at a meeting of the authority held after the requisite notice of the
    meeting and of its purpose has been given".
    The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) will have quickly made his calculations and will now realise that the Bill was given the barest minimum level of support—a majority of just half a councillor, if that is possible, or perhaps a very short councillor. Lest the hon. Gentleman think that that happened on just one evening, I should point out to him that the voting figures were identical the following year when the matter was put to the vote a second time.
    Mr. Barnes: That information is invaluable. It reveals that Redbridge obtained the power to promote the Bill by only one vote. Had one other person abstained or voted against promotion of the Bill, Redbridge would not have obtained overall support for it in the council chamber and

    417
    would not have been able to proceed with it. The council would have had to consider other methods of extending Redbridge's market facilities.
    I understand that the Food Act 1984 contains licensing provisions that the council could have used. It would have been possible for the borough council to follow a different route from the expensive one that it chose to follow. I picked up that point from the speech made by the hon. Member for Romford on 15 October.
    The Bill is likely to have knock-on effects. The markets would be oversaturated—a point made by the Market Traders Association, whose headquarters are in Barnsley. The position is the same in this context as it is with the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. There was much opposition to that Bill, which led to problems in Committee. The procedures involved in battling against that measure were long drawn out. A promise was made at the Conservative party conference that an enabling Act would be introduced under which all the ports could be privatised.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had been under the impression throughout the proceedings that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) did not intend to speak in the debate, because he could not, but he has certainly been gallivanting about this evening. He has spoken to the parliamentary agents and he is now engaged in little huddled conversations. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members are trying to obtain information from him about the Bill, especially about clause 6, but he refuses to speak in the debate and he prefers to talk to other people. Why is he not imparting the information?
    While I am on my feet I have something else to say. Some of the Ministers have been coming in here. I have seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Financial Secretary and a Minister from the Home Office. They have walked in, gone to see the Chief Whip or one of the Whips and asked what time the vote will be, saying, "I am at a dinner." The game stinks to high heaven. They are just trying to find out when the vote will be so that they can come in at a time agreed by the Whips. This is a private Bill and they are not supposed to be involved in it. Yet the Whips have told them what time to come. It is high time the Chair took a hand in these affairs. This is supposed to be a private Bill, but the Government's footprints are all over it. Any moment now we shall see the Prime Minister come trotting down from her ivory tower.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and he knows that the Chair has nothing to do with these matters. The hon. Gentleman has not raised a point of order, but now that there is an interruption I remind the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that he is beginning to stray from the motion before the House, which is that the Lords amendment be now considered.
    Mr. Skinner: I spy strangers.
    Mr. Vivian Bendall rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question put, That the Question be now put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 41.

    Division No. 338]

    [9.6 pm

    AYES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Jack, Michael

    Amess, David

    Jackson, Robert

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Key, Robert

    Atkins, Robert

    Kilfedder, James

    Atkinson, David

    King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)

    Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)

    King, Rt Hon Tom(Bridgwater)

    Baker, Nicholas(Dorset N)

    Knapman, Roger

    Bendall, Vivian

    Knight, Greg(Derby North)

    Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)

    Knowles, Michael

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Lee, John(Pendle) r

    Boswell, Tim

    Leigh, Edward(Gainsbor'gh)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Lightbown, David

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Lilley, Peter

    Brazier, Julian

    Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

    Bright, Graham

    Lord, Michael

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

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

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    MacKay, Andrew(E Berkshire)

    Burns, Simon

    Maclean, David

    Burt, Alistair

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Carrington, Matthew

    Maples, John

    Cash, William

    Marshall, John(Hendon S)

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Martin, David(Portsmouth S)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Chope, Christopher

    Mellor, David

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

    Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)

    Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)

    Coombs, Anthony(Wyre F'rest)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Couchman, James

    Nicholson, David(Taunton)

    Curry, David

    Page, Richard

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

    Paice, James

    Davis, David(Boothferry)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Pawsey, James

    Dunn, Bob

    Portillo, Michael

    Fallon, Michael

    Redwood, John

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Rost, Peter

    Forsyth, Michael(Stirling)

    Ryder, Richard

    Forth, Eric

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Freeman, Roger

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Gale, Roger

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb')

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

    Greenway, John(Ryedale)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Grist, Ian

    Stewart, Allan(Eastwood)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)

    Hague, William

    Summerson, Hugo

    Hamilton, Hon Archie(Epsom)

    Taylor, Ian(Esher)

    Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)

    Taylor, John M(Solihull)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)

    Harris, David

    Thurnham, Peter

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Trippier, David

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Wells, Bowen

    Hind, Kenneth

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Wilkinson, John

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

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Howarth, G.(Cannock & B'wd)

    Wood, Timothy

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Yeo, Tim

    Howell, Rt Hon David(G'dford)

    Young, Sir George(Acton)

    Howells, Geraint

    Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Hunt, David(Wirral W)

    Mr. Jacques Arnold and Mr. James Arbuthnot.

    Irvine, Michael

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Beggs, Roy

    Allen, Graham

    Buckley, George J.

    Barnes, Harry(Derbyshire NE)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    419

    Cohen, Harry

    Morley, Elliot

    Cryer, Bob

    Neubert, Michael

    Cummings, John

    O'Brien, William

    Dalyell, Tam

    Pike, Peter L.

    Davies, Ron(Caerphilly)

    Powell, Ray(Ogmore)

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

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Dixon, Don

    Ruddock, Joan

    Evans, John(St Helens N)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Forsythe, Clifford(Antrim S)

    Sillars, Jim

    Fraser, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Smyth, Rev Martin(Belfast S)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Hughes, Simon(Southwark)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Illsley, Eric

    Welsh, Andrew(Angus E)

    Ingram, Adam

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    McKay, Allen(Barnsley West)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Meale, Alan

    Mr. Terry Patchett and Sir Nicholas Bonsor.

    Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the Lords amendment be now considered:—
    The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 30.

    Division No. 339]

    [9.19 pm

    AYES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)

    Amess, David

    Grist, Ian

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Atkinson, David

    Hague, William

    Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)

    Hamilton, Hon Archie(Epsom)

    Baker, Nicholas(Dorset N)

    Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Harris, David

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Boswell, Tim

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Bottomley, Peter

    Hind, Kenneth

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Bright, Graham

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

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Howarth, G.(Cannock & B'wd)

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

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Howell, Rt Hon David(G'dford)

    Burns, Simon

    Howells, Geraint

    Burt, Alistair

    Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)

    Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

    Hunt, David(Wirral W)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Irvine, Michael

    Cash, William

    Jack, Michael

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Jackson, Robert

    Chapman, Sydney

    Key, Robert

    Chope, Christopher

    Kilfedder, James

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

    King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)

    King, Rt Hon Tom(Bridgwater)

    Coombs, Anthony(Wyre F'rest)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Knight, Greg(Derby North)

    Couchman, James

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Curry, David

    Lee, John(Pendle)

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

    Leigh, Edward(Gainsbor'gh)

    Davis, David(Boothferry)

    Lilley, Peter

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lord, Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Fallon, Michael

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fearn, Ronald

    MacKay, Andrew(E Berkshire)

    Fishburn, John Dudley "

    Maclean, David

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Forman, Nigel

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Forsyth, Michael(Stirling)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Forth, Eric

    Maples, John

    Freeman, Roger

    Marshall, John(Hendon S)

    Gale, Roger

    Martin, David(Portsmouth S)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Mellor, David

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Greenway, John(Ryedale)

    Nicholson, David(Taunton)

    420

    Page, Richard

    Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)

    Paice, James

    Summerson, Hugo

    Patnick, Irvine

    Taylor, Ian(Esher)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, John M(Solihull)

    Pawsey, James

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Portillo, Michael

    Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)

    Redwood, John

    Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)

    Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Rost, Peter

    Trippier, David

    Ryder, Richard

    Wells, Bowen

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Wilkinson, John

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)

    Wood, Timothy

    Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb')

    Yeo, Tim

    Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)

    Young, Sir George(Acton)

    Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

    Shersby, Michael

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Mr. Jacques Arnold and Mr. James Arbuthnot.

    Stevens, Lewis

    Stewart, Allan(Eastwood)

    NOES

    Allen, Graham

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Barnes, Harry(Derbyshire NE)

    McKay, Allen(Barnsley West)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Meale, Alan

    Buckley, George J.

    Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    O'Brien, William

    Cohen, Harry

    Pike, Peter L.

    Cryer, Bob

    Powell, Ray(Ogmore)

    Cummings, John

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Dalyell, Tam

    Ruddock, Joan

    Davies, Ron(Caerphilly)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Dixon, Don

    Skinner, Dennis

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Spearing, Nigel

    Home Robertson, John

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Hughes, Simon(Southwark)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Leighton, Ron

    Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Terry Patchett.

    Lightbown, David

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment accordingly considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Mr. Alan Meale: I spy strangers. [Interruption.] I spy strangers.
    Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 ( Withdrawal of strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
    The House divided: Ayes 1, Noes 137.

    Division No. 340]

    [9.30 pm

    AYES

    Gregory, Conal

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Alan Meale.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Amess, David

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

    Arbuthnot, James

    Burns, Simon

    Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)

    Burt, Alistair

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

    Atkins, Robert

    Cash, William

    Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Beggs, Roy

    Chapman, Sydney

    Bendall, Vivian

    Chope, Christopher

    Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Cohen, Harry

    Boswell, Tim

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Couchman, James

    Bowis, John

    Cryer, Bob

    421

    Curry, David

    Lilley, Peter

    Dalyell, Tam

    Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

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

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Davis, David(Boothferry)

    McKay, Allen(Barnsley West)

    Dixon, Don

    Maclean, David

    Dorrell, Stephen

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Fallon, Michael

    Malins, Humfrey

    Fearn, Ronald

    Maples, John

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Marshall, John(Hendon S)

    Forsyth, Michael(Stirling)

    Martin, David(Portsmouth S)

    Forsythe, Clifford(Antrim S)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Forth, Eric

    Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)

    Fraser, John

    Morley, Elliot

    Freeman, Roger

    Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)

    Gale, Roger

    Neubert, Michael

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Page, Richard

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Paice, James

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Parry, Robert

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Patchett, Terry

    Gordon, Mildred

    Patnick, Irvine

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Gregory, Conal

    Portillo, Michael

    Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Grist, Ian

    Redwood, John

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)

    Hague, William

    Ryder, Richard

    Hamilton, Hon Archie(Epsom)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Salmond, Alex

    Harris, David

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)

    Hayward, Robert

    Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb')

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Skinner, Dennis

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

    Stevens, Lewis

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Stewart, Allan(Eastwood)

    Howells, Geraint

    Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)

    Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Hughes, Simon(Southwark)

    Taylor, John M(Solihull)

    Hunt, David(Wirral W)

    Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)

    Irvine, Michael

    Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)

    Jack, Michael

    Thumham, Peter

    Jackson, Robert

    Trippier, David

    Jones, Barry(Alyn & Deeside)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Key, Robert

    Welsh, Andrew(Angus E)

    Kilfedder, James

    Wheeler, Sir John

    King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    King, Rt Hon Tom(Bridgwater)

    Wood, Timothy

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Young, Sir George(Acton)

    Knapman, Roger

    Knight, Greg(Derby North)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Knowles, Michael

    Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Nicholas Baker.

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Leigh, Edward(Gainsbor'gh)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Bendall: I beg to move.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Genuine concern has been expressed at this amendment and it is a discourtesy to the House for the sponsor, albeit standing in for someone else, to seek to move the amendment as he has. He has full responsibility for promoting the Bill and he has a duty to provide the House with information about the origin, source and, most importantly, the verification of the amendment. As you will be aware, there is no evidence that this amendment was ever considered by the House of Lords. We are entitled to something more than the shortest possible sentence muttered by the sponsor of the Bill.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) has moved the Lords amendment and he is perfectly within his rights to do so.
    Mr. Neubert: We must now proceed to discuss the proposed Lords amendment to delete clause 6. Before I do so, however, I must say how surprised I am to find myself ranged against so many former colleagues in government and other hon. Friends. They have given this Bill intermittent support throughout its proceedings, no doubt in the belief that they are spurring us on to greater competition, whereas the Bill seeks to create a new market monopoly within the London borough of Redbridge.
    Little progress has been made in respect of greater competition and I find it difficult to accept that Romford should be singled out for special treatment when there are so many other charter markets in the country and the Government are not prepared to take action to reform the system. That argument must be left to one side, however, and we must consider clause 6, which deals with the transfer of rights. That clause, now that we have it in print in the Bill, states:
    "Any person entitled or authorised by virtue of this Act to hold a market may transfer or dispose of all or part of his rights to another and that other shall have and may exercise to the extent authorised by the Council all or any of the powers which the Council have in relation to markets established by them under section 50 of the Act of 1984 other than any power to make byelaws but shall be subject to all the restrictions, liabilities and obligations in respect thereof to which the Council are subject:"
    That part of clause 6 was in the original Bill as deposited in this House, but a Committee of the House added the further line,
    "provided that no such transfer or disposal of rights shall take effect without the consent in writing of the Council."
    Since the debate on 15 October we have had the benefit of a statement issued by the promoters' agents, who were asked repeatedly during our proceedings on 15 October to explain the Lords amendment, the authority for which is still in some doubt. We are still unclear as to why it has come before us tonight despite repeated exchanges attempting to elicit that information.
    The statement on behalf of the promoters answers the question, and, like all good examinees, the promoters answer the question on one side of one piece of paper. The statement says:
    "The Bill is promoted by the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge ('the Council'). It would authorise the Council to establish a market on a site near the town centre of Ilford."
    It does not make the point that the market will be fully protected by law and have a monopoly in the London borough of Redbridge so that by supporting the Bill Members of Parliament are seeking to create a new market monopoly in the London borough of Redbridge.
    9.45 pm
    Paragraph 2 of the statement continues:
    "In the opposed Bill Committee in the House of Commons, amendments were made in consequence of the Petition of the London Borough of Havering. One of these amendments was to delete the power for the Council to authorise others to establish a market."
    Paragraph 3 states:
    "Clause 6 of the Bill dealt with the power to transfer market rights conferred by the Bill. In view of the decision to make the amendment referred to above, clause 6 became otiose and was struck out at Committee stage in the House of Lords. That is the only amendment for consideration."
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Can he enlighten the House as to the consequences of removing the two clauses? I do not understand whether, as a result of that, the council will have the right to transfer its rights to hold a market.
    Mr. Neubert: Before I respond to my hon. Friend, let me say that the statement that I read out at least takes the place of the explanation that we were owed by the sponsor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), who has stolidly sought not to contribute to proceedings other than by formally moving the amendment a minute or so ago. The statement has clarified the position, but we need to read and comment on the statement and examine it more closely.
    I am reassured to find that the statement confirms my speculation on 15 October, which appears in column 995 of Hansard for that day, that the reason for the proposed deletion was in relation to the previous clause 3(2), which was amended by a Committee of this House. It sought to give Redbridge the right to hold other markets, and it has now been removed.
    The history of the clause which it is now proposed to delete is that it was originally included, added to in Committee, its removal was sought, in part, on Report on 27 February in the House and, after Third Reading, it went to the Lords. The proposed deletion comes before us for examination tonight as a result of our recent decision in the Lobby.
    The clause refers to transfer of rights. We must examine what these rights are to know what the clause is about. They seem to arise under section 50 of the Food Act 1984. Under that Act, a market is sought in the London borough of Redbridge. Section 50, in part III of the Act, gives power to the local authority to set up a market and gives some of the rights that may be transferred under clause 6. Section 50 states:
    "(I) The council of a district may—

    (a) establish a market within their district;

    (b) acquire by agreement (but not otherwise), either by purchase or on lease, the whole or any part of an existing market undertaking within their district".

    Redbridge council proposes a new market in relation to substantial commercial development, so it is seeking powers to establish such a market under the Act.
    The powers and rights attached to the Act and proposed for transfer in the clause include, under section 51, the power to sell a market undertaking to a local authority. That would not, arise in this case because the owner of the market undertaking is a local authority, the London borough of Redbridge, the Bill's promoter.
    Market days and hours are prescribed in section 52, which says:
    "A market authority may appoint the days on which, and the hours during which, markets are to be held."
    Presumably that is one right that can be transferred. We had a great deal of debate earlier on the number of days on which such a market would be held because in Romford the market is held on three days a week and the Bill would give Redbridge the opportunity to hold a market on six days a week.
    Another right that is conferred by the Food Act relates to charges. Section 53 says:
    "A market authority may demand in respect of the market, and in respect of the weighing and measuring of articles and vehicles, such charges as they may from time to time determine."
    424
    It goes on to deal with the provision of a weighing machine for weighing cattle, sheep or swine. Presumably that will not be relevant to Redbridge's market which we understand will not be a market for livestock.
    Section 53(3)(a) says that the authority
    "shall keep exhibited in conspicuous places in the market place, and in any market house, tables stating in large arid legibly printed characters the several charges payable under this Part".
    If they were relevant, that would be one of the obligations mentioned in clause 6 as also transferring to another owner. Section 53(3)(b) says that the authority
    "shall keep so much of the tables as relates to charges payable in respect of the weighing of vehicles, or, as the case may be, in respect of the weighing of animals, conspicuously exhibited at every weighing machine provided by them in connection with the market for the purpose."
    Those are considerable rights that are to be transferred to the alternative owner, if it is not to be the London borough of Redbridge. Time is prescribed for the payment of those charges and presumably that is another right that is transferred.
    Section 55 gives powers to the market owner to recover charges either summarily as a civil debt, or in any court of competent jurisdiction, if it should go that far, and to levy a charge by distress. Section 56 prohibits sales in market hours. Section 57 describes the weighing machines and scales. Section 58 describes the weighing of articles, and section 59 deals with information for the market officer.
    Finally, section 60 deals with byelaws and says:
    "A local authority who maintain a market, whether or not they are a market authority within the meaning of this Act, may make byelaws—

    (a) for regulating the use of the market place, and the buildings, stalls, pens and standings in that market place;

    (b) for preventing nuisances or obstructions in the market place, or in the immediate approaches to it;

    (c) for regulating porters and carriers resorting to the market, and fixing the charges to be made for carrying articles from the market within the district."

    I hope that that is a sufficiently comprehensive summary of the rights and powers that would accrue to Redbridge under this Act, should the Bill reach the statute book, as owners of the new market to be established at Ilford. I am not sure whether the transfer of rights relates to another owner or operator of the market or to the individual stallholders.
    We had an interesting debate on clause 6 on Report on 27 February when my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) moved an amendment to it. He much regrets that he cannot be here tonight, but he has been active throughout the Bill's proceedings. My hon. Friend's amendment and the debate that followed it proceeded on the basis that clause 6 concerned the transfer of individual stallholders' rights. Let me explain why I believe that to be the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. (Miss Widdecombe), another stalwart opponent of the Bill, unfortunately cannot be here. She is in the Cambridge Union tonight debating abortion. We know how sincere she is in her commitment to that cause. Only the issue of life itself would prevent her from being here to see her opposition to the Bill through to the end. On 27 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, speaking to clause 6, said:
    "The clause implies that there will be something unique about markets in future. If someone wishes to set up shop, he can do so in the knowledge that he can dispose of that shop—a greengrocer's or hairdresser's shop or whatever—so long

    425
    as there is no change of use. All is well—he can go ahead and sell the business. That will have quite an effect on his decision to set up business in the first place and on how he assesses his competitiveness."
    There is no indication there that we were talking about one local authority or another or an institution, but about a shopkeeper, an individual business man or woman.
    That reading of the clause is confirmed by the sponsor, whose absence in Uruguay we regret. Intervening to answer the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, he said:
    "First, it is normal for a landlord to have a right to approve a change of tenant. That is a normal procedure and is therefore quite normal in this case. On the question of whether people should have an automatic right, the London borough of Havering and most other councils which control markets find it desirable to be able to stipulate whether they approve of the person to whom the market trader intends to pass on his stall."
    That is a very real issue in the world of open air markets, because the rights of individual stallholders not only to prosecute their own business but to pass it on when the time comes to members of their family is crucial.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South added:
    "They do not wish to do so for reasons of nepotism or anything of that sort but simply to ensure that the trader who takes over is honest and reliable and will provide a reasonable service to the community. That is a perfectly reasonable thing for the public to expect. That is why the council would wish to be involved in that process."
    That point particularly relates to the last two lines of the clause, which stipulate that no transfer should take place other than with the consent of the council, which in this case is the London borough of Redbridge.
    That theme was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who asked this of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone:
    "Does she accept that the circumstances of a market are slightly different from those of a row of shops? One knows that simply from practical experience. Market traders arc close up against one another. They can move stall to stall and, indeed, may be seen doing so. Property can, as it were, move sideways. In contrast, shops are normally separate lock-up establishments in a defined space and much easier to defend."—[Official Report, 27 February 1990; Vol. 168, c. 208–11]
    All that suggests—
    Mr. Bendall rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but Mr. Deputy Speaker withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
    Mr. Neubert: All that suggests that right hon. and hon. Members were under the impression on 27 February that the rights in question related to the rights of the individual stallholder, but I am not sure that that is the case. I wonder whether it is not the case instead that the rights and obligations that flow from clause 6 are to be transferred not in relation to individual stallholders but rather to the persons or institution who operate the market.
    The Committee, to which the House must be indebted, reported that it was not prepared to allow the original clause 3—to which clause 6 is linked—to stand, because it provided not only for a monopoly market to be established in Ilford but for other markets that it would be within the power of the London borough of Redbridge to grant to other operators.
    It was because of the transfer of those rights to those operators that clause 6 was necessary. I should be grateful for clarification on this from the sponsor of the Bill. I
    426
    should have welcomed a contribution from the Under-Secretary, too, since he has a similar market in his constituency which might be threatened by the potential precedent of this Bill. I should be grateful for an explanation from him or from the sponsor about whether the transfer of rights comes down to stallholders——
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Ordered,
    That the debate be resumed tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the London Underground Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 29.

  Division No. 341]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Hamilton, Hon Archie(Epsom)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)

  Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Harris, David

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Atkins, Robert

  Hayward, Robert

  Atkinson, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Baker, Nicholas(Dorset N)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Baldry, Tony

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Bendall, Vivian

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

  Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Howell, Rt Hon David(G'dford)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Howells, Geraint

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hughes, Simon(Southwark)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hunt, David(Wirral W)

  Bowis, John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bright, Graham

  Irvine, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Jack, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Jackson, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Key, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Kilfedder, James

  Carlisle, John,(Luton N)

  King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Cash, William

  Knapman, Roger

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Knight, Greg(Derby North)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Knowles, Michael

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

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)

  Lee, John(Pendle)

  Coombs, Anthony(Wyre F'rest)

  Leigh, Edward(Gainsbor'gh)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Couchman, James

  Lester, Jim(Broxtowe)

  Curry, David

  Lightbown, David

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

  Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

  Davis, David(Boothferry)

  Lord, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Emery, Sir Peter

  MacKay, Andrew(E Berkshire)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Maclean, David

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Forman, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Forth, Eric

  Maples, John

  Freeman, Roger

  Marshall, John(Hendon S)

  Gale, Roger

  Martin, David(Portsmouth S)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mates, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mellor, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)

  Greenway, Harry(Ealing N)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)

  Greenway, John(Ryedale)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gregory, Conal

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)

  Neubert, Michael

  Grist, Ian

  Nicholson, David(Taunton)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hague, William

  Page, Richard

  427

  Paice, James

  Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Summerson, Hugo

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris(Bath)

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M(Solihull)

  Portillo, Michael

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Redwood, John

  Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)

  Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Ttippier, David

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Ryder, Richard

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wells, Bowen

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wilkinson, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb')

  Young, Sir George(Acton)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

  Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Stevens, Lewis

  Stewart, Allan(Eastwood)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Nellist, Dave

  Barnes, Harry(Derbyshire NE)

  O'Brien, William

  Cohen, Harry

  Parry, Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Patchett, Terry

  Davies, Ron(Caerphilly)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Dixon, Don

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Salmond, Alex

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hoey, Ms Kate(Vauxhall)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lamond, James

  Welsh, Andrew(Angus E)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  McCartney, Ian

  McKay, Allen(Barnsley West)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Meale, Alan

  Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. George Buckley.

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Mullin, Chris

  Question accordingly agreed to.

London Underground Bill
Motion made, and Question proposed,
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 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 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 Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
10.12 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: May I explain, in support of the motion, the purpose of the Bill? The Jubilee line extension would be the first major extension of London Underground since the Jubilee line was opened about 10 years ago. It would extend the Jubilee line from Green Park to Stratford. That would create the opportunity to provide direct underground connections for established communities in two areas: south of the river in Bermondsey and Southwark, and between Stratford and Canning Town. It would also assist the redevelopment of three areas: around Canada water, on the Isle of Dogs and on the north Greenwich peninsula where the Greenwich gas works used to be.
There appears to be some confusion about the route between Canary wharf and Canning Town. I confirm that the route that the promoters intend to put before the Committee is the alignment through the north Greenwich peninsula. That is the route proposed in the additional provision for which the Department has given permission. It would thus bring public rail transport to some parts of the area for the first time.
The debate is on the single procedural question whether the Bill should be allowed to continue into the next Session. I hope that it will. The promoters would not have enough time between now and 20 November, the deadline for depositing private Bills, to prepare a new book of reference, all the fresh plans and the other documentation that is necessary to produce a new Bill incorporating all the amendments in the additional provision.

429
I am aware that not all the decisions so far taken about the Bill are to everyone's liking and, if the Bill is allowed to continue, the Committee will no doubt be asked to consider many areas as part of its consideration of the petitions lodged against it. On the stations at Southwark and Bermondsey, I greatly welcome the decision announced yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey on his tenacity and the campaign he has fought to ensure that the line, which will inevitably go through his constituency, will have two fine stations to serve his constituents.
The Committee has been instructed already by the House to consider two further matters. The House will know that the works required to reconstruct the existing station at Westminster to provide for the Jubilee line extension were discussed at length during the proceedings in the Services Committee and on Second Reading, which took five hours on 12 and 24 July. The Westminster issue will be discussed again in Committee as a result of the instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell).
The second instruction, in the name of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and other hon. Members representing east London constituencies, requires the Committee to consider the effects of the railway on regeneration and employment in docklands and the lower Lee valley. I hope that the House will agree that the Committee is the best place for discussion on that to continue, as it is on almost every other matter that could be brought to our attention. There will be two more opportunities to discuss the Bill on the Floor of the House, and if right hon. and hon. Members choose, they can seek to catch the Chair's eye on those occasions.
I believe that the Jubilee line extension can make a major contribution to the improvement of rail transport in areas of London not currently well served. It will contribute to the regeneration of areas of London in need of assistance. It can do that only if it is allowed to continue in the next Session. There is no alternative method of proceeding. Therefore, I urge hon. Members on both sides to support the carry-over motion.
10.17 pm
Miss Kate Hoey: I have no intention of trying to prevent the Bill going on to its next stage, at which we are all aware that many petitioners will bring forward objections. I wish to use this opportunity to place on record some of the views of my constituents, their concerns about the extension of the Jubilee line and the effect that it will have on the Waterloo area, and to issue a warning—not a threat—that there will have to be a substantial change in what is planned at Waterloo before the Bill is given an easy passage in Committee.
The majority of petitioners from my constituency will not be satisfied with anything less than a real attempt to overcome the problem affecting Jubilee gardens—a precious open-space site by the riverside and a public amenity which has been used for many years for all kinds of events. That site will be threatened during the building of the extension because the Bill seeks powers to take over a section of Jubilee gardens as a temporary work site from
430
which all the running and platform tunnels between Green Park and Waterloo will be excavated. The site would also include a temporary access shaft and a jetty for the loading of excavated tunnel spoil on to barges for removal.
I am pleased that London Underground has satisfied us that the riverside walk will be kept open, but more than a third of Jubilee gardens is threatened. The irony is that there is no need for London Underground to use that part of Jubilee gardens. I am sure that it has considered other sites in London and Westminster. Jubilee gardens is simply the easiest because there is nothing built on it, but what seems the easiest and cheapest solution may not be in the best interests not only of the people who live in the immediate environment but of the people of London as a whole.
There is a better site within Jubilee gardens that London Underground would prefer to use. It is not covered in grass and is being used not by the public but as a car park. It is closer to the river and would be cheaper. London Underground has not suggested that site because it is part of the development plans of the County Hall Development Group. London Underground did not feel able to say that it wanted to use that site or to ask the House to give it permission to do so.
All the people in the area believe that that was misguided and that London Underground is proposing an expensive solution when a cheaper one is available. The only problem was that it would have upset the county hall developers. Yet it seems not to matter that the proposed solution will upset the people of Waterloo and of London as a whole.
There is still an opportunity for Department of Transport Ministers and the Secretary of State for the Environment to put their heads together and work out a solution. As the County Hall Development Group has gone bankrupt, it is strange that the Secretary of State for the Environment is continuing to consider planning permission. The London Residuary Body, which did not give evidence to the public inquiry, is being allowed to carry on with the development when there are perfectly satisfactory alternatives for the use of county hall. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will mention the London charitable trust, which has some good and exciting plans for the development of county hall.
The Minister should get together with the Secretary of State for the Environment and tell anyone who comes forward with a new plan for county hall that he will consider their plan only as part of any planning permission. I hope that the Secretary of State will follow the recommendations of the public inquiry and the inspector and say that the development is not on. The inspector did not want the development to proceed, but was overruled by the Secretary of State, who has given the developers until 7 November to table amendments.
I hope that the Secretary of State will tell the developers that he will consider development only if, as part of that development, they say, "We shall not use this part of county hall until the Jubilee line is finished"—in other words, that planning permission will not be granted for the car park site at county hall, which the developers want to make into a landscape garden for private flats and part of a hotel, unless the Secretary of State is minded to grant it. The Secretary of State should say, "It must be a condition of the planning permission that that part of the site is to be used by London Underground to develop the Jubilee line."

431
That would satisfy London Underground. It would also satisfy people in the Waterloo area, who fear that Jubilee gardens will be lost to public use for at least six to eight years. The county hall development could still go ahead without the use of that part of the site. That seems an obvious and simple solution. I have not been in this place for very long, but I have discovered that often it is precisely the obvious and simple solutions which, for some reason or other, we cannot adopt. I therefore ask the Minister to explain why that cannot be done. I know that London Underground has written to the Secretary of State suggesting that it should be considered if anything should happen to the County Hall Development Group planning application. which I remind hon. Members yet again is already defunct.
Mr. Ray Powell: County hall could solve a lot of the problems faced by the New Building Sub-Committee. It would help us greatly if we could acquire that building for accommodation purposes. Can my hon. Friend explain in detail her statement that the development group is defunct?
Miss Hoey: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to elaborate. County hall is sitting empty across the river. There are many rooms in that building. I am sure that all the hon. Members present have been to see county hall at some stage. The development group envisaged turning the building into an elaborate hotel. I think that the Government's plan was that people could come in from France on the channel tunnel fast rail link and stay at a super-duper hotel at Waterloo while having private treatment at St. Thomas's hospital just round the corner, which the Government want to allow to opt out of the national health service. That is one scenario, anyway.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that county hall is sitting empty. The development group has gone bankrupt. Unfortunately, however, there was a joint planning application between that development group and the "ultra-democratic" London Residuary Body—the body set up to take over and look after all the responsibilities of the GLC and the ILEA. I know that my hon. Friend comes from a long way away from London, and that is why I am going into a certain amount of detail. County hall has been in London's use as a public building for a very long time. Labour Members believe, and I know that my colleagues in the other opposition parties also believe, that the building should be maintained for public use by Londoners.
Now that the development group has gone bankrupt, there is no plan and any new developer may not want exactly what the County Hall Development Group had in mind. We now have the opportunity to save and speed up the extension of the Jubilee line while satisfying those who do not want Jubilee gardens to be threatened. However, the gardens are not threatened only by the Jubilee line extension. Had that been the only threat, we could probably have lived with it and London Underground could have used a part of the area which would not involve taking out too much of the green space, but the gardens are also threatened by the development of county hall and by the south bank development.
Jubilee gardens is being whittled away. I share hon. Members' concern about the problems that will arise in the immediate area of the Palace from the extension of the Jubilee line, but many of the staff and Members of this
432
place walk over Waterloo bridge at lunch time and use Jubilee gardens as a place of respite, to escape the noise, and so on, that we face.
I hope that I have made my point as simply as I intended. There is a solution to the Jubilee gardens problem. The Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment must talk, and they must get together with London Underground. It must be made clear to the Secretary of State for the Environment that he must not consider any proposals for county hall unless they allow the London Underground developers to use the area that I have suggested for their work on the line. There will still be problems, but they will not be so serious. The people living around Waterloo are not against the Jubilee line as such, although they may think that it is not the best line for London. We do not want to have to slow down the work, or stop it altogether, but we do want to save Jubilee gardens for Londoners—and there is another way.
10.30 pm
Dr. John G. Blackburn: First, let me pay warm and generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), who introduced the motion; secondly, let me with equal sincerity—as the House would expect of me—commend the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), who for some years has been the Chairman of the New Building Sub-Committee. I have had the privilege of serving on that Sub-Committee, and—although I do not represent a constituency in the metropolis—I believe that the work in which I have been engaged allows me to make some valid points.
I feel that I must confine my comments to the procedural motion. I accept without question what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West said about the benefits that the line will bring, and the provisos outlined so clearly by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey); but I am particularly concerned about the implications for Westminster.
As hon. Members will know, for many years—I am prepared to be quoted on 11 years—there has been a fierce struggle to obtain a new building for us. The building has now been selected and, albeit late in the day, has almost been completed. It is at Westminster station. Many hon. Members use the station; I use it twice a day, and I know how much the public need an improved service. That is one of the blessings that would result from the Bill.
I am a believer in the honourable occupation of compromise, and my work on the Sub-Committee and the discussions with London Underground suggest to me that we are rapidly approaching the point of compromise—good, sound, acceptable compromise. That would be a blessing for the House, especially in regard to the raft that would cover the line and thus give the House an opportunity to proceed with phase 2 of the Bridge street development. The motion is important to every hon. Member who seeks accommodation that is worthy of those who are elected to this place.
I was filled with anger when I examined the original proposals of London Underground. The concept of depositing soil in Parliament square was a violation of all that was sacred to me. That proposal is now almost historical, however. Quiet and sober consideration of the work that has gone into the scheme generally by London Underground, the parliamentary draftsmen and the New rBuilding Sub-Committee, which has worked with great

433
industry and enthusiasm to improve the lot of hon. Members, will lead to the judgment that a great deal will be placed in jeopardy unless the carry-over motion is agreed to. I hope that the House will approve it.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall has exercised her sovereign right to represent her constituents. I understand that many will petition against the Bill and that there will be difficulties in Committee, but if the motion is agreed to there will be two opportunities on the Floor of the House to consider the petitions and submissions that are presented to us. The rights of those who wish to make their
434
feelings known will be denied unless consideration of the Bill is allowed to continue next Session.
There is much at stake and this is a momentous occasion in the life of London, the city that we love. It is a momentous occasion also for London Underground. It is vital that the House should allow the Bill to proceed and for energetic and enthusiastic debate to take place in Committee. I wish jealously to safeguard the right of the House to debate it on two further occasions.
If the House approves the procedural motion, it will achieve a great deal for the people of London. This is an historic moment, and perhaps more important than the return of the Bill to the House. I give my wholehearted support to the motion.
10.39 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: Some hon. Members may regret the fact that we are having this debate and I offer them my apologies because I objected when this motion could have gone through on the nod last week. However, this evening I am, happily, able to be much more positive, because, thanks to the Minister's intervention yesterday, to which the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) referred, my principal objection to the Bill as it stood has now been dealt with.
The Bill eventually secured its Second Reading on the basis that there would be a range of stations. The hon. Member for Harrow, West has already referred to that. However, uncertainty had arisen about two of the new stations—not the interchange ones. Coincidentally—at least I hope that it was coincidental—both are in my constituency. Parenthetically, I should add that it is fairly rare to have a constituency with a two-part name and to find that new stations are to be named after each of the parts. I am grateful for that. Much work was done over the summer to try to make sure that the two stations would be a firm part of the Bill—that they were not just on the map, but that they would be built.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow, West for his generous comments a few minutes ago. I have no doubt that if the result of our two-round contest in 1983 had been slightly different and he had become the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey instead of more belatedly becoming the hon. Member for Harrow, West, he would have fought equally as tenaciously for the stations. I have no doubt that that is the right position for any hon. Member representing the constituency.
The result is that we now have the Minister's assurance, for which I am grateful. I should like to say to him and his officials, to London Underground, and to the members and officers of my local authority, Southwark, that the result that we have achieved, of being able to provide the information to satisfy the Minister and the Treasury that the Southwark and Bermondsey stations are justified, has been a tribute to our sensible and positive co-operation.
I hope nonetheless that the Minister will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to deal with one point arising from his written answer in yesterday's Hansard because there has been some ambiguity attaching to a report of his announcement in one edition of yesterday's Evening Standard. A sentence towards the end of the answer states:
"The Government are therefore prepared to approve construction of both stations provided the cost of the project as a whole can be held within agreed cost limits."—[Official Report, 23 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 97.]
I hope that I am correct in my understanding that the stations of Southwark and Bermondsey stand or fall with Parliament's agreement to the line as a whole and with the construction of the line as a whole. The article in the Evening Standard suggested—it was the only press article that I have seen that contained such a suggestion—that the announcement was conditional and required further Treasury endorsement. It is important that we have it on record—this is what I understand and certainly what the Minister's answer implies—that approval has been given, that the money is there, and that the people of Southwark and Bermondsey can now know that they are part of the plan.
436
However, I do have one quibble about the statement made by London Underground, as promoters, in relation to tonight's debate. The promotional statement sets out three major benefits—a direct connection to the west end and to west and north-west London, connection at Waterloo, serving the commuter suburbs to the west and south-west of London, and a connection at London Bridge, serving the commuter network to the south and south-east of London. I do not dissent from that, but I hope that London Underground now agrees—this has been agreed by the Minister, and all hon. Members who represent London constituencies have argued the point in previous debates—that if the underground line extension is to be justified there must also be some benefit to the people in the communities along the line. It should not just be a line to provide connections for people coming from outside London or the suburbs of London. That is a completely inadequate justification for this proposal.
I do not say that there is no validity in commuter links or that there is no need for the line to be connected properly to Canary wharf. However, happily, as a result of the instruction tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and others of us on Second Reading, the line must be as the Committee is now instructed to make it. It must be integral to the regeneration of local communities and industries. If it is not, the line will be simply a commuter drain. If it is, it will become an important part of the public transport infrastructure in London.
I hope—the Secretary of State was kind enough to refer to this in his reply to me in transport questions on Monday—that increasingly we shall see an extension of public transport in south-east London. The Secretary of State recognised that we have been badly served over many years. The area is still a white hole on the map. At last, thanks to the announcement this week, there are now marks on the map of south-east London where there will be provision of public transport. There needs to be more. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who speaks from the Labour Front Bench, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) and others of us, as well as colleagues who represent constituencies north of the river, have all been sympathetic to that need.
I hope that this will be only the first of several new proposals, and the Minister will know that we hope that hot on the heels of the extension of the Jubilee line will come the extension of the east London line north and south of the river and other provisions.
I wish now to flag up a few specific matters which I know will be dealt with in Committee. I welcome the fact that we shall debate them, but I wish to register that there are matters to be resolved if the general environment of Londoners, particularly those who live along the line, is to be improved, not disadvantaged.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Vauxhall said about the need to rethink the siting of the work in and around Jubilee gardens. I have no doubt, as the representative of the other part of Waterloo, that one could find a way of preserving that green space. Jubilee gardens is the only significant green space along the south of the river. There is a car park immediately next to it, which is far less valuable as an amenity, and I hope that everything will be done to make that, and not the gardens, the work site.
Along the line—I shall limit myself to the parts that affect Southwark—where there are station sites or work

437
sites London Underground will need to address obvious environmental concerns. I shall simply list them. The traffic implications will have to be considered. In many areas the implications are enormous, including to the west at Union street and Ewer street. I hope that it will be possible to create temporary sidings at Ewer street so that spoil can be removed and materials can be brought in by rail, not by road. That would be far more advantageous. The road network in that part of north Southwark is horrendously congested already. I hope that we shall not add to the congestion.
It appears that there are alternatives to the Druid street site which are away from major roads and junctions. One is in Maltby street and another is on the old Sarsons vinegar factory site. There will be a lot of construction in the area. Phase 2 of the Hay's wharf site is probably about to be developed. Guy's hospital is having a phase 3 development. We cannot add more construction and congestion to that area without great disruption to minor and major arterial roads.
Further along there is a site called Ben Smith Way, which is to be used for construction, although not of a station. There is substantial anxiety in the neighbouring community, particularly about traffic movements. It is a tightly knit residential community. There is an area of sheltered dwellings for old people. There is great anxiety that we reduce lorry movements and that previous difficulties in enforcing controls on construction traffic are not repeated. We must also have a proper system of accountability whereby people's complaints can be dealt with efficiently as and when any environmental nuisance is caused.
The House will be aware that the roads into south-east London, Jamaica road and Lower road are horrendously blocked during peak hours and traffic is stationary. We cannot afford to add to that congestion both in the interests of my constituents, who must cope with the fumes and the noise, and everyone who uses those major routes. Engineering works and new traffic signals will be required to ease congestion. We should also provide the shortest possible routes for lorries.
I hope that an underpass will be provided under Jamaica road, a very busy road, when the Bermondsey station is open. I do not suggest that that underpass should be open when the station is closed as that might be unsafe for people to pass through at night, but when the station is open there should be a safe alternative route underneath the road.
One of the greatest concerns has been voiced by my constituents in the far eastern end of the constituency at Surrey docks, before the proposed line goes under river to Canary wharf. The Minister will be aware that a late change has been proposed for the Canada Water station site. It now intrudes into the Canada estate instead of being located away from it. The estate is a traditional one with a high density and high-rise blocks. For the past 10 years it has been subject to much building work. The residents have now been informed that work on the new station will also spill over on to the estate. I hope that there is an engineering alternative to that unacceptable proposal. Another six years of disruption to that community would be too high a price for those residents to bear.
438
The other great fear about this new station site is that car users planning to travel to central London will park close to the station. The Canada estate and the streets round it face the prospect of many drivers seeking to find a space. I hope that we shall be able effectively to limit that additional car presence around the estate.
Just before the line goes under the river another works site has been proposed at Durands wharf—on another green space. I do not want to be unpopular with my colleagues north of the river, but is it necessary for this new park to be used as a major work site? Surely there is an engineering alternative that could use the river or a site on the other side of the river—one which is not so important in environmental terms as Durands wharf.
I look forward to the successful progress of the Bill. Perhaps it will be a race against the date of the general election, but I hope that the Bill clears the House by next autumn. I hope that in the meantime the Committee can resolve all the important environmental issues to the satisfaction of the people of Southwark.
I hope that the least noisy trains will be used. I understand that consideration is being given to reducing the decibel limit from 40 to 35 decibels, as practised in the United States. I understand that the best quality resilient track is now available. I hope that that track and quieter trains are used because the least noise the better.
We must also ensure that the provision of an underground system does not lead to additional motor traffic along the route. Local authorities must be able to exercise planning controls and the private transport user must be subject to transport controls. If that happens we shall have a line of great environmental benefit to the area. I hope that that will be the achievement of the Bill which, if the procedural motion is approved, will be carried over for further debate into the next Session of Parliament.
I am grateful for the constructive attitudes that have been displayed by so many people so far. I believe that we are in sight of an extremely succesful addition to the London public transport network. I welcome that and I hope that the motion is approved tonight.
10.53 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The Government strongly support the principles behind the Bill, and therefore support the carry-over motion. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), who spoke succinctly, eloquently and persuasively.
The House will know from the earlier Second Reading debate that the Government have a substantial interest in the objectives of the Bill and strongly support it. In previous debates, I have given the extent of public money that is committed to this line.
It might be for the convenience of the House if I briefly deal with two points that were debated by the House in July, before the summer recess, and have been touched on already by hon. Members. The first is the provision of stations at Southwark and Bermondsey, which has been a matter of particular concern to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I always have absolute admiration for the way in which he can produce so many penultimate points in any speech he makes. On 24 July, I told the House that it was the Government's policy that stations should be built at Southwark and

439
Bermondsey. I also said that further analytical work was to be carried out to confirm that the case for those stations was positive.
As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has already expressed a wish to know, I am sure that the House will also want to know the outcome of that work. The appraisal showed that, on current costing, the economic case for the stations was positive and as strong as that for the line itself provided that, in Southwark's case, direct passenger access was provided between it and British Rail's Waterloo East station. That will entail additional cost of £8 million, which will not be provided out of the existing provision for the line, but will be from incremental funds provided by the Department of Transport.
Therefore, the Government are prepared to approve construction of both stations, provided that the cost of the project as a whole can be held within agreed cost limits. The hon. Gentleman asked me what was meant by that statement. I told him when he came to see me two days ago that nothing sinister was implied. The Government mean by that statement that, as with any project, if costs of the entire line—including but not specifically Southwark and Bermondsey stations—and of tunnelling and engineering work, begin to exceed the real terms provision made by the Government for the line's construction, the Government, any Government, would have to reconsider what parts of the line could be built—indeed, whether the line itself could be built—within the available funds.
My statement should not be taken to read that, simply because I am confirming Southwark and Bermondsey now, if there were problems in the financial provision for the line, those two stations would be the first parts to be dropped. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that assurance in the spirit in which it is offered. Therefore, there is no question of London Transport or the Government seeking to withdraw provision for Southwark and Bermondsey stations from the Bill. I am mystified by the article in the Evening Standard—no further conditions have to be met with regard to the Treasury. The article was inaccurate.
Secondly, I gave the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) an assurance that the Government would give serious consideration to the recommendation of the New Building Sub-Committee that the concrete raft which will form the foundation for phase 2 of the new parliamentary building should be paid for in its entirety by the London Underground. But for this, the London Underground has already given all the undertakings sought of it, as acknowledged in the third report of the Services Committee. I said that I believed that that outstanding issue must be addressed in the autumn, and, I hoped, before any Select Committee considered the Bill.
I am therefore pleased to inform the House tonight that the Government are prepared for London Underground to undertake to provide and pay for a raft over the entire site if and when the funding for the phase 2 building has been approved. However, I am sure that the House will understand that, as that undertaking requires expenditure other than strictly required for the purposes of the railway, the Select Committee will have to consider whether additional express powers need to be given to the underground to enable it lawfully to give and discharge this undertaking.
It is only reasonable that that offer, made by the Government with the full concurrence, understanding and
440
agreement of London Underground, is conditional upon the building above the raft going ahead. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ogmore will see the logic behind that. We have tried to respond in a constructive and prompt fashion to his request.
I know that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who may seek to speak in the debate, has raised with me the issue of access for disabled people and doubtless she will wish to return to the subject. London Underground is studying the issue of access to the Jubilee line extension by disabled people, and taking the matter seriously. I understand that it has decided that lifts should be provided to facilitate access to stations. It has appointed consultants to consider the implications and to evaluate the risks of allowing wheelchair users on the extension. But it must have paramount regard to its safety obligations for all passengers and staff, as well as to considerations of reasonable practicability and cost.
If the hon. Lady, whom I know is deeply and specifically interested in the subject, would like to pursue the subject with the Department of Transport alter tonight's debate, I should be happy to meet her and answer any specific questions through Parliament.
There are 95 petitions against the Bill, and it awaits examination by a Select Committee. It would be right that the Bill should be allowed to continue so that the House can reach a conclusion on the expediency of the Bill arid its detailed provisions. If the motion is carried, the House will have further opportunities to consider the arguments for and against the Bill.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey hoped that the Bill would attain Royal Assent by autumn next year. I hope that he is right. I share his sentiments, so that, with Royal Assent, but only after proper and detailed consideration of all the points that have been and will be raised, Londoners, particularly those in south-east London, in the docklands area and east London, will benefit from this major extension to London's underground.
11 pm
Ms. Joan Ruddock: As others have said, this is a technical carry-over motion. The Minister has clearly given his strong support to the extension of the Jubilee line and I regret that that forces me to take the time of the House to question whether the Government's commitment to London Underground is as strong as he suggests.
Today we have news of a leaked memo from the managing director of London Underground Ltd. to all the Underground managers which calls into question the Government's commitment to providing Londoners with an affordable, accessible and efficient underground system.
London Transport's business plan is now in disarray. It is heading for a loss of between £35 million and £40 million, and the leaked memo catalogues the stark reality of trying to run an underground system within the straitjacket of Government financial constraints. It calls into question future capital programmes.
Members are here tonight debating the carry-over motion and, if it is successful and the Bill goes to Committee, other hon. Members may spend up to 12 months debating its merits. But we cannot be wholly confident of the future extension of the line and of London Underground.

441
On Monday, I tackled the Secretary of State about the £40 million loss. In his facetious reply, he gave no acknowledgement of the difficulties that have been outlined in today's memo. Many of the directives in the memo are relevant to tonight's consideration of the carry-over motion. On capital projects, it says:
"Projects approved but not committed to contract will not go ahead in this financial year. All projects under way will be assessed to determine savings."
On staffing, it says:
"Reductions in overtime and recruitment are required." The consequences of that are outlined in the memo as unplanned closures of stations and station booking halls and restrictions and reductions in services.
We are told that the Victoria line will continue to be six trains short for the rest of this financial year. The Jubilee line is to be three trains short for the rest of this financial year. Station cleaning is to be reduced and there is to be a reduction in engineering. When the London public appreciate that those engineers whose time is to be reduced are those dealing with signals, they will be only to conscious of what that means to the delivery of services. More trains will be stuck in tunnels for longer.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have to be careful not to allow this to turn into a general debate on London Underground, and I hope that the hon. Lady will now direct her remarks more directly to the motion before the House.
Ms. Ruddock: I am conscious of what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have limited my remarks. There is much more that I could say on the issue, but I do believe that, in considering a major investment of this kind, and debating a motion about continuing with it, we should feel some confidence about the Government's commitment to extending the underground system, yet they are already failing to fund it appropriately.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend's remarks are relevant because, if the Government's commitment and that of London Regional Transport is to the completion of the line as outlined in the Bill, is there not likely to be a knock-on effect—or knock-back effect—in many of the operating areas that my hon. Friend outlined—unless, of course, the report to which she referred is a fabrication? Also, obtaining powers to construct a line places no obligation on the promoters to complete it. The Thames or so-called River line was abandoned, so if it was necessary to keep within financial constraints, the promoters might construct a line from Green park to Canary wharf and then take it no further.
Ms. Ruddock: My hon. Friend makes his case admirably. There can be no doubt that the report, which we believe to be utterly authentic, undermines our confidence in the Government's support for London Underground Ltd.
Despite that report and the gloomy prospects of continuing misery for those who use the existing tube lines, we will support the carry-over motion—not least because we expect a change of Government before construction of the new line begins, and thus a change of attitude towards public transport as a whole.
Mr. Freeman: I remind the House that, under this Government, investment in London Underground is some two and half times greater than it was under the stewardship of the Greater London council. The hon. Lady can confirm that, in giving consent to the depositing of the Jubilee Bill and indicating their strong support for its principles, it follows that financial provision has been made for the entire line. It is not a matter of approving the project in principle and not providing the necessary resources to make it happen.
Ms. Ruddock: The Minister may give that assurance, but, despite the approval that he and the House gave London Transport's business plan, we all know that its budgets and financial targets are so severely awry that measures of the kind that I have outlined must be taken. That will mean a reduction in what are already poor services to Londoners.
Mr. John Bowis: I have seen the report to which the hon. Lady referred, but I do not think that it was necessarily leaked; rather, I believe that it is generally circulating. That report is a criticism not of the Government's commitment to London Underground but of some of the management's operating practices, and is also partly the consequence of less being realised from assets such as land than London Underground anticipated. The hon. Lady should also make it clear that entirely exempt from those proposals is anything to do with safety. Clearly, expenditure on safety aspects will go ahead.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is both taking too long and going wide of the motion. I said earlier that this is not the occasion for a general debate about London Underground.
Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) claims that safety expenditure will be safeguarded, but morale is being deeply eroded, and that contributes to the level of safety and care provided by managers and staff. The report reflects nothing less than a very serious situation.
Inevitably, the Government's response to the needs of London's travelling public has been piecemeal. The extension of the Jubilee line is among those piecemeal measures, albeit an expensive one, in that every authority in London—including the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association—has repeatedly requested a strategic plan.
The extension of the Jubilee line should of course be part of an overall plan for the whole of the capital, one which is necessary if we are not to end up in a state of terminal paralysis. But as the Government persist in this approach, it is our duty as an Opposition to try to get the best possible result from any proposals that come before us.
Many reservations and questions were raised on Second Reading. I am happy to acknowledge that some of the problems have been satisfactorily resolved. Most importantly, the case for new stations in Bermondsey and Southwark has been accepted. As a south London Member, I am acutely aware of the inadequacies of public transport south of the river and of the sterling efforts made by the boroughs of Southwark and Lewisham in lobbying London Transport for new infrastructure.

443
I very much welcome the commitment given by the Minister in answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I remind the Minister, however, of the view strongly held by me, my colleagues in south London and the boroughs of Lewisham and Greenwich, that the proposed extension to the Docklands light railway must be an essential part of any planned increase in public transport south of the river. I hope that he will allow a Bill to be deposited on that, too, in November.
Will the Minister confirm what has been said by the sponsor of the Bill tonight—that the line and the alignment through the Greenwich peninsula is certain, and that talk of reconsideration is not warranted? Will he also confirm that a route to the royals is being safeguarded in case it is subsequently possible to extend the line further?
Finally, as the Minister said, on Second Reading I expressed our acute disappointment at London Underground's apparent unwillingness to make the new section of line fully wheelchair-accessible. I acknowledge what the Minister has said tonight about the assurances that there will be lifts and stations, and that further consideration is being given to making the line fully wheelchair-accessible. I shall certainly take up his offer to meet him and to pursue that point, because we believe that all extensions of lines and all new underground lines should indeed be fully accessible to people with disabilities.
Despite these objections and the reservations that we still have, we are happy to give support to the carry-over motion. We hope that in Committee the further problems will be satisfactorily resolved.
11.12 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: I shall not delay the House unduly at this late hour. I have no wish to repeat the arguments put to the Government and the House on July 12 and 24, because on those occasions the members of the New Building Sub-Committee made their objections known forcefully, and the Government have responded as the Committee would have expected.
I refer first to the report by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) on the new parliamentary building phase 2 and the Jubilee line proposals that we debated some time ago. Paragraph 44 described the undertakings that the Committee requested from London Underground as follows:

"(i) that London Underground should agree to implement Option F, and that all costs incurred as part of the London Underground works in connection with Option F should be borne by London Underground itself;

(ii) that London Underground should agree to pay for the concrete raft; and

(iii) that London Underground should accept all the recommendations aimed at minimising environmental impact put forward by the independent consultants in the Environmental Impact Assessment inasmuch as they relate to Westminster Station and Parliament Square."

I shall concentrate on the last paragraph.
I was pleased by what the Minister said about the raft. I understand, as I am sure that all members of the New Building Sub-Committee will understand, that before any concrete proposals are made by the Government or London Underground for payment for the raft that is to be built there will have to be guaranteed funding for the building to be erected above the raft.
444
There could be a change in Government before the final decision is made. I am sure that after the work that has been put in by my Committee no Government would attempt to stop the development, which is well overdue. If the public could see the conditions in which some hon. Members, who represent up to 80,000 constituents, have to work, they would be horrified. Some hon. Members have to work six or seven to a room. They have to do a tremendous amount of work in a confined space—for example, in the Cloisters. If an outside firm made its staff work in such conditions, it would be breaking the law, but the law does not apply to the Palace of Westminster, so hon. Members have to tolerate deplorable conditions brought about because Governments have not been prepared to pay to provide proper accommodation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) spoke about county hall, which is only five minutes walk away and has massive committee rooms, plenty of office accommodation for staff, secretaries and even Ministers. Whatever Government we have over the next couple of years, whether the present Government or an incoming Labour Government, should look closely at what should be done with county hall. It should be taken over to provide reasonable accommodation for hon. Members. One of the main reasons why I was prepared to take the Chair of the New Building Sub-Committee was my interest in accommodation and my concern at the fact that hon. Members have not had the necessary standard of accommodation.
This is all relevant to the extension of the Jubilee line, because had it not been for this development by London Underground, phase 2 of the new parliamentary building would be well advanced. In all probability, plans would have been accepted, Government finance would have been granted, and we should have been in the process of building phase 2. Many interests and organisations are demanding accommodation. Women Members of Parliament are asking for creches and child care facilities, other Members would like a gymnasium, a swimming pool or squash courts, but the main priority of every Member of Parliament is office accommodation.
I pay tribute to the hard work put in by the members of the New Building Sub-Committee on the development of phase 1 and the planning and discussion of phase 2. I am grateful for the remarks made by the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) on this. I assure the House that all members of the Committee have unanimously supported the Committee's decisions in discussions with the Minister and other bodies so as to ensure that phase 1 is completed.
The report states that Members of Parliament will soon have accommodation in phase 1. I believe that the Minister has been persuaded to accept one of the three proposals regarding the building and financing of the raft by London Underground because of the persuasiveness of the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who is a member of the Committee and has continually argued for that proposal.
I am glad that the Opposition Front Bench supports the carry-over motion. The sooner the Bill leaves its Committee stage, the sooner we shall be able to appoint architects to design phase 2 which will provide additional accommodation for Members.
I hope that, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister will be able to reply to a point that I wish to put to him. I am worried about access to the House of

445
Commons because of the new development in Parliament square. I hope that the Minister will say something about the proposals presented to him on 12 and 24 July regarding Parliament square. Traffic will be disrupted for about six years. It cannot be right and proper for traffic to be disrupted for such a long period. It is an environmental issue.
As time is short, I intend to bring my remarks to a close. I hope, however, that the Minister will be allowed to speak again.
Mr. Freeman: I am sure that I shall not have a chance to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make a substantive contribution, but by way of an intervention may I point out that it is not for me, as a Transport Minister, to comment on specific details. That is a task for the Select Committee. However, I understand the concern about Parliament square. After the Select Committee has carefully considered the proposals for the boarding up of Parliament square, the Department will work closely with London Underground and London Regional Transport to ensure that the disruption is minimised. However, the answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions must be provided by the promoters when the Select Committee considers the Bill.
Mr. Powell: I am grateful to the Minister. Those appointed to serve on the Bill will read his remarks and ensure that hon. Members, through the Serjeant at Arms, have access to the House. I can imagine how much disruption would be caused if the road were raised. I am sure that all hon. Members would be glad of an assurance from the Minister that he, as well as the Select Committee, will bear the matter in mind. I am sure that the members of the New Building Sub-Committee will be looking to ensure that the observations that they have made in their reports are well and truly observed.
11.25 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: Some generous tributes have been paid to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and his eloquence. I happily join in them. However, I must enter one small caveat. He suggested in his opening remarks that there was no need for any discussion this evening. I do not agree. There are many matters that should be ventilated, especially because of the entirely unsatisfactory private Bill procedure under which these matters are dealt with. This is one of the few opportunities for ordinary Members of Parliament to have a say in what we all understand to be an important matter.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I should like to make it clear that, whatever the hon. Gentleman may have understood from my remarks, I welcome the debate. The points being put forward are serious and need to be considered. I am listening to them and I know that the promoters are listening and will take account of all the points made by hon. Members.
Mr. Leighton: I am pleased to hear that.
I received in my mail today—as I am sure did other hon. Members—a statement on behalf of the promoters in support of the carry-over motion. It says that since the Bill was deposited last November, London Regional Transport has been given leave to proceed with an
446
"additional provision" which would alter the Bill's proposals in three ways. The first is changes to the station arrangements at Westminster, the second is a change at London Bridge station and the third is an alteration in the route. I draw attention to that alteration in the route which will take the line by way of the Blackwall peninsula at Greenwich. That is a major change taking the line from the north side to the south side of the river. Presumably the people on the north side of the river have an opinion about that. People undertook development there and some development is in prospect on the understanding that the Jubilee line was going to run there. Now, all of a sudden, it has been snatched away. What consultation was there with interests north of the river?
I am pleased that the statement from the promoters also refers to the instruction we gave on Second Reading on the need for the regeneration of local communities and industries. Of course, there are no local communities or industries on the Greenwich peninsula.
The change concerning what happens to the line when it leaves Canary wharf is a major one and I have heard no proper explanation for it. The additional provisions for the Bill lodged by the promoters will take the route from Canary wharf under the Thames into the Greenwich peninsula, where a new station is proposed. From that station, the proposed route again crosses under the Thames and goes up to Stratford. Some questions should be asked about that and I hope that we can hear some sensible comments tonight.
Cost is not irrelevant or unimportant. We heard what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) about the information that she received recently. We have heard the Minister's references to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He had an assurance that he would get his stations only if there was enough money. It was not a cast-iron or, to vary the metaphor, copper-bottomed guarantee. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford said, if it will cost much more to tunnel under the Thames twice perhaps the guarantees given to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey are not quite so firm.
The route will be considerably longer than originally proposed. Not only will that be much more expensive, but two additional Thames crossings will have to be tunnelled, perhaps in difficult conditions. I do not know what expert opinion we have on how difficult it will be to do that tunnelling, but I should like to know what it will cost and who will pay. Is there any cost to the taxpayer, or will it be paid for by private interests? Parliament wants answers to those questions.
The railway is being paid for very oddly, with subventions from developers and I think that British Gas put up some money. The private Bill procedure for the expenditure of vast sums of public money is unsatisfactory. I ask these questions to see whether we can get some answers.
British Urban Development was set up from II major firms in the construction industry. Its purpose was to carry out redevelopment in the inner cities. The Prime Minister, in particular, looked very kindly on it and it was created virtually with her patronage. It was going to do great work in the inner cities, but unfortunately it is being scaled down because of dwindling Government support, the recession and the downturn in the property market. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) mentioned county

447
hall. I think that that- group was to develop county hall but has now gone bankrupt. As there is so much risk in this line of business but insufficient incentives for firms, they are contracting out of this development.
British Urban Development and British Gas are still paying at least lip service to the development at the Greenwich peninsula. A proposal has been made to develop housing and some small industry. I want to know a bit more about that and how firm it is. I hope that I am not being too insensitive if I say that many of the 11 firms are well known for contributing to the Conservative party. They certainly have much clout and have been able to change the route and take the line under the Thames twice to that site. I think that British Gas has offered £25 million. Is that why the development is being proposed? If we pass the motion, the Select Committee that will consider this will want to ask whether £25 million was available from people on the other side of the river. Is the route of the line to be decided by some sort of auction, with developers offering different sums of money?
We want to know whether the developers of the Greenwich peninsula will deliver. What guarantees are there that they will? My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I heard much talk about development in the royal docks. The area was taken out of the the control of the local authorities and put under the control of the London Docklands development corporation—an allegedly dynamic body that was supposed to develop the area. That was 11 years ago, and not a single brick has been laid. If that project has failed, what guarantees are there in respect of the Greenwich peninsula? Is the development viable, and is it fundable, bearing in mind the fact that we are talking about a derelict contaminated gasworks site. Are we sure that the development will take place?
The original route through the Leamouth area on the northern side was decided because of the support that it would give to the regeneration of docklands. It forms a vital part of the transport infrastructure planned by the LDDC for the area. I have not heard the LDDC say anything about the matter. What is the development corporation's view? Or is it inhibited because the Government are its paymasters? Perhaps it is not allowed to have a view. Many of those who have spoken to me believe that the reason for the original decision—which the promoters now want to alter—to run the tracks of the Jubilee line through the Leamouth area, supporting the regeneration of docklands and the east side of London, was sound, and that it constituted a vital element in the success of the regeneration.
Let us consider the development in the Leamouth area and the vast number of people who will be working there. If the Jubilee line does not run through the area, other forms of public transport will be needed, because the private motor car will not be sufficient to move the staff around. The docklands light railway will not be enough; we all know that. Presumably, therefore, those people will be transported by bus, and that will clog up the roads.
Transport will also be needed on the Greenwich peninsula. I have heard a number of ideas about what could be done there, one of which involved the provision of a light railway, linking Westcombe park British Rail line with the peninsula. The DLR should also be extended from Island Gardens on the Isle of Dogs, via Greenwich, to Lewisham.
448
In Newham, we want the royal docks to be developed. Ah! I see the Minister for Industry standing at the Bar of the House, wearing a white tie. I have half a mind to order a cup of coffee from the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps that would not be appropriate.
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): With pleasure, Sir.
Mr. Leighton: Two sugars, please. The service in this place is wonderful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Gentleman's dress is a splendid example of the sort of uniform that might attract foreign visitors to county hall if ever it were developed as a hotel.
In Newham, we want the Jubilee line extended to the royal docks. That will cost a lot of money, and I have asked about this because I want to know whether the money will be available. Two years ago, we were told that the route would be safeguarded. But as far as I know, after two years of talk, nothing has been done to safeguard it. When will that route be safeguarded?
The step plate junction is a subject close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South. It is the facility that will be necessary to extend the Jubilee line to the royal docks. There are a number of question marks hanging over the project's technical feasibility and the availability of funds. Is the money available—if not, when will it be available—for the step plate junction?
May we have an assurance that the engineering works will be committed? I am advised that they cannot be carried out once the trains are running; I may be wrong, but I should like to be reassured about the junction. On the original route, the junction would have a gentle 45-degree curve, which could be accommodated. The other proposed route—coming up from the south, from the Greenwich peninsula—would, however, involve a 135-degree curve. I am advised by some people that that would be impossible to implement.
When the Jubilee line is extended, which I hope that it will be in the future—perhaps under another Government—it will, ideally, cross the river at north Woolwich and go to Thamesmead.
I have, I trust, raised one or two legitimate questions. They are difficult to deal with under the private Bill procedure, but I hope nevertheless to receive some clear and specific answers.
11.40 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On Second Reading, I gave the Bill qualified support. I therefore of necessity, support tonight's motion.
When I questioned my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) about the will to complete, the Minister gave me an assurance for which I thank him. Perhaps my thought was a little unworthy—in relation to trains stopping only at Canary wharf, that is—but, as the Minister knows, the promoters are not obliged to complete any works for which an Act is provided. In any event, the Minister has cleared the matter up by giving me a Government assurance that the necessary funds will be available.
This is the season of carry-over motions, and we have some congestion on the private Bill railway. Comments have been made about private Bill procedure, which I think are best dealt with by way of example. We all know that the major delay is caused by a clash between national

449
energy policy and the little matter of 50,000 miners' jobs. That, of course, is part of the reason for our being here, night after night, until rather late, but I shall not deal with that now.
What I do wish to discuss, however, is an alternative procedure which might make a carry-over motion unnecessary in this instance. It has been suggested that railway Bills should be treated like proposals relating to motorways and referred to a public inquiry. Judging from the detailed comments about open spaces that we heard earlier, some hon. Members may consider that a good idea. What I favour, however, is an examination by a Joint Committee of both Houses—preferably before Second Reading—which would assure itself that any appropriate preliminary steps had been taken before a private Bill came to the House. Had such a procedure been adopted earlier, private legislation involving the channel tunnel, King's Cross and, indeed, the matters that we are discussing now would in my view have been dealt with much more expeditiously.
I am opposed to leaving the final decision with the Secretary of State rather than the House. The issues raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), for instance, should not be dealt with by means of an ordinary planning inquiry, in which event the decision would lie with the Minister; here, it lies with the House, and with a Committee appointed by the House to look into the merits of the case. I think that that system should be retained—albeit with some form of ring fencing outside—to ensure that all the preliminary procedures, including consultation with landowners and boroughs, have been undertaken before Second Reading.
I wish to emphasise the importance of three broad issues which were dealt with on Second Reading. The regeneration of docklands and the lower Lee valley has been mentioned by many hon. Members. Inquiries have been made about the security of the step plate junction, and I am puzzled how the matter has arisen. The junction consists of concentric expanding rings in the tunnel—it was the design for the tunnel under the Thames, or near it, on the north bank in Canning Town and it was always in the plan. I understand that the design has been incorporated in the variation order, and I see that there are signs of agreement with that in the Chamber. A typical rumour has circulated and it is right that inquiries have been made, but there may be some misapprehension about the safeguarding of the route. As I understand it, that safeguarding will lie in the junction, which can be constructed only prior to the initiation of trains. The scheme will permit a branch through the royal docks, should that be found necessary in future, and that makes sense. Had there been sufficient and proper time to take the line over an existing or proposed bridge, or through a tunnel, into Thamesmead or Woolwich, that would have been a good strategic planning stroke to come from a future Bill.
I referred on Second Reading to the Westminster/ Charing cross problem, and I mention it again for the consideration of the Select Committee. Should the interchange with the District line be at St. James's park as the Committee wanted, at Westminster where the promoters want it, or at Temple which I have suggested as an alternative? If the interchange were at Temple, there
450
would be the facility of continuing with the present route via Charing cross or Trafalgar square, which are relatively near.
The curve of the line—curves have been mentioned in respect of Canning Town—at Green park would need to be transposed to a curve through Temple, or there would have to be a similar one. I am not convinced that that could be achieved. I have no doubt that the Committee will consider the matter, and I hope that the promoters will be preparing a variation order—they will if they are wise—in the event that the Committee finds that there is a better way of serving the general needs of London and getting rid of all the problems at Parliament square.
I make no apology for raising the subject of regeneration again. It is an example of the value of the parliamentary Bill procedure as a long-stop for anything that may come earlier. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) talked about one of his constituents, a Mr. Downey, who has a business in my constituency. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman, who represents one of the Buckhurst Hill areas, devoted his speech to the just needs of Mr. Downey and his business. Mr. Downey owns a small engineering business by a filling station in Canning Town. It is one of the remnant industries of east London, and stems directly from the shipbuilding and ship-repairing tradition which, alas, is all but extinct in the area now. I believe that in 1906 a Dreadnought was built on the site close to where Mr. Downey has his workshops.
Compensation is causing some difficulty. I pay tribute to the work of some of the officials, some of whom may even be listening to what I have to say, in trying to find Mr. Downey alternative accommodation. The fact that he has two disparate businesses may make their job difficult. I understand, however, that it will be difficult for Mr. Downey even to continue with his engineering business, which has a relatively full order book. That is something which I believe the House will not tolerate. Will the Committee tolerate it, bearing in mind the instruction that the House has already issued?
Mr. Downey is a gentleman of private enterprise. He is engaged in a business that would gladden the hearts of Conservative Members and one of which I approve because it is concerned with engineering and tangible things. It leads to items being made that people want, and it is conducted on good private enterprise lines which Conservative Members constantly applaud.
The private Bill procedure is meant to ensure that people get proper compensation. Because of the importance of regeneration, the LDDC and the instruction, such people should be permitted and enabled to carry on their productive businesses. My constituents should be enabled to continue their employment in a traditional east London industry and, if necessary, to carry out training and have apprentices so that if demand for Mr. Downey's fabrications increases, his industry can continue to meet it. At the moment, however, there is no guarantee of that.
I have been invited to be involved in the search for a solution but, as both myself—the Member representing the constituency in which the business is located—and the hon. Member representing Mr. Downey's constituency, who is present in the Chamber today, have pointed out, hon. Members should not have to spend any more time on mediation. I am glad and proud that Parliament can consider the fate of individual businesses and, in the

451
traditional phrase, "the details of Mrs. Smith's pension" on the Adjournment. That is absolutely right and cases such as this are why we want to retain the private Bill procedure. However, once the House has given an instruction, and once the idea of proper compensation, enshrined for centuries, is embedded in the legislation, I believe that the promoters and others concerned should be enabled to get on with it.
I conclude where I began, considering the value of at least part of the private Bill procedure for railways. We can see what is happening at the moment with the procedure for roads. Not very far from the end of the Jubilee line at Oxleas Wood, the former Secretary of State for the Environment approved a road and not a tunnel. We are talking about a tunnel for a railway. At a stroke of his pen—in perhaps just 15 seconds' work—the Secretary of State ruled that the inspectors' report on Oxleas Wood would be completely disregarded and decided that there should not be a tunnel there. No Secretary of State in the future—I do not care what party he belongs to—or future Administration in 20, 30 or 50 years' time should be given such a power in relation to tunnels for railways.
That is why I end where I began. Although we want the private Bill procedure to be improved, I believe that the case of Mr. Downey and the former Secretary of State's decision over Oxleas Wood prove that we should only modify our procedures and not hand the power of the House and its Committees to some personage who will be seated at a desk opposite the House in Whitehall.
11.52 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall seek to answer some of the important points that have been made, and to do so as briefly as possible. The promoters are extremely grateful for all the points that have been made, and careful note has been made of the important views expressed by those hon. Members who represent constituencies that will be affected by the line.
I shall not go into all the arguments that have been made about procedure, especially the private Bill procedure, because that is a complicated matter that is outside the scope of this debate.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) referred to the problem with Jubilee gardens. I well understand the point that she is making on behalf of her constituents. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) also made the point that Jubilee gardens is the only green space in the area and that there will be enormous problems if building has to be carried out there. However, as the hon. Lady also said, she and the people she represents are not against the line. She knows that, if the line is built, there will have to be some digging. She and the promoters are at one in seeking to have the building site located on the car park if possible. I shall not stray into the political areas of discussing how possible that may or may not be or should or should not be. Nevertheless, they are at one and LUL will be seeking to locate the building site on the car park.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) hit the nail on the head in many regards, but especially when he said that improvements for hon. Members, and the new building that everyone desires, are in danger if the motion is not passed. That is the context
452
in which we should put both his remarks and the valuable speech about the new building of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell).
I was tempted by the hon. Member for Ogmore when he talked about the prospect that county hall could be used for offices. I used to have an office in county hall which was about the same size as that enjoyed by the Prime Minister at the back of the Chair in this building. If it meant that I could have that office back, I should be in favour of moving into county hall.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Until there was a Division.
Mr. Hughes: Until there was a Division, as my hon. Friend says.
The Committee of the hon. Member for Ogmore has made a valuable contribution on the new building and the traffic in Parliament square. It is fair to say that the close working relationship that has built up between the PSA and London Underground has ironed out many of the problems that were raised by the hon. Member for Ogmore on Second Reading. Of course, problems remain to be ironed out, but I hope that the promoters will examine the problems outlined by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members today and that further improvements can be made before the building work starts.
I thank the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey for his kind words. He talked about the cost of the project. He asked whether the stations were linked to the project or to the cost of the project. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) also made that point. It is clear from everything that I have read and from what my hon. Friend the Minister said that the stations of Southwark and Bermondsey are linked to the project going ahead. There is not much point in having the stations if one does not have the line. There is no suggestion that the line would go ahead without the stations. That is important. I think that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was satisfied on that point.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also said that the line should serve communities and help to regenerate them. He said that it should not be merely for commuting into the rest of London. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) also made that point. That objective is clear, as I said in my introduction to the debate.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) made a speech that was interesting but not necessarily germane to a carry-over motion. I take to heart her point about wheelchair accessibility, and I hope that the promoters take it to heart too. We must work towards making people in wheelchairs real members of our society, with the rights that they deserve. We need to do some work on that. That was not in my brief, but I thought that I would say it.
Ms. Ruddock: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I also requested an assurance on safeguarding a route to the royals. Will he come to that point?
Mr. Hughes: I was coming to that specific point.
As the hon. Member for Newham, South said—in a sense in response to his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East—the safeguard for the route to the royals is the fact that the step plates are integral to the

453
building of the line. That has been clearly stated by the promoters. Without the step plates, the new line cannot be built to the royals. That is the guarantee. Guaranteeing the specific route is a matter for the Government, and no doubt that will have to be pursued. However, it may not need to be pursued because the step plates are guaranteed.
The case of Mr. Downey was raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South. There has been some correspondence——
Mr. Leighton: I am counting the hon. Gentleman's remarks and wondering whether he is responding in order in which the speeches were made. After replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) he leapt over me to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Does he intend to come back to me by some sort of step plate? How is he arranging his speech?
Mr. Hughes: Rather like the pudding after the meal, I am saving my reply to the hon. Gentleman until last.
There has been correspondence between London Underground and my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) on Mr. Downey. The local authority and LUL are doing everything possible to find a new site. I know that my hon. Friend will not let Mr. Downey's case go by default and he will ensure that his constituent is satisfied before the Bill proceeds to the statute book.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East asked the important question about whether the line should go north or south of the river. The east London rail study identified two possible alignments between Canary wharf and Canning Town—via either the Greenwich peninsula or the Brunswick foreshore. The pressure of the November deadline on LRT to deposit a Bill last year made it necessary for it to reach a decision to plan on the basis of the shorter and cheaper alignment via Brunswick. The Bill was deposited on that basis.
Subsequently further discussions were held with property developers and landowners, whose interests would be affected by both alignments, to ascertain whether they would be prepared to meet the additional costs of providing a station and changing the route as necessary. Each of the interested groups offered to contribute, but the financial case for proceeding with the Greenwich alignment is more robust and offers additional benefits as it opens up the area to public transport.
In contrast, Brunswick will be effectively served by the Beckton extension of the docklands light railway. Accordingly, the Government authorised the deposit of an additional provision to change the alignment to go via Greenwich—LRT is committed to promoting the Bill as amended by that additional provision. LRT is convinced that the better route in terms of maximum use by passengers is that via the Greenwich peninsula. That decision, however, in common with many other matters that we have discussed, should be discussed in Committee.
Without the motion, there will be no line, at least for the foreseeable future. If we approve the motion, we shall get the line that Londoners desperately need.
Mr. Leighton: Am I right to understand that there was some kind of auction and discussions with property developers and landowners and that sums of money were
454
offered? I believe that the hon. Gentleman said that the case for one route was more robust than that for the other. I do not know what that means.
We already know that, in the long term, the docklands light railway will not be adequate for the traffic it must carry. The Committee should point the spotlight on this matter and examine it most carefully. It should discover how much the various offers were worth. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can tell us the answer, because, as he said earlier, that might not be in his brief. Does he know what was offered by whom?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Briefly, please
Mr. Leighton: Perhaps we cannot deal with the matter here because of unsatisfactory procedures, but it is something that must be dealt with.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) might reply.
Mr. Hughes: The crux of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East is that this matter should be discussed in Committee.
On Second Reading, people asked why this particular route had been chosen, given the announcement about the east-west route. The answer lies in cost-benefit analysis. LRT believes that that analysis proves that the Greenwich peninsula is a better route than the other, which happens to be cheaper. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Committee should discuss the matter.
Without the carry-over motion, the Committee cannot discuss any matter, and London will be deprived of a desperately needed railway.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
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 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 committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
Ordered,
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;
Ordered,
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;
Ordered,

455
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:
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.

Central and Eastern Europe (EC Aid)
12.4 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and CommonwealIth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7720/90, relating to the extension of the provisions of Council regulation No. 3906/89 to Czechoslovakia, GDR, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Romania; and supports the Government's view that the provision of co-ordinated economic aid to those countries by the European Community will promote economic and political reform in those countries and foster a closer relationship with the Community.
Last Friday the House debated the EC consequences of German unity. Although that debate was not without its complexity—no less than 26 pieces of draft EC legislation lay on the Table for the House's consideration—it was lubricated by the fact that the former German Democratic Republic is acceding immediately to the Community as a part of the Federal Republic. The considerable costs of bringing the GDR up to the standards of the Community will be largely met by the Federal Republic of Germany. Even though substantial social and economic strains will result, they will undoubtedly be eased by the wealth of western Germany and its commitment to the cause of German unity. No such sponsor exists for the other newly emerged democracies of eastern Europe, and they will need our support both bilaterally and through the Community.
For Conservative Members and the majority of Opposition Members, the return of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and, we hope eventually, Romania to democracy and free enterprise is a matter for unalloyed rejoicing. For some Opposition Members the matter is not so clear cut.
Last Friday the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) leapt to the defence of the Trabant motor car—an heroic act that 18 million former East Germans are no longer prepared to perform. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) even praised the full employment policies of the GDR. At one stage I was surprised that none of the Members who sit below the Gangway rose to praise the policies of law and order that used to pertain under Herr Honecker.
The regulation which we are debating this evening gives effect to the extension of the Community's aid to the other countries of central and eastern Europe in addition to the original recipients, Poland and Hungary. I was grateful for the Scrutiny Committee's agreement that our acceptance of the Commission's proposal did not need to await its deliberations. By agreeing to this regulation in July the Government were able to send a positive signal about their commitment to supporting political and economic reform in eastern Europe.
I should like to outline first the criteria used by the Community in deciding to which countries to give aid. Secondly, I shall touch on the range of measures that have so far been taken. Thirdly, I shall consider some of the projects that have been financed by EC funds. Finally, I shall comment on the future of EC relations with eastern and central Europe.
I shall begin with the criteria. The Community's aid policy is based on an assessment of each country's progress in implementing political and economic reform. We measure that commitment according to five criteria: the

457
establishment of a market economy; a pluralist democracy; free and fair elections; the recognition of human rights; and the rule of law. The freedom of the media is a further barometer of the extent of political liberty in any country.
We retain, alas, some doubts about Romania's commitment to democracy following the unhappy events of June this year. Romania, although covered by the regulation, will receive EC economic aid only when Ministers are satisfied that the above criteria have been met. We look forward to its early inclusion.
The programme of aid available to Poland and Hungary developed at the end of last year comprised four basic elements—measures to boost trade with the Community, lending facilities, project aid for spending in the priority areas of environment, agriculture, training and industry, and food aid where that was required.
A further important role will be performed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development which we hope will begin operations in the spring from its London headquarters.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What will happen after 1 January when non-transferable roubles become difficult and have to give way to hard dollars? That will hit countries such as Poland and Bulgaria extremely hard. Will the bank do something about that?
Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that eastern Europe faces problems in financial management, accountancy and so on. Through our know-how fund and the TEMPUS programmes of the Community we shall be attempting, through conferences, seminars and direct advice, to give assistance to eastern Europe on the many problems that will arise from moving rather abruptly from a command economy to a market economy.
The EC's aid measures are being extended on a case-by-case basis to Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Romania, although I stress again that no disbursements will be made to Romania until she has met the requirements that I outlined to the House in my earlier remarks.
Mr. John Bowis: Does my hon. Friend intend to refer to Yugoslavia and the abuses of human rights there? It is hardly moving towards a free and fair democratic system, particularly in the Kosovo region. Will he also define Yugoslavia should Slovenia and others begin to break away and form their own nations?
Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not attempt this evening to define Yugoslavia—a matter which is causing some difficulty even for Yugoslays. I agree that Yugoslavia has some way to go before it attains the criteria that I have just outlined.
In particular the PHARE—Poland Hungary aid for reconstruction of the economy—regulation now covers all the above countries for project aid, although, as I have just explained, there are no disbursements yet for Romania.
The original budget for 1990 of 300 million ecu, which is about £210 million, was extended to 500 million ecu, or £350 million, for all six countries, and 850 million ecu, or £595 million, has been earmarked for 1991. It might be helpful if I highlighted some of the projects implemented
458
using that money. Some 25 million ecu, or about £18 million, has gone to the TEMPUS student mobility scheme for the current academic year. That programme will bring about 600 students from Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia to EC universities.
The United Kingdom has proved to be a particularly attractive destination for TEMPUS students, and we expect approximately 200 to arrive in this country this autumn. We have made a significant contribution to the improvement of Polish agriculture, to help Poland feed itself this winter. Environmental aid has accounted for some 20 per cent. of the overall budget, with further amounts going to small businesses and the improvement of statistics.
Finally, I come to the perspectives for the future. The priority areas for 1991 will remain the same as for the first year of the PHARE programme. We asked the Commission to provide a detailed indicative breakdown by country and sector of the likely expenditure pattern, but that is not yet available. In the meantime, the Commission is making rapid progress on the relationship that we hope will develop between the Community and eastern European countries in the coming years.
Mr. Dalyell: When does the Foreign Office expect the report of the OECD combined with the World bank and the European bank on which some British academics, such as Professor Sir Paul Hare of Heriot-Watt university, are presently working?
Mr. Garel-Jones: I cannot answer that question immediately, but the report will have a significant bearing on the subsequent action taken by the Community and others. I may return to that point when I wind up, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Association agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia which the British Government proposed at the Strasbourg European Council in December 1989 could be in operation as early as 1 January 1992. They are likely to contain provisions for economic assistance, which will need to be closely co-ordinated with the priorities of the PHARE programme.
All the countries that we are discussing this evening have shown moral and on occasions even physical courage in opting for democracy and the market. However, we know—and they know, too—that they will need another kind of courage to meet the challenges of the market place. There will certainly be redundancies, and shortages, too. There will be failures, which will be reflected in a free press.
The Community programmes of which the House is taking note tonight will help to meet those challenges, but the bottom line in the market economy is, and will remain, the individual and collective effort of the people themselves. We have no doubt that the peoples of eastern Europe will show the same courage in rising to those challenges as they have shown in gaining their freedom.
12.15 am
Mr. George Robertson: I go along with much of the Minister's peroration, because we all have expectations of the bravery and initiative already shown by the peoples of eastern and central Europe, which have allowed them to triumph over the corrupt dictatorships that they overwhelmed and will be directed now at the enormous economic problems which confront them.

459
Nevertheless, brave words and rhetoric from the Minister at the Dispatch Box will not open the doors that those peoples need to open now. The debate is the starting point for a much wider one on how the West—the European Community, Britain and other countries—can unite in creating the climate of optimism that will allow eastern and central Europe to overcome the short-term problems that are a consequence of rising oil prices caused by the Gulf crisis and the unique difficulties inherent in moving from command to mixed economies.
The documents before the House concern the technical nature of expanding Community help through various programmes that the Minister outlined, and we endorse the position that the Government and the Community have adopted in that respect. Later, my hon. Friends will, if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, comment on particular aspects of those programmes.
I want to comment generally on the problems facing the countries of eastern and central Europe and to relate them to our own efforts, so that we may view them alongside those being made on a multilateral basis by the Community as a whole.
We wholeheartedly agree with the Government's public statements and actions in the Community, in emphasising that there is no sense in throwing money at the immensely complex problems of economic restructuring. There can certainly be no question of adding to the debt problems of eastern Europe in the way that has happened in Africa and south and central America, which has exacerbated those countries' difficulties. A debt mountain is no way for a country to get out of its problems.
If the assistance that we provide is to be of long-term benefit, it must be targeted on areas in which this country and the Community as a whole are best placed to provide the know-how which is absent from command economies, but vital to the development of mixed and market-based models. That is a feature of the programmes that we are endorsing in this debate, but it is also an important point about the way in which the British Government have approached this problem and this challenge.
The know-how funds that the Government set up were in principle an excellent idea, and I was pleased to serve on the unique—for the British Government—advisory board set up to oversee the funds for eastern Europe. This is an area in which Britain has much to offer the people of central and eastern Europe, and potentially much to gain from the partnership that it represents with them. In spite of 11 years of this Government, this country still has a significant contribution to make in banking, insurance and financial services. In these areas we have an experience and expertise that can be of real value to the emerging market economies of eastern Europe. We also possess expertise in the scientific, agricultural and cultural fields. If these economies are up and running as quickly and as strongly as possible, it is bound to be of real value to Britain and the rest of the European Community that we do what we are doing today.
We also have a special asset which can be to our advantage as well as to that of the central and eastern European countries—the parenthood of the English language. English is clearly the pre-eminent language in the worlds of business and industry, and eastern and central Europeans have not been slow to recognise that. Furthermore, there is a real desire in eastern Europe—more so than has become the case in many other countries—to learn the British rather than the American or any
460
other form of the language. And for once we already have the institutions in place to capitalise on this remarkable pro-British attitude, which is rare enough these days but heart-warmingly strong in countries such as Czechoslovakia. That warmth of feeling towards this country was amply illustrated by the approach to the Prime Minister as she regally wandered through the streets of Prague and Budapest not so long ago, but it has not, I fear, been reciprocated since then by a similar generosity of approach on her part.
I was interested to read in last Sunday's The Independent on Sunday a description of the problems facing those who seek to promote the English language. It pointed out that a certain Czech playwright has made an offer soon to restore the Prague palace, from which the British Council was ejected in 1949, to the British Council. That Czech playwright was, of course, Vaclav Havel, now President of Czechoslovakia but for so long a dissident for whom many hon. Members on both sides of the House campaigned and waged aggressive battles with the ambassador of the then Czechoslovak Peoples Republic. Havel has said that he has a major sentimental attachment to the English language and to the British Council, but as the article perceptively points out,
"Havel's presidential fleet is made up of BMWs. The unquestionable economic power of the region is Germany".
If we have that attachment, that link, that valuable connection, it is a shame that other countries are in there and have made so much progress before us.
The BBC World Service has long been cherished as a precious resource in eastern and central Europe. In the days of totalitarianism, it was a source of reliable information when there were precious few others. Now, it is a central access point to the English language and British culture, which is still in demand there. In the British Council, praised by Vaclav Havel, we have in place the ideal instrument with which to extend the crucial process of promoting the British culture in these vital markets.
In order to continue the excellent work done over many years by the BBC, the British Council and many other British organisations overseas, we must ensure that we make the necessary funds available. The half-hearted efforts of the Government are not good enough, especially when compared with the priority given to this by our partners and competitors. For example, the French have just allocated 200 million French francs—over £20 million—to training people to teach French in eastern Europe. They are setting up imaginative and useful scholarship, broadcasting and exchange schemes across the new Europe.
The French are going to all this effort partly because they know that we have a head start through the English language but also because they know, given the attitude of the present British Government, that it will not take them very long to catch up with us. I plead with the Minister—I am sure that he is sympathetic because he is a long-standing friend of the British Council and of its teaching operations in Spain—to ensure that in central and eastern Europe the money required to carry out our commitments to English language teaching will be guaranteed for the future. That will be the most important leverage that we shall have in those countries.
Mr. Donald Thompson: Bismarck said that the most significant happening of his lifetime was that America turned out to be an English-speaking country.

461
Had it been a German-speaking country, the history of this century might have been very different. I reinforce what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. I know that a lot of what I say about English language teaching and the World Service is not a partisan point of view because it is shared by many hon. Members. The difficulty is that, although the Minister and his Department are sympathetic and know what the advantages are, and what can be done with them, they are being outflanked by the Treasury, where the ears listening are not sympathetic to the pleas of the advantage that can come to Britain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will add his voice to the strong voices saying that this is the time for Britain to take hold of its advantage and to pay out the money so that future generations will reap the benefit of the minimal expenditure involved.
Even in culture, the German equivalent of the British Council, the Goethe Institute, has recently opened new offices in Moscow, Warsaw, Prague, Cracow, Budapest, Bratislava and Sofia. About 10 million people in the region are learning German. I see these figures as rather more than coincidentally linked to the fact that German foreign cultural spending now stands at more than £1 billion. If we compare that and the growth in its cultural expenditure with the United Kingdom commitment, we begin to get a picture of where we are heading.
While the Germans are spending nearly £1 billion on restructuring, the Government, I regret to say, initially offered £50 million of know-how funds for Poland and £25 million for Hungary. Both offers were spread over five years. They also offered an unspecified amount, and it remains unspecified, to the other countries of eastern and central Europe when the offer was extended to them. The fact is that for the financial year to April 1991 there is a strict limit of £15 million on know-how expenditure for all the countries of eastern and central Europe.
I ask hon. Members to contrast that with one other statistic. The Government will be spending this year £20 million on the television advertising of electricity privatisation alone. That has to be contrasted with the total of £15 million that Britain is to spend on know-how for all the countries of eastern and central Europe. All the money for the six months to April 1991 is committed. Demand has increased but no more money is available until April 1991. There is no guarantee that after April 1991 additional money will be forthcoming. I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member who is less than 100 per cent. confident that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will get all the money that it needs during the autumn public spending round. We can only hope beyond hope that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is not tinged with the same generosity in offering money as his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the Secretary of State for Health.
The problem that the know-how funds face is compounded by the fact that while the Government are not very good at planning policy, or at government, they lead the field in disingenuous hype and self-promotion. By hyping the know-how funds, the Government were too successful. I made a speech last month to the Royal Institute of International Affairs in which I made that
462
point. I said that penetration was good, that interest had been aroused, that commitments had been made and the Ministers went to all these countries publicising them. But we shall be judged by what we do, not by what we say. If the plug is pulled now, as appears to be the case, in order to satisfy obsessional Treasury small print, disappointment will turn to anger. Disappointments and delays are lost opportunities for mutual benefit.
To parade brave central and eastern European leaders at the Conservative party conference and across our television screens during party political broadcasts is no substitute for giving them the help and the know-how that their economies need. To take the place of those broadcasts there will be a catalogue of broken promises and unfulfilled expectations.
As a result of my contacts and the work that I do here, I know many of the people in the countries concerned. I have listened to their pleas and to their worries and concerns. I place on record their demoralisation.
Both I and the Minister know precisely what is at stake. This should not be a party political matter. I did not believe that it was when I joined the know-how fund's advisory board. We are talking about a unique opportunity for Britain—either alone or, with more value, through the European Community—to grasp the enormous opportunities offered by the democratisation of central and eastern Europe.
I draw the attention of the House to an article in The European Business Journal written by Mr. Ralph Land, a member of the Government's advisory board on the know-how fund and general manager of Rank Xerox's eastern Europe export operations. In his fine article he said:
"There is some evidence that those companies that have persisted in the East European market have succeeded in developing profitable business and most of them are looking at the future with some degree of encouragement even while the short-term outlook may be less encouraging. What is now happening in East Europe and the USSR is unprecedented. While the outlook is uncertain there must be a real possibility that these changes will provide the West with unprecedented business opportunities in one of the world's last underdeveloped markets."
If we squander the chances when the breaks are available to us, it will not be our doomed Government who suffer but future generations of Britons who deserve far better than that.
12.35 am
Mr. Tim Rathbone: I welcome unequivocally the subject of the debate, which is the proposed regulation that extends the Community's economic aid to all of Germany, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and, with some reservations, Romania, in addition to Poland and Hungary who have received it hitherto. I welcome also the removal of the limit on the level of finance available under the previous regulations. It enables the Community to give humanitarian assistance and much more to the beneficiary countries.
The document cannot be considered in a vacuum. It is linked within the foundation and location of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development with a capital of 10 billion ecu, working alongside the European investment bank. Other financial institutions will continue to play their part.
This is the first opportunity I have had to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his new position. However, I

463
must tell him that we are not doing enough. By "we", I mean not just this country but all the countries of the developed western world. I have mentioned before and should like to reiterate the suggestion of the establishment of an all-embracing Strasbourg plan. Such a plan would add focus and direction to what the European Community can do and would embrace the actions of other institutions and nations. I believe that it is only under such an umbrella and with such identifiable motivation that whatever help is given in whatever form will be planned and carried out to best effect.
That is all the more important because such help will take many forms, including grants, soft loans, interest rate subsidies and preferential access to western markets, mostly free of customs duties and other taxes, as it is for other countries receiving help from the European Community under the Lomé convention. It will take the form of direct investment and know-how funds such as the £15 million contributed by the United Kingdom this year. I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) about the amounts we are providing, but we should not lack pride in what the know-how funds are already achieving.
Such a Strasbourg plan should be designed on the principles which underlie the recommendations we are considering now—encouraging self-help and creating stable conditions in which free institutions can survive. After the exhilaration of liberation in eastern and central Europe, those countries face the challenge of living free. They face it after development at a most extraordinary speed. It has been said that the revolution in Poland, where Solidarity first confronted Communist rule a decade ago, took 10 years. In Hungary, the changes initiated by liberals in the party itself took 10 months. In East Germany, demonstrators were on the streets for 10 weeks before Honecker's bogus state collapsed. Czechoslovakia's hardliners held out for only about 10 days, and in Romania it was virtually all over in the first 10 hours after the crowds booed Ceausescu. However, the bloody counter-revolution lasted longer and things still have not settled down there.
The Strasbourg plan should help those countries to tackle the problems they face. It should be a political effort, couched in economic terms, and a foreign policy initiative, the main objective of which should be to help to create viable and stable national economies in central and eastern Europe. Those economies must be strong enough to resist political or economic subversion, and therefore able to contribute to the harmonious development of economic activities in Europe, to which the European Community is so correctly committed.
To achieve that, like the Marshall plan 40 years ago, the Strasbourg plan must be of massive dimensions. The Marshall plan cost ․12,000 million over four years. That represented 1·2 per cent. of the United States's gross national product in that period. As a guideline, applying the same percentage to the gross domestic product of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries would demand funding of about £400,000 million for the next four years. That is quite a challenge, but it is also an enormous opportunity.
I remind the House of the success of the imaginative levels of funding under the Marshall plan. It increased the national gross domestic product of recipient nations by 15 to 20 per cent., rates of investment by 30 per cent., industrial production by more than 30 per cent. and
464
agricultural production by almost 15 per cent., although I believe that the Strasbourg plan should far exceed that proportion. It increased export trade by 66 per cent.; imports increased by 20 per cent.; and trade between the recipient countries almost doubled.
Those were the successes of the Marshall plan, despite continued exchange controls and continued quantitative national import restrictions. The Strasbourg plan, properly executed, should far exceed those, to the benefit of recipient and donor countries alike. Such a plan should not be measured or judged only by short-term economic results. It should provide a cornerstone for achievement in central and eastern Europe in the next decade, and though designed to address specific and immediate economic problems it should help to lay the foundations for free, peaceful democratic practice in those countries. That is a good wish for them and a self-serving wish for ourselves.
A Strasbourg plan would vividly illustrate our shared western heritage. It would illuminate and motivate, at last, a shared common purpose of spreading freedom and of the use of that freedom to benefit all European peoples. In so doing, it would mark the start of a new epoch in history.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not only carry the support of the House in the recommendations that we are considering but use this moment to start planning such a co-ordinated effort, which could make a difference not only to this decade but to the century ahead.
12.43 am
Mr. Bruce George: We are debating the extent to which we in the west should help to underpin the emerging democracies in eastern and central Europe, enhance their political systems and rebuild and build their economies, which hardly function. Those countries' economies are now seen to have been bereft of any competence or initiative, and we know that their output was low. Now we are reappraising the bogus statistics that were produced and discovering just how economically, morally and politically bankrupt those regimes were. I would class them as a series of gigantic Whips Offices. When the Minister takes a cheap shot at the Opposition, I shall be tempted to reciprocate by saying that, having spent so long in the Whips Office, he ought to know a thing or two about authoritarian structures. Like the Romanians and the eastern Europeans, he has emerged from a nightmare of discipline—in this case into the relative freedom of the Foreign Office.
No one is asking whether we should help central and eastern Europe. We are merely discussing the extent to which we should help them. Despite the rhetoric and euphoria that greeted the collapse of communism—the collapse of the decks of cards in eastern Europe—I wonder whether the collective efforts of multinational organisations, Governments, the private sector and individuals will be sufficient. It is clear that the survival of the new democracies in eastern and central Europe will largely depend on their own endeavours. But that should not provide us with an easy let-out, because both their progress and our interests will be served by a massive collective effort by the public and private sectors and by Governments—not simply through economic assistance, loans and the wiping out of debts but through the provision of political expertise. Matters are fairly easy

465
now: things are going well. But things might suddenly get worse, and if that happens, the support of western countries will be even more important.
Sir Alan Glyn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a unique opportunity in the history of Europe and of the world, and that we should take advantage of what has happened in the countries of eastern Europe, which we have all visited at various times? If we do not take this opportunity now, we shall lose many opportunities in future.
Mr. George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I suppose that it is slowly dawning on people that the success that has been achieved was not inevitable. We realise now that things can go wrong—that they are going wrong in some respects. We must realise that a year from now, or five years from now, the whole thing could turn sour. Suppose that there is a counter-revolution or that the dark forces suppressed by totalitarianism for more than 40 years re-emerge. We in the west will have to assume some of the responsibility for the failure that may result in eastern and central Europe.
One of the pleasurable tasks that I have had to perform in my capacity as chairman of the political committee of the North Atlantic Assembly is to produce for publication a chronology of the events of the past 12 months. The first entry, dated October 1989, describes how thousands of East Germans were allowed to enter West Germany through embassies in Prague and Warsaw. That happened just 12 months ago. It is almost impossible to believe how much has happened in such a short time. I am sure that historians will regard the past 12 months as epoch-making ones. They will regard this year in the same way as they have regarded 1789, 1815, 1848, 1918 and 1945. But all those great years were years in which Europe was transformed by revolution, by a civil war or by a major conflict. In 1989 and 1990, however, there was a virtually bloodless revolution—a series of velvet revolutions—and we must be eternally grateful for that.
Few could have predicted what happened. Certainly those who were least prepared for it were Jaruzelski, Honecker, Jakes, Kadar and Zhivkov. Why did it happen? It happened because the legitimacy of regimes was exposed. Gorbachev had said that no longer would Soviet armed forces be available to sustain the unsustainable. Bereft of legitimacy and of Soviet military support, those regimes have proved completely bankrupt and the democratic forces have emerged.
I had intended to quote Timothy Garton Ash, but was pre-empted by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). Let me now quote from Havel's address to the assembly of the Council of Europe a few months ago:
"Time suddenly accelerated and what otherwise took a year suddenly happened in an hour … the impossible and the dream became reality. The stoker's dream became the daily routine of the Minister of Foreign Affairs."
That is a cause for euphoria, but our euphoria must be translated into something that might be a burden for our constituents and our Government.
The jettisoning of Stalinism was almost simple in comparison with the nation-building that must now take place. The first stage was represented by the events that led up to the revolutions in eastern Europe, the second stage
466
by the revolutions themselves; the third stage was that of transitional government before elections provided legitimacy. It is the present stage that will be the difficult one.
I do not feel that what our Government have done is remotely sufficient. If goods and assistance could be equated with rhetoric, eastern Europe would be as happy as the East Germans will be with the West Germans sustaining them. Our efforts so far would bring about the regeneration of Transylvania, if we were disposed to provide the resources. Much more must be done.
We face a monumental task. Politicians in eastern and central Europe are learning by experience: people who were denied access to the political system are now holding key offices, and must deal with obsolescent industry, limited capital, an unmotivated and, in many instances, unskilled work force, entrenched opposition from forces that have not yet been eliminated politically and peacefully and the lack of any entrepreneurial skill or spirit.
The Minister talks of movement to a market economy. I suspect that the market economy in those countries will be tempered by a significant dose of social market economy. Some may argue that a halfway house is impossible, but this is not a halfway house. I have visited eastern Europe many times, and I know that people there are enthusiastic about their perception of Scandinavia. I suspect that what will eventually emerge could be more accurately described as a social market economy.
We now have support from the EC, and the American seed support, for eastern democracy; there is support from the banks. But we must not look only towards economic assistance and know-how; we must also consider the political framework within which these countries are to emerge. The magnet of the European Community and 1992 was, I believe, one of the significant factors that led to the collapse of communism in eastern Europe: those people could see that, while their societies were disintegrating and old rivalries were beginning to emerge, we in the west were going in the opposite direction. It was the realisation that there was a distance between them, with their COMECON, and us. Someone said to me when I attended a COMECON meeting, "The Phoenicians invented currency 3,000 years ago; we are still operating a system of primitive barter in COMECON." It was the realisation that the gap was widening by the hour that led them to realise that their system had been exhausted.
We must do much more. The know-how fund is wonderful in principle, but it is not sufficiently great in its scope. Although the Minister has excluded Romania for the moment, I wish to advance an argument that may not be especially popular. I was in Romania 10 days after the revolution and I can speak with some knowledge, but not with any certainty. I think that President Iliescu's use of the miners was shameful and wrong and that his country has paid a heavy price for it. The Balkans, however, are not the central or northern tiers of eastern Europe. They are quite different from those areas, and considerable progress has been made so far. The Romanian Government, even though we may not like them, were elected in a relatively free election and have a legitimacy.
Perhaps I am introducing extraneous factors into the argument, but we must remember that it was a Romanian ambassador to the United Nations who chaired the Security Council in August and who was crucial in enabling extremely important resolutions on the Gulf to pass through the council. It was Romania that imposed sanctions, at enormous cost to itself. Romania has offered

467
United States armed forces the opportunity of rest, rehabilitation and recuperation on the Black sea. If the offer is accepted, it will be the first time that NATO forces have been in Warsaw pact territory. For those reasons alone, we should look a little more sympathetically at Romania. We should not use the stick or the promise of a carrot. Unless we are prepared to assist more enthusiastically than the Government have so far, Romania will be almost frozen on the other side of an imaginary divide.
Why should we be so tolerant of Bulgaria? The reigning Government Ministers—again, a freely elected administration—are members of what was the Bulgarian Communist party, which has been reformed and called the Bulgarian Socialist party. If we are tolerant of one set of reformed communists, we should have rather more tolerance of another more reformist and augmented branch of the regime, which is perhaps different in form, in Romania.
These countries are passing through an horrendous period in their history. Will they seek the road of gradualism or that of shock therapy? If they make wrong decisions, much will turn sour. As the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, we have much expertise. We have much to give through the BBC World Service—or the BBC external services, which are not exactly the same as the World Service—and it is vital that we do more than cheer. We must help. We must do infinitely more, and it is only right that we should give more. We must provide trade, access to our markets and know-how. Only then shall we see pluralistic, functioning and prosperous democracies in eastern and central Europe.
12.59 am
Mr. Hugo Summerson: At a ridiculously late hour, once again, we are discussing extremely important matters. Earlier, we spent two and a quarter hours discussing the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill. We spent another two hours or so on the London Underground Bill. I am not saying that they are not important matters, but to discuss matters such as those that are before us at this hour of the night, with the debate restricted to one and a half hours, cannot be right.
The motion mentions the provision of co-ordinated economic aid to Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Poland and Hungary. I am all in favour of that. Also relevant to the motion is the establishment of a European bank for reconstruction and development. It is being established as an international development bank, the broad purpose of which is described as being to foster the transition to open market economies and to promote private enterprise in those east and central European countries which are committed to the principles of democracy. So far, so good.
Eight recipient countries will have access to loans from the hank. Furthermore, as the 27th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation states:
"The Department reports that the Bank will lend on broadly commercial terms."
Again, I am all in favour of that, but as has already been said—by hon. Members of all parties—we must be extremely careful about the possibility of those countries building up huge borrowings. We have been through all this before in the past 20 or so years. The developed countries have lent huge amounts of money to third-world
468
countries, doubtless with the best of intentions—and, as a result, many third-world countries are today struggling under a mountain of debts which they have no possibility of ever paying off. We need to be extremely generous not only in the years but in the decades ahead.
From the enormous pile of papers that I picked up earlier from the Vote Office, I gather that, in the present year, aid to the countries of central and eastern Europe from the European Community totals some 300 million ecu. Incidentally, what a horrible expression "ecu" is—almost as bad as the phrase "European currency units". However, that sum is not very much in terms of the problems of those countries, especially when we consider how much money West Germany is proposing to spend on the GDR. It is not just 300 million ecu this year and possibly a few hundred million more ecu next year—it is talking of so many billions upon billions of deutschmarks that I have lost count of the number of noughts on the end. As has been said, we have a great opportunity here. We must take that opportunity, and we must be generous.
An Adjournment debate is the Commons equivalent of putting out the milk bottles. We are not yet on the Adjournment, and it is now 1·2 am. I bet those bottles were put out hours ago. We need to get our priorities right here—and in our dealings with our friends in central and eastern Europe.
1.2 am
Dr. Kim Howells: The immense changes in central and eastern Europe pose great challenges to the member states of the European Community and to the community as a whole. Great potential markets are beginning to be identified and developed in central and eastern Europe. We are also beginning to understand the monumental scale of the social and environmental rehabilitation that will be necessary to bring the quality of the lives of those living in central and eastern Europe up to the minimum standards existing in most western European countries.
The expanding markets of eastern Europe offer an obvious challenge to our manufacturing and service industries and the potential rewards are not difficult to imagine, but the area that I have termed "social and environmental rehabilitation" also has its potential rewards, and it is on that area and those rewards that I wish to concentrate.
The environment of central and eastern Europe, for example, is as badly polluted as any part of the planet. The West Germans have revealed from their surveys that some 55 per cent. of East German forests are damaged, while more than 40 per cent. of its waste water is untreated. East Germany reported 15,000 uncontrolled toxic waste tips. It imports 700,000 metric tonnes a year of waste from West Germany alone. In central and eastern Europe as a whole it is calculated that 1,200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and almost 23 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide are pumped into the environment each year.
The European Community is at present the main multilateral agency supplying aid for environmental purposes to eastern Europe. Aid for specific environmental purposes has already been given under the EC-administered scheme PHARE—Poland Hungary Aid for Reconstruction of the Economy. It has given £18 million to Hungary and £16 million to Poland. I understand that that will be extended to East Germany, Czechoslovakia,

469
Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Romania, conditional, of course, on those countries carrying out the necessary political reforms which were mentioned by several hon. Members tonight.
Anxiety about the environment in eastern Europe is widening. In particular, the World bank is concerning itself with environmental issues in middle-income as well as developing countries. In May it established an environment fund of US․1 billion to US․1·2 billion for use over the next three years to help to deal with cross-border issues such as deforestation and climate change.
The World bank has relaxed the income restrictions for its soft loans which would have excluded eastern Europe. It is expected to commit US․2·5 billion to Poland over the next three years and a further US․2·5 billion to the rest of eastern Europe. However, with applications from both Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria under consideration, it is likely that commitments to the region over the next three years will be US․2 billion or so higher, at a total of about US․7 billion. Those funds are for general development, rather than environmental improvements only. They are substantial sums of money and represent a serious attempt at tackling the problem. But in terms of the estimated cost of arresting the worst effects of existing pollution. I am afraid that they are extremely modest. For example, West Germany estimates the cost of clean-up in eastern Germany alone at some US․200 billion over 20 years. Poland requires US․25 billion this decade to arrest air, Iand and water pollution.
Poland's need is desperate. Half its lakes are contaminated. Half its forests are damaged from acid rain. Poland has five times the incidence of cancer of the west. It has been reported that water from the Vistula river corrodes heavy machinery. In Krakow one in six babies is born prematurely. In some areas 44 out of every 1,000 babies born die before they reach their first birthday. Poland's factories use three times the energy and produce 10 to 20 times the pollution of western ones. Pollution there is greater by a factor of 10 than in the west.
Those are horrendous statistics but they are not the litany of some distant disaster. Poland is a European neighbour of ours, like Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. We know that when radioactivity was pumped out of the Ukraine from Chernobyl it fell across Europe, recognising no borders or frontiers. The
The appalling problems do not merely represent an enormous challenge to the European Community. They represent a chance for economies such as our own, which is in the middle of great changes, to accept those challenges and use them to promote and develop existing technologies designed to achieve a cleaner, more efficient use of energy. We have expertise in clean-up technologies which we should exploit.
My area of south Wales has had tremendous experience in the engineering and energy industries. I have long cherished the idea of that region becoming the manufacturing centre of new energy industries—the clean technologies. We must use those technologies in eastern and western Europe to substitute for our huge levels of fossil-fuel burning and our dirty production systems.
We must be astute about the way in which we approach the problems in eastern Europe. I do not want to sound unfashionably competitive about this, but I am worried
470
that Germany, France, Sweden and Denmark will steal a march on us in terms of the promotion and development of new technologies. The eastern Europeans will look for such technology and I have already read about the joint proposals between the Poles and the Swedes, and possibly the Soviets, to clean up the Baltic. They share that sea and recognise that they face a common problem.
Europe is a small, shared continent. It takes about two hours to go from Heathrow to Warsaw. It takes me longer than that to drive from Heathrow to my constituency, especially if the wonderful Severn bridge is having one of its off days. We must recognise the inherent constrictions on the continent and our shared future.
We must ensure that we develop and expand new technologies so that we can take them to eastern Europe and that we are part of the technological revolution. That is the only answer to the appalling pollution in eastern Europe.
Reports have already been made on the dreadful state of some nuclear plants in eastern Europe. Teams of German nuclear scientists have gone to East Germany and advised that all its nuclear power stations should be closed down immediately because they are unsafe. That is not a general comment on nuclear energy installations in eastern Europe, but a specific observation made by German scientists. We have a great centre of nuclear excellence at Seilafield and we should vigorously employ that excellence by helping to decommission the dreadful plants in East Germany. That work would be a good earner for Sellafield and could do something to promote the image of the scientists and engineers of the industry who have frequently been under attack. Such work would benefit Europe a great deal.
I know that there are industries trying their hardest to push their products and technologies in eastern Europe. I am not sure that that determination is shared by the Government, but perhaps the Minister could enlighten me on that. People in British Gas are doing excellent work in East Germany by helping to improve the transportation systems of natural gas. By entering into such partnerships, British Gas and other industries will ensure their futures in an important market.
I know some of the details of the excellent know-how programme, but I am rather disturbed, having added it up in a naive way I am sure, at the cost of some schemes. I have calculated that the British Government are intending to spend, or have spent, £475,000 on training and retraining eastern European journalists, and have spent £30,000 on schemes for improving the environment in eastern Europe. I can understand their anxiety not to produce large numbers of Brian Redheads in eastern Europe, but I do not understand the logic that informs such decision making. Why is there such a discrepancy? I should be glad if the Minister would enlighten me about that because it seems an extraordinary decision.
I hope that this momentous phase in European history will not be subject to the mistakes that we have made with other under-developed areas of the world, and that we will not simply treat eastern and central Europe to the sorts of unfulfilled promises that we have given so often in the past to the under-developed nations of the third world. I hope that we will realise that we have a shared destiny with Europe, whether eastern, central or western Europe. and that we will put our money, efforts and know-how where our promises have so often been in the past.
1.16 am
Mr. Roger Knapman: I shall be brief and I hope that treason is forgivable at this time of the night. I am sorry to cast a little doubt over the great visions and grand designs that have been expressed so far, particularly about saving eastern Europe, which seems to be what most people hope.
We have bilateral aid measures, largely through the know-how fund, and multilateral aid measures, largely through help to Poland and Hungary, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I was taken by a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development as recently as 26 June, when she set out how aid programmes should be judged. She said:
"we know that one cannot solve the highly complex problems of development by throwing money at them. Aid quality and effectiveness are equally vital … Unless we ensure that our aid is used effectively, we are wasting precious resources for the developing countries and squandering British taxpayers' money in the process. Such action is neither sensible nor defensible. That is why we concentrate on using our aid where it is most needed and why we have rigorous systems in place to ensure project effectiveness and value for money."—[Official Report, 26 June 1990; Vol. 175, c. 253.]
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State would readily agree with that.
With those thoughts in mind, how can we measure which is more effective—bilateral or multilateral aid? I also wonder whether multilateral aid will be in any way subject to parliamentary control. I have considerable doubts about that since earlier today we had an hour and a quarter to discuss procedures for considering European Community legislation and voted that any proposal which required adoption by unanimity abstention should be treated as agreement. I do not remember my hon. Friend the Minister of State, when he was in the Whips Office, suggesting that that would be acceptable. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development also spoke of rigorous systems to ensure project effectiveness and value for money. How do we know that that will be achieved with multilateral aid? Which is most likely to benefit United Kingdom trade—bilateral aid or multilateral aid?
Aid for trade is a good principle—£1 of aid can easily lead to £2, £3 or £5 of trade. With what I understand to be a £630 million investment in the bank, how much trade could have been generated under bilateral aid measures? Well-directed bilateral aid, particularly by liaising with the British Consultants Bureau, can be of direct benefit to British industry and therefore of direct benefit to our balance of payments.
That is to be compared with what has happened so far in East Germany. The Germans are not only our partners—they are also our business competitors—but so far the West Germans have taken over East Germany's airline, banks and insurance industry. The rest is just so much dross. I do not think that any British companies had the opportunity to invest in East Germany in any meaningful way. There should be some lessons there for us in dealing with other eastern European countries. If subsidiarity means anything, we should put greater stress on bilateral aid measures.
1.20 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has been in the Chamber for as long as I have, so I shall confine myself to four questions.
First, what assessment has the Foreign Office made of the situation in the middle east and escalating oil prices which may be responsible for no less than the collapse of economic reform as we understand it in areas such as Bulgaria, and perhaps Poland and other parts of eastern Europe? In particular, what is the outcome of the discussions between Mr. Delors, Mr. Sitaryan and separately with Mr. Andriessen on that subject? There must be some Foreign Office assessment.
Secondly, may I have a long written answer to points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), encapsulated in the fact that apparently one mark spent in eastern Europe is worth six spent in western Europe on anti-pollution measures?
In terms of this debate my third question is not a theoretical one. Given that funds are limited, what is the Foreign Office's thinking on the relative priorities of aid to eastern Europe and aid to Brazil, Zaire and other rain forest countries? A great deal has been said by me and by others in the House about the need to help those countries with rain forests so as to make it possible for them not to destroy their rain forests to the detriment of the global climate, the world in general and the planet itself. There may have to be choices and I would be interested to know the Foreign Office's relative priorities.
I have given the Minister a little notice of my fourth question which comes from discussion with my friend Paul Hare, professor of business studies at Heriot-Watt university, who is on one of the working parties, and with others. What are we doing to provide for eastern Europe what any well-run western firm would simply take for granted in the way of accounting expertise? I applaud the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is on the know-how fund's advisory board and I know that he knows a lot about it, but there is a problem about providing for aspects such as accounting which we take for granted.
My final point is to repeat the question about non-transferable roubles that I put to the Minister during his opening speech.
1.23 am
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: It is extremely good of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to split the last five minutes of the debate with me. It is almost impossible to make a 120-second speech, so I shall not attempt to describe my fascinating experiences in Roman:ia in the past few days, regretful though that is, and just concentrate on one small point, which is to do with the scrutiny of the documents.
I warmly welcome the motion. It is rare for us to have such a united and harmonious debate on European directives at this late hour. But I want to make a critical and perhaps irritating point, but nevertheless an important one in view of the fact that we are changing our scrutiny arrangements.
The basic document that we are discussing tonight is EC document 7720. That publication is true to the Brussel's tradition of supplying the national Parliaments with the least possible information. The Foreign Office's

473
three-page explanatory memorandum is as thin as dishwater too, and I want to impress on my hon. Friend the Minister that we shall expect a much higher standard in future.
If one wants answers to questions that any sensible person may have about Community aid to eastern Europe—such as the size of the budget, how it is being allocated, which countries are receiving which sums of money, which development projects are to be financed by ECA, and what proportion is being devoted to humanitarian assistance and what form it takes—they cannot be found in the document. That is a regrettable error, but typical of the attitude shown by both the Commission and, sadly, sometimes by our Government towards scrutiny.
In the two minutes available to me, it has not been possible to make a sensible speech, but the documents are seriously defective, and I add that complaint in the hope that it will be remedied.
1.25 am
Mr. Garel-Jones: I thank the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and all the other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate for the generally constructive tone of their remarks. The hon. Member for Hamilton could not resist taking a few swipes at the Government, and I do not chide him for that. I will respond with some of my own, but I hope without spoiling the amicable nature of the debate overall. If I am unable to cover all the points made in the short time available to me, I will of course write to the hon. Members concerned.
The hon. Member for Hamilton said that brave words from a Minister are not enough, which I accept, and that we must create a culture of optimism. I wish that he had spoken instead of a culture of enterprise, because that is what we are trying to achieve. I agree that we cannot approach the problems of eastern Europe by simply throwing money at it. though I noticed that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) seemed shocked that a member of her party's Front Bench appeared to be coming round to the view that we have expressed in the House for a long time.
Mr. Robertson: The John Smith school.
Mr. Garel-Jones: Indeed.
The hon. Member for Hamilton made specific mention of the British Council, and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members agree that it has a specific role to play not only in teaching the English language in the countries of eastern Europe but as the organisation that we will frequently use in implementing know-how fund projects. The council has been given an extra £2·25 million for the year 1990–91 to cover its additional activities in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
The hon. Member for Hamilton referred also—although perhaps not strictly in order, in relation to the document being debated—to the United Kingdom's bilateral aid in what I thought were unnecessarily disparaging terms. The United Kingdom was the first country to initiate a know-how fund, and it is now worth in excess of £75 million to Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. We expect to make disbursements by the end of the 1991 financial year of £17·4 million. In addition, we have pledged £15 million for an agricultural project in
474
Poland, made a grant of ․100 million, or £61·7 million, to the Polish stabilisation fund, and given £900,000 in humanitarian aid to Romania. As part of the Paris Club rescheduling agreement for 1990, the United Kingdom rescheduled £550 million of official Polish debt.
Obviously we all want to do more, but the Government deserved a slightly better response from the hon. Member for Hamilton than they received.
The know-how fund has been a huge success. There is great demand for it and the money has, I admit, been spent rather more quickly than we had expected this year; but I assure the House that future activities will be generously funded and in relation to demand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) told us—we would all agree with him—that an enormous political effort now needs to be made to create viable and sustainable economies, and he referred to the Marshall plan. I cannot entirely agree with his linking of the Marshall and the Strasbourg plans, but I share his view of the enormity of the task that faces us.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) referred to the European communist regimes as gigantic whips offices. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have some experience in these matters. Indeed, this is one of the few areas in which I would claim to have more experience than the hon. Gentleman, who we know to have been, in difficult times, a staunch supporter of NATO and to have held a whole range of other positions that were not always easy to adhere to in the Opposition.
The former employment that I held—one should refrain from referring to it overtly on the Floor of the House—is indeed a kind of Securitate, but I assure the hon. Member for Walsall, South that it is a democratic version of the Securitate. As I no longer belong to it, perhaps I can take this opportunity of paying tribute on behalf of both sides of the House to the people who work in that underground world and who provide a service and a continuity for the House which should be placed on record.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South told the House that he was euphoric about the events in eastern Europe. But his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is less euphoric about them. The hon. Gentleman also said that he would like a social market economy to emerge. That is not a phrase from which Conservative Members would dissent. It was given wide currency by Lord Joseph. We have always accepted that the market economy and Conservatism are also about living in a community and accepting the duties and responsibilities that that entails.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) mentioned the EBRD. He is right that we should not build up huge debts for the countries in the east. I remind him that the main purpose of the EBRD is to promote the private sector, to make investments in that sector and to help to build it up.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) made a thoughtful speech about the environment in eastern Europe. He painted an horrendous picture of what he called "these terrible statistics". That was the moment when the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East chose to leave the Chamber. No doubt he found it difficult to bear the gruesome picture of a command economy in failure. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that I referred to him in my opening remarks, when I said that last Friday he had praised the full employment policies of the

475
former German Democratic Republic. I was only surprised that he had not risen to praise its law and order policies, too——
Mr. Harry Barnes: What was said in that debate has no connection with the points about pollution, and was in no way a defence of the bureaucratic and organisational abuses in eastern Europe. But there is a balance to be struck in all debates, and that is what I was trying to do last Friday.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7720/90, relating to the extension of the provisions of Council regulation No. 3906/89 to Czechoslovakia, GDR, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Romania; and supports the Government's view that the provision of co-ordinated economic aid to those countries by the European Community will promote economic and political reform in those countries and foster a closer relationship with the Community.

British Hostages (Kuwait)
1.34 am
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
Ms. Diane Abbott: This Adjournment debate is about the British hostages still held by Iraq. I stress that, because after the Foreign Secretary's statement today and the successful completion of the mission undertaken by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) there is a feeling that the hostage issue is over, but it is not. Tonight, 40 families have been reunited with elderly and sick relatives who were held hostage. Hundreds more, however, watched the television pictures of that reunion with happiness but also with profound sadness because they are still waiting for their relatives. I address the House on behalf of those families, and particularly the Ross family in Stoke Newington, my constituents, who were on the unfortunate British Airways flight BA 149. Alastair Ross has now been held hostage for three months.
I want to draw attention to the hostages on flight BA 149 because it cannot be said of them, as it has been said of other hostages, fairly or unfairly, that they went out to the middle east to earn big money and knew the risk that they ran. The people on that flight were in transit and unwittingly found themselves in a war zone. The horror that followed was entirely unlooked for.
In the emergency debate on the Gulf crisis. the Foreign Secretary said:
"The House represents those people and their families. In the debate it was striking that not one hon. Member argued that because of the plight, anxiety, unhappiness and suffering of the hostages and their families we should weaken or temper this country's resistance to aggression. That is a striking and welcome fact, and I believe that they accept that. It is a hard thing to say, but a necessary thing to say."—[Official Report, 7 September 1990; Vol. 177, c. 895–6.]
Let us reflect on what the Foreign Secretary meant by that. I believe that he meant that hostages are expendable, and the fear that that is what Her Majesty's Government believe led me to seek this debate.
This morning, I woke up to hear on the radio the Under-Secretary of State saying in an embarrassed way that he was not embarrassed to welcome the hostages home. Those of us who followed the coverage that the mission undertaken by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup had in the Tory press and noted the sneering way in which it referred to him wonder whether in some quarters of his party a humanitarian mission aimed at saving lives earns less glory than war-mongering and military adventures.
The people on flight 149 were entirely unwittingly caught up in a war zone. I shall speak of the experiences of the Ross family and the hundreds of other people on that plane on that terrible night. They left London on 1 August on their way to Madras, touched down on 2 August at Kuwait airport just to refuel and found themselves in the middle of a war zone. The Ross family then had to spend 12 days as part of a human shield at a military installation. For four of those days, Alastair, Maggie and two small children, with many others, were under military guard in a building with no natural light. Imagine the horror of not just adults but tiny children under armed guard in those conditions.

477
On 2 September, Maggie Ross and her two children were able to fly to London, but she left her husband behind. The fact is that 146 hostages from flight BA 149 have been left behind. They are held not in luxury hotels but at military installations.
The Foreign Secretary, speaking today about the hostages, said this:
"We should not forget that the plight.….of our hostages has been caused by Saddam Hussein who is playing cat and mouse with them, and the British Government and this Parliament would not wish to be blackmailed."
That is stern and resolute stuff, but both I and the families of the hostages would say that the British Government cannot be allowed to evade their responsibilities in that way.
Many of the hostages' families, including my constituent Maggie Ross, believe that the Government could do more. They want the Government to press again for consular access. My information is that consular access was last made available on 16 August. If the Minister has more up-to-date information, I shall be glad to have it. They want the Government to continue to press for Red Cross and Red Crescent access. I am aware that the Iraqis have turned down that request, but the hostages' families want the Government to continue to press for that access.
As for the vexed question of mail, Maggie Ross has received a number of letters from her husband which are very precious to her. She has replied, but apparently no mail is going in. The Foreign Office says that the hold-up is in Amman, Jordan. However, I have information that mail sent many weeks before did not leave England until 26 September. There is a great deal of unhappiness among the hostages' families about what has happened to the mail and about what is preventing it from going in when mail is coming out.
Finally—I am loth to criticise civil servants because I was one myself—many questions have been asked about the attitude of the Foreign Office. The majority of officials and very many individuals have done a wonderful job, but there have been too many reports—during conversations that I have had, both with hostages families and with people who work for British Airways, and in newspaper articles—about wrong and late information and about the occasional and unfortunate offhand attitude. There have been too many reports from too many sources about that. The Minister had to reply to those criticisms in a letter to The Independent a few days ago. They cannot be dismissed.
Still on the subject of Government Departments, what are we to make of the intelligence services on which we spend so much money and regarding which we have recently passed so much legislation to protect? They could not even predict the invasion.
In the special debate in September, speaking about the hostages, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government's undertaking was
"that we shall not forget them or in any way relax our efforts to get them out safe and sound."—[Official Report, 7 September 1990; Vol. 177, c. 896.]
The hostages' families feel forgotten. They believe that getting the hostages out safe and sound is the Government's last priority.
There is no doubt that the annexation of Kuwait was wrong, that Saddam Hussein is one of the most cruel and brutal dictators among many world-wide and that there is a lot at stake in the Gulf. However, some of us believe that
478
the saving of human life and the avoidance of bloodshed come before many if not all the other things at stake in the Gulf. I believe that the saving of human life comes before the interests of American oil companies, above the provision of cheap oil in perpetuity for the United States, above military adventurism and above loss of face for the British Government and the American military. I also believe—as do many people, both in this country but above all in the middle east—that a peaceful settlement is still possible.
I am aware that negotiation and diplomacy do not go hand in hand with the resolute approach, but I have listened to the debate in the House and followed the issue in the newspapers, and the Government's attitude and that of most hon. Members seems to be that the plight of the hostages is all very well but that we cannot allow a handful of people to stand in the way of military action which is in our best interests. I would argue that, on the contrary, far from the hostages standing in the way of a military adventure that is in our best interests, their plight should focus attention on that action which is in everyone's interests—a peaceful, negotiated settlement.
I was driven to seek this Adjournment debate by the obvious misery and concern of my constituents, but this debate, short though it is, is not about one family, about the families of all the hostages from British Airways flight 149 or even about all the other hostages; it is about peace and a stable long-term settlement for the middle east. I ask the Minister to move away from the attitude which has caused so much concern to the hostages' families and which seems to suggest that some sort of military adventure is inevitable. I hope that he will answer some of the detailed questions that I have asked so as to reassure the hostages' families, some of whom are in the Gallery, that the Government are continuing to keep up the pressure for them and have their interests at heart, and that the prospects for a peaceful negotiated settlement are not being ignored or marginalised.
1.45 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I should like to thank the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) for giving the House the opportunity to debate a subject of great concern. She has spoken of the distress caused to her constituents by the enforced separation from members of their families trapped in Kuwait and Iraq. I knew about the case of Mr. Alastair Ross from the questions that she tabled and from other contacts and I have familiarised myself with his situation.
The hon. Lady said at the beginning of her remarks that she sensed from the Foreign Secretary's comments this afternoon that there was a feeling that the hostage issue was over. I refute that completely. We take this matter immensely seriously. Almost every hon. Member will have heard at first hand of the emotional and practical problems being experienced by families in the United Kingdom as a result of Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow foreign men to return to their homes. We are in constant touch with the Gulf Support Group, a voluntary organisation founded by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward). That group is doing a magnificent job in comforting and counselling families.

479
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have visited the organisation and I plan to visit it very soon.
The hon. Lady made some criticisms of officials in the Foreign Office. I hope that she is in touch with the Gulf Support Group because the Foreign Office is closely in touch with it. If she asked the support group to make a judgment on its relationship with officials in the Foreign Office, she would find that their comments were not unfavourable.
Last weekend—on 20 October—a senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office official attended a meeting organised by the Gulf Support Group. It was a valuable opportunity for contact with the 150 or so relatives who were present. They expressed their deep concern and frustration, as has been described by the hon. Lady, at the plight of loved ones stuck in Iraq and Kuwait. The Government have the greatest sympathy for all those involved in this desperately difficult situation. At that meeting suggestions were also made—some of which the hon. Lady incorporated in her remarks—of ways in which we might help to improve matters. I am glad to be able to make a few announcements to the House now.
On mail, we are setting up a Post Office box arrangement in London to speed up deliveries of mail to those stuck in Iraq. I hope to be able to give further details in the next day or two.
Following an approach to British Telecom, the cost of telephone calls to Iraq is being reduced by half. That will enable families to make better contact with their relatives.
The BBC World Service Gulflink programme, which was introduced at the request of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and is a great support to people stranded in Iraq and Kuwait, is being extended, at our instigation, from 15 to 30 minutes on Saturdays and Sundays with effect from next Saturday, 27 October. Now, there will be a half-hour programme every day. That programme—I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree—is making an invaluable contribution to the morale of those in Iraq and Kuwait.
As members of the Gulf Support Group know, comfort parcels are being prepared by the embassy in Baghdad, with assistance from the British community and Foreign and Commonwealth Office finance, for those held at strategic installations in Iraq. They include things such as chocolates, beer, cigarettes, books, toiletries and vitamins. We are working on other matters that were raised at last Saturday's meeting.
The hon. Lady described me as answering a question this morning in an embarrassed fashion. I most certainly was not embarrassed. I was present at Gatwick to welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the 40 people whose return he had secured. It was a very moving occasion. Earlier in the summer, I had been to Gatwick to meet some of the wives and children who returned. It was obviously a tremendous relief to the individuals concerned and their families back home.
The return of those people and of more than 900 women and children whose evacuations we arranged earlier is simply not enough; it is only a beginning. About 1,400 British nationals are still trapped in the area. In Kuwait, there are about 600 people, at least 520 of whom are at liberty, but mostly they are in hiding. Some 80 people are known to be detained at sites chosen by the Iraqis. In Iraq, there are some 800 people, about 480 of
480
whom are at liberty but unable to leave, and 306 are detained by the Iraqis at strategic sites. There is no official information on those detained at strategic sites, whom Saddam Hussein is using as a human shield, and our embassy has no access to them. The Iraqis move them from site to site, probably in a deliberate attempt to add to the uncertainty. Nevertheless, we have managed to locate some of them.
The Iraqi authorities' refusal to allow foreign men to leave the country—and, even worse, to hold them against their will at strategic sites, denying them consular access—is a flagrant and inhumane breach of international law. It constitutes an act of international terrorism on an unprecedented scale, and I have no doubt that it is designed with the purpose of intimidating and disorienting communities in the west.
On the diplomatic and political front, we have been immensely active in many areas since the earliest days of the crisis. The United Kingdom was instrumental in drafting many of the Security Council resolutions, which unequivocally condemned Iraq's holding of hostages. We are in touch, of course, with other Governments whose nationals are stuck in Iraq and Kuwait. We have made, and will continue to make at every opportunity, the most vigorous possible representations on behalf of those held to the Iraqi authorities in Baghdad and to the Iraqi ambassador in London.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister said that the Government are in touch with other Governments. What advice has he had from the Government of France?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of a statement made by the French Government, in response to an indication from the Iraqi Government that their nationals are to be released, that they are not in a position to negotiate on the release of their nationals. That is the French position, which has been publicly stated.
I am aware that some of those who are most directly involved in this tragedy would like the Government to send an emissary to negotiate with Saddam Hussein for the release of those whom he is holding. There is no possible basis for negotiation, and I have stated the French position. Anything less than complete withdrawal from Kuwait would leave Iraq with a reward for its invasion and for the taking of hostages. That would be in clear contravention of unanimously endorsed United Nations Security Council resolutions.
Nevertheless, we shall do everything in our power to bring about the early and safe release of those who are trapped in Iraq and Kuwait. We shall not rest until that is achieved. I have seen allegations—born no doubt of frustrations with which I deeply sympathise—that the Government are doing nothing. That is most certainly not the case.
Meanwhile, we continue to do everything we can to support those who are trapped and their families. In London we have established at the Foreign Office a centre to provide information and advice to relatives. Its staff continually update lists of the whereabouts of those held. Representatives of the Department of Social Security help to ensure that families quickly get the benefits to which they are entitled. I have already described to the hon. Lady and the House the new measures that we are taking.
In Kuwait, our ambassador and his staff organised the evacuation of several hundred British subjects to Baghdad.

481
He and his consul—the only two remaining staff—are managing to keep in touch with most members of the British community, both directly and through the wardens system. I am sure that the House and the hon. Lady will join me in congratulating Mr. Michael Weston and Mr. Larry Banks, and in expressing the warmest appreciation and support for the magnificent efforts that both they and the wardens are making to keep those links going.
Ms. Abbott: I join the Minister in congratulating the staff overseas. Earlier, he said that it was most unfair to say that the Government were not prepared to do anything. But he also said the Government were not prepared to negotiate. The fact that they are not prepared to negotiate means, in effect, that they are not prepared to do anything practical to get these people out.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is simply not true to say that we are not prepared to do anything practical. There is an unprecedented barrage of international pressure on Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait and to release all those who are being kept in that country against their will, and I have already explained the French position to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). All western countries are in agreement about that.
Ms. Abbott: The Minister refers to the French position. What about the Saudi position? From reports of what Saudi officials are saying, it seems to some of us that they can see a midway point—an arrangement whereby Saddam Hussein would be allowed to exit but to hold on to his access to the sea. At Question Time on Tuesday, that notion was squashed by the Prime Minister. There seems to be a negotiating position, but the Government do not want to address it.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Saudi position is not clarified by the statement made two days ago, which was further corrected subsequently, and it does not, therefore, lead to any development on which I can comment.
I want to pay tribute to Mr. Harold Walker, our ambassador in Baghdad, and to his staff. The embassy continues to operate, but with difficulty. Staff are not permitted to travel outside Baghdad. They overcame Iraqi opposition to visit British detainees in the Mansour Melia hotel and are in contact with the rest of the British community in Baghdad. They are providing financial support to Britons who need it. With the involvement of the British community in Baghdad, they are, as I said earlier, organising comfort parcels for detainees.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington for giving the House the opportunity to debate this subject. We have had a useful exchange of views. The welfare of those detained in Iraq and Kuwait is at the forefront of our minds. I hope that my remarks will have shown that we are not merely deeply concerned and sympathetic but that we are doing everything that we possibly can to secure their release, and to provide support for their families in this country.
1.59 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am not at all happy with the Minister's answer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) said, it is all very well to take the Government's
482
view, but some of us—it is a minority, as I said to the Foreign Secretary at Question Time—think that there must come a time when we have to start talking, because there is no alternative to talking.
The position is not quite as simple as the Government make out. There is a history to it. At this point I must be personal: my father was one of the aides to Sir Percy Cox, the man who set up Kuwait, and he worked for Sir William Willcocks. He gave me Philip Graves's life of Sir Percy, from which it is clear that Kuwait was part of the Ottoman empire. That does not justify the actions of Saddam Hussein; I am merely saying that it is a grey area.
At the Labour party conference, there was a reception for the Labour Friends of Israel, at which Moshe Shahal—himself one of the 120,000 Iraqi Jews—said that, when he was being brought up in the building in Baghdad that is now the French embassy, he learned that all his contemporaries thought that Kuwait was part of Iraq. It is all not so simple as is being suggested.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, I am deeply concerned about the hostages. I do not think that it can be said that policy takes over everything. What is the alternative to not using the diplomacy of talking? It is war, frankly. The prospect is appalling: every oilfield from Basra north to Kirkuc would be involved.
I am also concerned about the British forces. I am one of the few remaining Desert Rats in the House, having served in the Scots Greys, now the Scots Dragoon Guards. I was tank crew, and I feel for those people: I know their vulnerability. God knows, just putting on those suits in the desert heat msut be bad enough; but, once blood is shed, heaven knows what will happen in Jordan.
It is all very well for the Foreign Secretary to say that he has talked to President Mubarak and I have not. That is true—but what will happen to the Egyptian masses? As a very young Member of Parliament, I was summoned late at night to the house of the late President Nasser, and I shall always remember the force with which he impressed on me the dynamics behind Arab nationalism. If we do not talk, and once any shots are fired, what will happen there? It will explode—and I would not fancy King Husssein's chances much. Indeed, it may be very difficult for the Saudis.
When the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) comes back from Iraq saying that we ought to use diplomatic means, it is clear that he means the diplomatic means of talking. I know that this is an unpopular view, and I do not claim that it is held by more than a minority in the party, but some people—serious people—think that the time has come to begin talking as other countries have talked, even if it means breaking the consensus. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington nodding. The French are taking a very different view, and I bet that French, Italian and German nationals will get out earlier than the British—assuming, that is, that peace is somehow maintained.
A fireman from Bo'ness, in the West Lothian area, is believed to have been taken off the British Airways plane and sent to Basra. Knowing people who are personally involved—as I am sure that the Minister does—brings home the fact that human situations are sometimes as important as wider policy, especially when one doubts whether that wider policy has much chance of long-term success.

483
It is all very well to put pressure on people; but people who are pressurised react as Londoners did in the blitz. What happened in Hamburg in 1943? The fact is that the bombing made people rally behind Hitler, although they were not supporters of the Nazis. It is a human reaction. Once we start thinking that there is any kind of military option, and start threatening people with it, we shall be in considerable difficulty—not least the hostages whom my hon. Friend has represented so ably tonight.
484
We must look again at the matter, in a completely different way. I know that I shall be told by some people, including members of my own party, that I am simply creating difficulties and showing weakness; but those who have had some experience of the Arab world——
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at four minutes past Two o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for increasing the level of electoral registration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to his question on 18 October at column 867.

  Liquid Gold
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate the content and availability of a chemical sold under the title Liquid Gold with a view to its registration as a controlled substance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Liquid Gold is the brand name of a type of chemical product sometimes known as a "popper". The active ingredient of these products is amyl nitrite, one of a group of chemicals known as the alkyl nitrites. The misuse of alkyl nitrites was considered by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in 1987. The council found at that time that, although the substances posed a limited health hazard when misused, they were not dependence-producing and did not give rise to any social problems sufficient to justify their control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We are monitoring the situation closely to see if any change in this policy is necessary.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which five counties have the most special constables proportionate to the population; which five counties have the fewest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Proportionate to the population, the City of London, Devon and Cornwall, Lincolnshire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire police forces have the most special constables; Greater Manchester, Gwent, Merseyside, the Metropolitan police and South Wales have the fewest.

  County Police Forces
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the management and efficiency of county police forces following the Audit Commission report.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Audit Commission is producing a series of reports on police issues. These are being considered as they appear. In the main, the recommendations will be followed up locally by police authorities and 186
  chief constables and in the context of audits carried out by district auditors. They may also be followed up in the course of inspections by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary.

  Deportation
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women are currently held in British prisons awaiting deportation; what is the average time spent in prison; and on what grounds the women are being held.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None. Three women are, however, held solely under Immigration Act powers in the immigration detention accommodation at Harmondsworth awaiting deportation. The length of their detention on 19 October averaged 69 days. They are detained on the ground that they would otherwise fail to maintain contact with the Department.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any new appointment has been made to the Police Complaints Authority.

  Mr. Waddington
  Mr. Gerald C. Warner, who retired from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in October 1990, has accepted my invitation to serve as a member of the Police Complaints Authority. He will take up his post on 14 November 1990. The appointment is being made to fill a vacancy created by the departure of one of the members from the authority whose term of appointment has expired.

WALES

  Valleys Initiative (Roads)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many road schemes identified in the valleys initiative have been put out to tender; and whether he will list the successful applicants;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the number of local jobs created by the road schemes identified in the valleys initiative; and which have been completed and which are under construction.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Of the county road schemes shown in "The Valleys": A Programme for the People" the A4067 Glais-Pontardawe improvement, Neath inner urban bypass, A467 Abertillery Brynmawr improvement and A4119 mid-Rhondda access schemes have been completed; the A473 Talbot Green bypass is under construction. Phase I of the A4060 Pentrebach-Dowlais trunk road scheme has also been completed. Tenders have been invited by the Welsh Office for phase II of the A4060 scheme and West Glamorgan county council has invited tenders for the A4067 Pontardawe-Ynysmeudwy scheme. It is too soon to know who the successful applicants might be. No assessment of jobs created has been undertaken.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received any reports from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on the plans by Rechem International in Gwent to import toxic waste from Italy.
  187
  Mr. Grist
  No. My right hon. Friend receives notification of hazardous waste imports in accordance with the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988.

  Bus Journeys
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what correspondence he has received concerning(a) the journey time and (b) pricing policy for bus journeys between north-west and south Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have received no such correspondence. These are commercial matters for the bus company.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Mortgages
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the number or percentage of mortgages which are adjusted(a) monthly, (b) annually and (c) other categories.

  Mr. Maples
  Only partial information is available. Over 40 per cent. of building society mortgage payments are adjusted annually. No precise information is available on the extent of annual review schemes operated by banks and other mortgage lenders.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish by valuation office and sub-office the comparable figures for objections to domestic rates and to community charge tribunals.

  Mr. Key
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the table figures for objections to domestic rating proposals include those for both domestic and non-domestic properties. No separate figures are available for domestic properties alone.

  Valuation and Community Charge Tribunal Offices

  Community charge appeals to 30 September 1990

  Objections to rating proposals from 1 January 1989 to 31 December 1989

  Avon and Gloucestershire

  94

  4,853

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  166

  6,647

  Berkshire

  43

  1,779

  Birmingham

  4

  5,532

  Buckinghamshire

  6

  1,929

  Cambridgeshire

  27

  1,457

  Cheshire

  107

  3,997

  Cleveland and Durham

  300

  4,187

  Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire

  29

  3,379

  Cumbria

  73

  1,249

  Derbyshire

  57

  1,856

  Devon, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  168

  4,823

  Dorset and Somerset

  153

  2,833

  Essex

  201

  3,956

  Hampshire North and Wiltshire

  62

  2,757

  Hampshire South and Isle of Wight

  71

  2,367

  Hereford and Worcester

  36

  1,956

  Humberside

  677

  3,183

  Kent

  188

  3,715

  Lancashire

  169

  3,966

  Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire

  81

  4,699

  188

  Valuation and Community Charge Tribunal Offices

  Community charge appeals to 30 September 1990

  Objections to rating proposals from I January 1989 to 31 December 1989

  Lincolnshire

  90

  1,257

  Central London

  11

  18,073

  London North East

  54

  6,707

  London North West

  27

  7,453

  London South East

  30

  5,085

  London South West

  64

  5,460

  Manchester North

  102

  5,379

  Manchester South

  18

  7,227

  Merseyside

  133

  5,776

  Norfolk

  81

  1,203

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  248

  8,802

  North Yorkshire

  195

  2,185

  Oxfordshire

  60

  3,971

  South Yorkshire

  57

  4,041

  Staffordshire and Shropshire

  24

  3,971

  Suffolk

  75

  1,498

  Surrey

  48

  3,711

  East Sussex

  56

  3,312

  West Sussex

  21

  2,096

  West Midlands

  26

  5,318

  West Yorkshire

  98

  4,433

  Total

  4,230

  178,078

TRANSPORT

  Port of London Authority
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the future organisation and functioning of the Port of London Authority, listing those activities, responsibilities and properties which will remain its public statutory responsibility and those which he envisages will cease to remain in public ownership.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend has decided to build on the benefits which have already appeared from the abolition of the dock labour scheme by bringing forward legislation as soon as he can to enable the Port of London Authority to sell the docks and commercial undertaking of Tilbury into private ownership. The Port of London Authority would retain its existing conservancy responsibilities. It is too early to be more precise about the eventual division of activities, responsibilities and properties.

  Motorway Driving
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will initiate a campaign of "left is right" in relation to motorway driving, along the lines of the German "right is right" campaign.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department continues to emphasise the importance of keeping to the left except when overtaking and this will be reflected in future motorway and trunk road safety campaigns.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accidents there were, both fatal and non-fatal, in each of the years 1984 to 1989 inclusive; and how many involved drivers aged under 24 years.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department collects only information on accidents involving personal injury.
  189
  A fatal accident is defined as one in which at least one person was fatally injured.

  Accidents and accidents involving drivers aged under 24: 1984–89

  All accidents

  Accidents involving at least one driver or rider aged under 24 years

  Fatal

  Non-fatal

  Total

  Fatal

  Non-fatal

  Total

  1984

  5,138

  248,045

  253,183

  2,094

  100,034

  102,128

  1985

  4,768

  240,877

  245,645

  1,915

  93,929

  95,844

  1986

  4,895

  242,959

  247,854

  1,930

  94,608

  96,538

  1987

  4,694

  234,369

  239,063

  1,816

  89,798

  91,614

  1988

  4,643

  242,351

  246,994

  1,796

  92,572

  94,368

  1989

  4,907

  255,852

  260,759

  1,831

  96,769

  98,600

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether there has been an analysis carried out of the incidents of specific makes of vehicle in road accidents in relation to their general prevalence in the vehicle population as a whole; and if statistics exist for the seriousness of injuries sustained in those specific makes of vehicle.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department of Transport began collecting information about the registration marks of all vehicles involved in injury accidents from 1 January 1989. This will facilitate analyses of the type my hon. Friend seeks. I hope that a report will he published in the form of a statistical bulletin before the end of the year and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  A45-B4029 Junction
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when work will commence on the grade separation at the junction of the A45 and the B4029.

  Mr. Chope
  Provided the scheme continues to show positive economic benefits, we hope to be in a position to publish orders in June 1991.

  M40
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the full length of the M40 will be open to traffic in both directions.

  Mr. Chope
  There is still much to be done to complete the M40, with several major contracts still running. The construction industry, with the encouragement of the Government, has set itself exacting targets for the completion of this vital road and is determined to meet them. The project should, therefore, be completed earlier than expected and fully opened early next year.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what he anticipates will be the reduction of traffic, both north and south bound, on the M1 when the M40 is opened.

  Mr. Chope
  It is currently estimated that there will be a reduction of between 7,500 and 8,500 vehicles per day in each direction on the M1 between London and the M6 junction in the first year after the M40 extension is opened.

  Road Planning
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the 18 schemes in England and Wales, identified by the National Audit Office as having a190
  negative cost-benefit analysis, in its report of 27 October 1988, "Department of Transport, Scottish Development Department and Welsh Office: Road Planning" (a) location and name of each individual project, (b) length of road, (c) date of decision to build and date of completion, (d) capital cost, both estimated and outturn, (e) number of vehicles per day estimated, each way, (f) number of vehicles per day from recent census data and (g) the details of the negative economic appraisal or net present value.

  Mr. Chope
  The schemes concerned in England were as follows:

  A40 Ross-on-Wye Relief Road

  A483/A5 Oswestry Bypass and A5 Improvement (3 Schemes)

  M65 Whitebirk-Hyndburn

  A61 Chesterfield Relief Road North

  A61 Chesterfield Relief Road South

  A6 Chapel-en-le-Firth Bypass

  A 1079 Beverley Bypass

  A63 South Docks Road (Easterly) Hull

  A564 Blythe Bridge—Uttoxeter Bypass

  A56 Accrington Bypass South

  A66 Bowes Bypass

  The detailed information requested will take some time to collect and I will write to the hon. Gentleman in due course. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for roads in Wales.

  Bridges
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requirements must be followed by central or local government before a bridge forming part of(a) a trunk road or (b) a local road may be turned into a toll bridge.

  Mr. Chope
  Authority to toll any part of a public highway must be obtained by Act of Parliament or by grant from the Crown.

  Wheel Clamping
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what persons have authority to clamp vehicles allegedly parked illegally, apart from the police or their express agents.

  Mr. Chope
  There are no express powers that enable vehicles to be immobilised by wheelclamps other than those contained in sections 104 and 105 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, which refers to highways and other roads to which the public has access. In such cases, only the police have power to use clamps or authorise other persons to do so. The position on private land, including car parks, is not expressly provided for at law. Only the courts are in a position to interpret the law and thereby judge the legality of clamping vehicles on private land.

  Mobile Canteens
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress his Department has made towards regulating mobile canteen trading in trunk road lay bys under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

  Mr. Chope
  Paragraph 2 of schedule 4 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 enables district councils to regulate street trading. That schedule confers no powers on the Secretary of State. The application and operation of the schedule in any district is a matter for the relevant district council.

  Continental Rail Travel
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to receive British Rail's proposals to acquire the trains needed for through passenger services from the north to the Continent; and whether he still expects these trains to be available in time for the services to start from the opening of the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am now considering BR's proposals for trains to operate daytime services to the continent from north of London. There are discussions in progress between BR and its suppliers on the detailed technical specifications, the price and the timetable for deliveries. I still await BR's proposals for night services, which it is discussing with its continental partners.

  Spanish Lorry Drivers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the blockade by Spanish lorry drivers at the frontier with France; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: We received representations from the trade associations and from individual hauliers.

  The strike by Spanish road hauliers who were protesting about Government-controlled haulage rates, fuel prices and working conditions ended on the evening of 19 October.

  The French-Spanish border is now open and lorries are crossing in both directions.

HEALTH

  Electric Hand Dryers
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking in conjunction with the chief medical officer of health to ascertain the extent of any health dangers associated with the use of warm air electric hand dryers in public conveniences.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department of Health has supported research at Papworth hospital into airborne bacteria from hand drying with hot air electric hand dryers compared with paper towels. The results showed that hot air hand dryers produced no more aerosol and sometimes significantly fewer aerosolised bacteria than paper hand towels. These results have been confirmed by studies in Singapore.

  Video Screens
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been undertaken into the debilitating effect of video screens on eyesight; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am advised that home television sets, larger commercial sets, amusement arcade game machines and visual display units are not known to have any debilitating effect on eyesight, although their prolonged use may draw attention to a pre-existing refractory problem. There are no known hazards from radiation from these screens in normal use.
  192
  Research into possible health effects from VDU use at work is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  National Health Service Trusts, Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many expressions of support he has received for the opt-out proposals of St. James and the Leeds general infirmary in Leeds; and from whom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Neither St. James hospital nor Leeds general infirmary has put forward proposals to opt out of the National Health Service. However, both have applied to become National Health Service trusts and we have received a number of letters from members of the public supporting their applications. These comments have been passed to Yorkshire regional health authority which is responsible for arranging consultation on these applications. At the end of the consultation period, all comments made will be forwarded to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to consider alongside the applications before my right hon. and learned Friend decides whether to establish the units as National Health Service trusts.

  Health Authority Accounts
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report those district health authorities which are audited by private accountancy practices and the name of each audit practice concerned.

  Mr. Dorrell
  From 1 October 1990, responsibility for the external audit of health authorities moved from the Department of Health to the Audit Commission. The commission has appointed auditors for each authority, who may be their own staff or private firms, and will be happy to supply details if required.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will outline the timetable to be used for units in the second wave of national health service trust applications, giving the date by which(a) units should apply and (b) decisions on suitability will be made at regional level; and if he will outline the consultation procedure which will be used by regions for second wave applicants.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A unit can apply at any time to be an NHS trust. The NHS management executive has produced an indicative timetable for units wishing to become trusts in April 1992. Under this timetable, units would submit applications in late April 1991. Regions may comment on proposals and on applications, but decisions on suitability are for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Regions will determine the arrangements for consultation on applications subject to the requirements of the NHS and Community Care Act.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Truancy
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the rates of truancy(a) currently, (b) five years ago and (c) 10 years ago.

  Mr. Fallon
  This information is not collected centrally.

  My right hon. Friend is considering what scope there might be for reviewing the collection and presentation of such statistics at local level.

  Telford CTC
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many people applied for the post of head and deputy head of Telford city technology college; and whether he will give details of their present positions and previous career experience.

  Mr. Eggar
  There were 43 applications for the post of head at the Telford city technology college, and a total of 120 for the three posts of deputy head which were advertised. All of the applicants were suitably qualified being at present in posts at least equivalent to head of department. For the position of head, approximately one third of those applying were at present either deputy heads or heads.

  School Closures
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average time taken between the first submission to his Department of an application by a local education authority relating to a school closure or reorganisation and final decision by Ministers, for the latest available period, and for such of the years from and including 1980 for which information is available.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Data are available only for the average time taken between the publication—as opposed to submission to the Department—of statutory proposals under sections 12, 13 and 15 of the Education Act 1980 and a final decision by the Secretary of State in each of the calendar years from 1986 to 1989, as follows:

  Year

  Average time taken (months)

  1986

  7·30

  1987

  7·35

  1988

  7·97

  1989

  6·64

  These figures exclude proposals which fell to be determined by a local education authority.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will update the table relating to school closures in the answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn,Official Report, 12 July, column 314, to give the latest available information in respect of 1990.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The information is in the following updated table:
  194

  Calendar Year

  Number of proposals decided

  Number of places to be taken out of use by proposals in column 2

  Number of proposals in column 2 approved

  Number of surplus places to be taken out of use as a result of approved proposals

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  1983

  366

  104,174

  330

  85,606

  1984

  292

  85,862

  270

  77,590

  1985

  205

  101,097

  185

  88,218

  1986

  172

  81,663

  147

  62,828

  1987

  159

  55,116

  134

  45,326

  1988

  145

  64,256

  116

  27,170

  1989

  140

  59,527

  114

  41,831

  11990

  107

  28,558

  94

  28,043

  1 1 January to 30 September 1990.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what records of the name, address and other details of pupils in receipt of awards made under the assisted places scheme, or their parents, are held by his Department or are otherwise available to it.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Details of individual pupils in receipt of awards under the assisted places scheme are not held by my Department. Such records as there are, including addresses of parents, and so on, are held by the schools which participate in the scheme.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he has taken to ensure that records of personal details of award holders and their parents under the assisted places scheme are used only for the purposes for which the information was originally given.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The participating schools are wholly responsible for the records they keep of individual pupils in receipt of awards under the assisted places scheme.

ENERGY

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the overseas visits made by Ministers in his Department during July, and the nature of any agreements concluded.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I visited France on 16 and 17 July this year. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) visited Bonn on 6 July and attended the informal Energy Council in Rome on 16 July. No agreements were concluded.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Eastern Europe
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the know-how funds for eastern European countries has now been spent or committed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The know-how fund—KHF—for eastern Europe commenced in July 1989. A total of £2·3
  195
  million was spent on the KHF for Poland in 1989–90. In this financial year £15 million will be disbursed. The allocation of resources for next financial year and beyond has not yet been finalised.

  Malaysian Minister for Energy
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs whether representatives of the Overseas Development Administration met the Malaysian Minister for Energy, Mr. Samy Vellu, during his visit to London earlier in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No representatives of the Overseas Development Administration met the Malaysian Minister for Energy during his visit to London earlier this year.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for aid and trade provision funds to support contracts between developing countries and General Electric Company, Plessey, Northern Engineering Industries, BICC and Trafalgar House have been refused since 1979.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Since aid and trade provision funds first became available in 1977, a total of 169 applications have been formally considered from the five companies named. These have led to 133 offers of aid; six applications are still under consideration. Of the 30 remaining cases, our records do not distinguish between those which were refused, and those which fell away for other reasons.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in how many aid and trade provision supported projects since 1979, the minimum test of developmental soundness was not carried out by the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Since 1979 all aid and trade provision supported projects have been assessed to provide a reasonable assurance of the soundness of the investment.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many internal, confidential, Overseas Development Administration evaluations of aid and trade provision projects contain references to excess profit margins, above departmental profit margin guidelines;

  (2) how many published Overseas Development Administration evaluations of aid and trade provision projects contain references to excess profit margins, above departmental profit margin guidelines;

  (3) in how many internal, confidential, Overseas Development Administration evaluations of aid and trade provision projects profit margins are considered;

  (4) in how many published Overseas Development Administration evaluations of aid and trade provision projects profit margins are considered.

  Mrs. Chalker
  For negotiated contracts, value-for-money checks, which are undertaken before the provision of ATP funds is agreed, include consideration of anticipated profit margins. Two of the ATP projects that have been evaluated involved contracts awarded in 1978 and 1982 prior to the introduction of value-for-money checks; the evaluations considered anticipated profit margins in these cases and concluded that these were not excessive.
  196
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many internal, confidential Overseas Development Administration evaluations of aid and trade provision projects include references to corrupt practices;

  (2) how many published Overseas Development Administration evaluations of aid and trade provision projects include references to corrupt practices.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In one evaluation report of an ATP-financed project there is a reference to allegations of undue influence in relation to the arrangements made for the consideration of competing bids by a tender committee. The contract was awarded to the firm making the lowest-priced bid.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will give details of Overseas Development Administration guidelines on profit margins used in evaluating applications for aid and trade provision funding;

  (2) whether applicants for aid and trade provision grants must state the profit margins expected by British contractors when applying for funds;

  (3) whether consideration is given to the level of profit margins when a contract between a British company and a developing country Government is considered for a grant from the aid and trade provision.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There are no general guidelines on profit margins for assessing applications by companies for ATP assistance made available to developing country Governments to help them finance overseas projects. Companies are not required to state their expected profit margin when applying for ATP assistance. In general, value for money in all aid-funded projects is sought by means of competitive tendering for contracts. In the case of a negotiated contract, in the absence of competition, we undertake a detailed value-for-money check of the proposed contract price, including an assessment of the anticipated profit margin.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether allocations of aid and trade provision funds include contributions towards commission payments.

  Mrs. Chalker
  An ATP grant helps finance a proportion of the total contract price for the purpose of providing only the eligible goods and services specified in the contract. Payments are made in accordance with the terms of the ATP aid agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the recipient Government and of the contract.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether consideration is given to the amount of commission payments when a contract between a British company and a developing country is considered for a grant from the aid and trade provision.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In the case of a negotiated contract between a British firm and a developing-country Government, where competitive bidding has not taken place, the detailed value-for-money check scrutinises all components of the contract price, including any agents' fees.
  197
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the allocation of aid and trade provision funds to contracts between British companies and developing countries, consideration is given to contributions made by British companies to British political parties.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No.
  198
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date aid and trade provision funds were offered for the Pergau hydro-electric project in Malaysia; what is the value of the grant offered; what is the value of the total contract; and when the first instalment of aid is likely to be released.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave her on 22 October, at column 25.

  Pergau Hydro-electric Project
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) which companies, other than Balfour Beatty, General Electric Company and Trafalgar House have sought contracts for the Pergau hydro-electric project in Malaysia;

  (2) whether the Government have sought bids from companies other than Balfour Beatty, General Electric Company and Trafalgar House for the Pergau hydroelectric project in Malaysia;

  (3) whether Balfour Beatty, General Electric Company and Trafalgar House tendered for the contract for the Pergau hydro-electric project in Malaysia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The client for the Pergau hydro-electric project is Tengah Nasional Berhad—TNB—the Malaysian power utility; it is for TNB to decide from whom it should invite proposals. It would not therefore be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to provide such information.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Spirits (Australia)
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to persuade the Australian Government to amend their import duty/excise structure so as to put imported and locally produced spirits on an even footing.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Following representations by United Kingdom industry, the Government have, through the European Community, alerted the Australian Government to their concern at certain practices that discriminate against imported spirits, and have sought to secure their elimination. We are addressing this issue in the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations.

  Name of company

  Dale of publication of report

  Firm of accountants

  Gilgate Holdings Ltd. and others

  8 September 1981

  Thornton Baker and Co. (now Grant Thornton)

  Norwest Hoist Ltd.

  23 June 1982

  Price Waterhouse

  Ramor Investments Ltd.

  23 March 1983

  Price Waterhouse

  Milbury plc

  27 October 1988

  Arthur Young (now Ernst and Young)

  Minet Holdings plc and WMD Underwriting Agencies

  29 August 1989

  Arthur Young (now Ernst and Young)

  Alexander Howden Holdings Ltd.

  29 August 1989

  Arthur Young (now Ernst and Young) and Peat Marwick and Mitchell of Bermuda (now Peat Marwick McLintock)

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any accountancy firms criticised by the joint disciplinary scheme act as auditors to public bodies sponsored by his Department.

  Name of company

  Dale of report

  Firm of accountants

  Gilgate Holdings Ltd and others

  22 December 1982

  Thornton Baker (now Grant Thornton)

  Orbit Holdings Ltd

  28 March 1983

  Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co (Peat Marwick Mclintock)

  Ramor Investments Ltd

  27 January 1986

  Price Waterhouse

  Accountancy Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what matters he intends to discuss with the presidents of the accountancy bodies during his next meeting.

  Mr. Redwood
  I expect that, as usual when I meet leading representatives of the accountancy profession, we shall discuss matters of current mutual interest.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the current president of any of the bodies listed in section 389 of the Companies Act 1985 is or has been a partner in a firm criticised by his Department's inspectors.

  Mr. Redwood
  Thornton Baker, now part of Grant Thornton, Chartered Accountants, was criticised in the inspectors' report on Gilgate Holdings Ltd. and others, which was published in 1981. Mr. M. Lickiss FCA, currently president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, and Professor J. Percy CA, currently president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, are partners in Grant Thornton.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will be meeting the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales in the near future.

  Mr. Redwood
  I met him on 8 October and have no plans for a further meeting in the near future.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any accountancy firms criticised by his Department's inspectors act as auditors to public bodies sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  Six reports, issued since June 1979 by inspectors appointed under the Companies Act have contained criticisms of accountants who act as auditors to public bodies sponsored by my Department. They are as follows:

  Mr. Redwood
  Three reports issued since 1980 by the committee of inquiry appointed under the joint disciplinary scheme, have contained criticisms of firms of accountants who act as auditors to public bodies sponsored by my Department. They are as follows:
  201
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he intends to take any criminal or civil action against auditors criticised by the inspectors in the Minet Holdings report.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. A copy of the Minet report has been passed to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will invite the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the accountancy bodies' control of the accountancy press.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans to do so. The hon. Member is of course free to put his concerns on this subject to the Director General of Fair Trading, who will look into any competition issues which arise.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to legislate to ban the call-off stocks accounting method used by companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  It would be helpful if the hon. Member would explain the nature of the problem he has in mind, as "call-off stocks" is an imprecise phrase.

  Audit Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish the recommendations which his Department has made on the review of the Auditing Practices Committee's review of operations.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government attach great importance to the role of the Auditing Practices Committee in setting auditing standards and in developing auditing guidance. 1, therefore, welcome the decision of the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies to review the constitution, procedures and resources of the Auditing Practices Committee and look forward to the outcome.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the law firm criticised in the House of Fraser report acts as an adviser to any audit policy-making organisation.

  Mr. Redwood
  If the hon. Member is referring to the firm of solicitors which acted for the Fayed brothers, I understand that a partner in that firm is a non-voting member of the Auditing Practices Committee.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions he has taken any civil or criminal action against any auditing firm criticised in the Department of Trade and Industry inspectors' reports.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. Copies of critical reports are passed to the auditors' professional body for consideration.

  Inspectors (Business Connections)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will provide a list showing the business connections of inspectors appointed by his Department since 1985.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:
  202
  1985

  J. R. Sendall of the Department of Trade and Industry

  H. B. H. Carlisle QC

  M. G. Lickiss of Grant Thornton, Chartered Accountants

  Bohm, solicitor, of Norton Rose

  A. Ridler of Pannell Kerr Forster, Chartered Accountants

  1986

  Sir Michael Kerry QC

  K. S. Carmichael of Longcrofts, Chartered Accountants

  D. T. Donaldson QC

  I. G. Watt of KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock, Chartered Accountants

  R. G. A. Youard, solicitor, of Slaughter and May

  D. Anton of Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte, Chartered Accountants

  1987

  M. McIver, solicitor, of Bird Semple Fyfe Ireland WS

  D. J. McLeod of Ernst & Young, Chartered Accountants

  H. Brooke QC

  H. G. C. Aldous of Robson Rhodes, Chartered Accountants

  J. F. Eden, solicitor, of Bevan Ashford

  C. H. C. Chudley of Bromhead & Co., Chartered Accountants

  1988

  L. D. Ziman of Nabarro Nathanson, Solicitors

  W. M. Hoffman of Baker Tilly, Chartered Accountants

  D. A. Evans QC

  B. L. Worth of Clark Whitehill, Chartered Accountants Miss M. H. Arden QC

  G. N. Lane of Chantrey Vallacott, Chartered Accountants

  G. W. Staple of Clifford Chance, Solicitors

  T. G. J. Tress of Hays Allen, Chartered Accountants P. L. Heslop QC

  R. P. G. Lewis of Kidsons Impey, Chartered Accountants

  M. Crystal QC

  D. L. Spence of Grant Thornton, Chartered Accountants

  1989

  E. J. Lawson QC

  D. Anton of Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte, Chartered Accountants

  D. A. Evans QC

  B. L. Worth of Clark Whitehill, Chartered Accountants Miss H. Heilbron QC

  M. D. Boohan of Grant Thornton, Chartered Accountants

  G. S. Moss QC

  J. R. Venning of Robson Rhodes, Chartered Accountants

  R. M. Owen QC

  P. D. Powell of Moore Stephens, Chartered Accountants

  1990

  C. J. Brougham QC

  R. T. Turner of Neville Russell, Chartered Accountants

  E. W. Hamilton QC

  J. A. Scott of BDO Binder Hamlyn, Chartered Accountants

  C. P. F. Rimer QC

  J. White of KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock, Chartered Accountants

  Company Legislation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to introduce legislation to require companies to show market value of their stocks.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. There is already a similar legislative requirement. Paragraph 27 of schedule 4 to the Companies Act 1985 requires companies to disclose in their annual accounts the amount of any material difference between the amount at which stock is stated in the balance sheet and its replacement cost, or its most recent actual purchase price if more appropriate.

  Vietnam
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the rules regarding trade with Vietnam were last reviewed by the Co-ordinating Committee on Multilateral Exports; and when they will next be reviewed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Vietnam is one of the proscribed destinations listed in schedule 2 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989, as amended. Equipment and technology, the export of which is controlled to the proscribed destinations, is subject to a regular rolling review undertaken with our COCOM partners, with one quarter of the items being examined each year. All the industrial dual-use items on the control list are under review at the present time as part of a special exercise being undertaken by COCOM partners to reduce controls to a core list of the most strategically sensitive items.

  British Telecom (Vietnam)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations Her Majesty's Government made to the Co-ordinating Committee on Multilateral Exports prior to the consultative committee decision to refuse an export licence to British Telecom for work in Vietnam.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on individual licensing decisions, or on consultations with our partners in COCOM on such matters.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what basis the Co-ordinating Committee on Multilateral Exports refused an export licence for a British Telecom contract in Vietnam.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on individual licensing decisions, or on consultations with our partners in COCOM on such matters.

  Aid and Trade Funds
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many contracts supported by aid and trade provision funds, since 1979, were open to tender; and how many companies were nominated.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Tendering arrangements are the responsibility of the overseas Government concerned. Of the 207 projects listed in the answer the Minister for 204
  Overseas Development gave to the hon. Lady on 11 July 1990, Official Report, columns 224–30, a total of 42 are classified in our records as negotiated contracts and the remainder as competitive contracts.

  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement indicating the precise policy which is being pursued by those representing the United Kingdom in discussions affecting the future of the multi-fibre arrangement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The policy pursued by the EC and the UK in discussions on the future of the multi-fibre arrangement continues to be one of seeking to phase out the MFA over a transitional period after the present extension expires next year in conjunction with a general strengthening of GATT rules and disciplines.

  Strategic Mineral Stockpile
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he plans any further disposals from the strategic mineral stockpile.

  Mr. Lilley
  Yes. It has been decided to sell the contents of the stockpile over a two to three-year period. Disposals will take place in a manner which seeks to avoid undue disruption of the market.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licence requests have been made by British Aerospace in regard to plans to set up any joint ventures with Brazil.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on individual licence applications.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has received any information from Her Majesty's customs authorities in Liverpool in regard to the investigation into the sale to Iraq in 1988 of monitoring equipment by Microwave Modules of Aintree Ltd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: It would be inappropriate to comment on export control matters under investigation by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Al Yamamah Agreement
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, pursuant to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central on 19 July,Official Report, column 677, he will give dates of any meetings about the Al Yamamah contract which officials of his Department or the Export Credits Guarantee Department were involved in during June and July 1988.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 23 October 1990]: I have nothing to add to the reply given on 19 July by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).

  Retail Sector
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many company liquidations there were in each of the years 1979 to 1989, and in 1990 to date; how many of these were in the retail sector of business; and if he will make a statement.

  Insolvencies—England and Wales

  Companies

  Compulsory liquidations

  Creditors' voluntary liquidations

  Total

  Retailing

  1979

  2,064

  2,473

  4,537

  501

  1980

  2,935

  3,955

  6,890

  675

  1981

  2,771

  5,825

  8,596

  928

  1982

  3,745

  8,322

  12,067

  1,385

  1983

  4,807

  8,599

  13,406

  2,214

  1984

  5,260

  8,461

  13,721

  2,096

  1985

  5,761

  9,137

  14,898

  2,159

  1986

  5,204

  9,201

  14,405

  1,970

  1987

  4,116

  7,323

  11,439

  1,436

  1988

  3,667

  5,760

  9,427

  1,086

  1989

  4,020

  6,436

  10,456

  1,039

  1990 1st half

  2,553

  4,130

  6,683

  n/a

  Insolvencies—Scotland Companies

  Compulsory Liquidations

  Creditors' Voluntary Liquidations

  Total

  Retailing

  1979

  56

  182

  238

  40

  1980

  135

  244

  379

  54

  1981

  158

  280

  438

  50

  1982

  177

  326

  503

  51

  1983

  263

  258

  521

  97

  1984

  272

  251

  523

  87

  1985

  306

  231

  537

  99

  1986

  299

  212

  511

  96

  1987

  253

  203

  456

  92

  1988

  228

  168

  396

  78

  1989

  229

  199

  428

  82

  1990 1st half

  116

  101

  217

  26

  206
  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: The available figures are in the tables. The industry analysis of insolvencies in England and Wales for the first half of 1990 is expected to be available early in November.

  Insolvencies—Northern Ireland companies

  Compulsory liquidations

  Creditors' voluntary liquidations

  Total

  Retailing

  1979

  7

  27

  34

  n/a

  1980

  8

  66

  74

  n/a

  1981

  16

  83

  99

  n/a

  1982

  10

  111

  121

  n/a

  1983

  15

  96

  111

  n/a

  1984

  19

  64

  83

  n/a

  1985

  36

  75

  111

  n/a

  1986

  56

  108

  164

  n/a

  1987

  59

  91

  150

  n/a

  1988

  60

  63

  123

  n/a

  1989

  69

  55

  124

  n/a

  11990

  13

  32

  45

  n/a

  1 January to May.

  207
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many individuals were declared bankrupt in each of the years 1979 to 1989, and in 1990 to date; how many of these were engaged in the retail sector of business; and if he will make a statement.

  Insolvencies—England and Wales

  Individuals

  Bankruptcy orders

  Individual voluntary arrangements

  Deeds of arrangement

  Total

  Retailing

  1979

  3,456

  —

  44

  3,500

  472

  1980

  3,986

  —

  52

  4,038

  578

  1981

  5,075

  —

  76

  5,151

  790

  1982

  5,654

  —

  46

  5,700

  874

  1983

  6,981

  —

  51

  7,032

  1,058

  1984

  8,178

  —

  51

  8,229

  1,512

  1985

  6,730

  —

  48

  6,778

  1,288

  1986

  7,093

  —

  62

  7,155

  1,348

  1987

  6,994

  404

  29

  7,427

  1,226

  1988

  7,717

  779

  11

  8,507

  1,069

  1989

  8,138

  1,224

  3

  9,365

  1,023

  1990 (1st half)

  5,318

  850

  2

  6,170

  n/a

  Insolvencies—Scotland

  Individuals

  Sequestration

  1979

  106

  1980

  150

  1981

  181

  1982

  213

  1983

  282

  1984

  292

  1985

  298

  1986

  437

  1987

  808

  1988

  1,401

  1989

  2,301

  1990 1st half

  1860

  Insolvencies—Northern Ireland

  Individuals

  Orders made

  1979

  37

  1980

  41

  1981

  70

  1982

  78

  1983

  103

  1984

  114

  1985

  150

  1986

  193

  1987

  134

  1988

  164

  1989

  237

  1990 1st half

  122

  Pelagic Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure pelagic exports are maintained following the ending of exports credit guarantees for trade with Soviet Klondykers.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: ECGD cover has not been withdrawn for pelagic exports to the Soviet Union.
  208
  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: The available figures are in the tables. The industry analysis of bankruptcies in England and Wales for the first half of 1990 is expected to be available early in November.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the President of the European Commission to discuss the consequences of the single market for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet the President of the European Commission.

  Malaysian Minister for Energy
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether representatives of his Department met the Malaysian Minister for Energy, Mr. Samy Vellu, during his visit to London earlier in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Senior officials from my Department met the Malaysian Minister of Energy in London during his visit in April and May this year to discuss progress on a number of power projects in peninsular Malaysia.

  Single Market
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps remain to complete the single market.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department keeps a checklist of progress on the Commission's White Paper, which is updated every two months. A copy is deposited in the Library of the House. The latest copy reveals that 95 of the 282 single market measures have not yet been agreed.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animals and Birds (Export)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Government have taken to review the policy of exporting live animals and birds; and whether it remains Government policy to allow continued export under the existing regulations unchanged.
  209
  Mr. Maclean
  The exercise of our statutory duties is constantly under review in the light of prevailing circumstances. It is not known to what extent existing controls will be affected by forthcoming negotiations on Commission proposals for a Community regulation on the protection of animals during transport.

  Milk Powder
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has made to Jordan about the sales of milk powder of United Kingdom origin; whether Jordan has accepted that there is no risk to human health from United Kingdom milk products; what are the prospects for sales of milk powder in Jordan; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has made to Turkey about sales of milk powder of United Kingdom origin; whether Turkey has accepted that there is no risk to human health from United Kingdom milk products; what are the prospects for sales of milk powder in Turkey; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations he has made to Egypt about sales of milk powder of United Kingdom origin; whether Egypt has accepted that there is no risk to human health from United Kingdom milk products; what are the prospects for sales of milk powder in Egypt; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what representations he has made to Tunisia about sales of milk powder of United Kingdom origin; whether Tunisia has accepted that there is no risk to human health from United Kingdom milk products; what are the prospects for sales of milk powder in Tunisia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  We have been in frequent contact with all those countries that have imposed restrictions on our exports of cattle and cattle products including milk. We have also been working closely with the Commission of the European Communities and the Organisation International des Epizooties—OIE—to reassure countries that there is no public or animal health risk in importing cattle products including milk powder from the United Kingdom.

  At the moment Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia and Turkey are maintaining restrictions on our milk products despite the clear statements from the Commission and the OIE that milk products present no risk from BSE. We shall continue to make every effort to have these unwarranted restrictions lifted in order that United Kingdom exporters may resume their trade in the middle eastern countries.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether the United Kingdom Government intend to support in the European Council the transfer of an additional £200 million European currency units to the tobacco sector of the EAGGF;

  (2) whether the United Kingdom Government supported the 1989 Council decision to transfer an additional £165 million European currency units to the tobacco sector of the EAGGF.

  Mr. Curry
  In 1989 the costs of the tobacco regime were higher than originally estimated partly because of agrimonetary movements but mainly because production levels and intervention stocks were greater than forecast 210
  when the budget was fixed in 1988. As the expenditure was legitimately incurred within the rules for that sector, the budgetary authority—the Council and the European Parliament—agreed to regularise the situation in this and other sectors by transferring funds from sectors which had underspent. Overall, the 1989 FEOGA budget was underspent, after these adjustments, by some 2·4 billion ecu. Similar transfers from underspending sectors within the 1990 FEOGA budget to cover legitimate expenditure in other sectors, including tobacco, have recently been agreed.

  The United Kingdom has long been critical of the EC tobacco regime and the expenditure which it incurs and has consistently pressed for improvements. The Commission is currently conducting a review of the regime and we shall be arguing for substantive change.

DEFENCE

  Polish Resettlement Act 1947
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his replies of 11 May,Official Report, column 212, and 9 July, column 38, when he now expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight of 3 April, on the Polish Resettlement Act 1947.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces has today written to my hon. Friend.

  British Forces (Gulf)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under whose ultimate control are the British forces in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  British forces in the Gulf will remain at all times under ultimate United Kingdom command.

SCOTLAND

  Greater Glasgow Health Board (Contracts)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the list of private contractors approved by Greater Glasgow health board for the purpose of competitive tendering.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The board has no formal list of approved contractors. Each contract involves an open invitation to companies to indicate expressions of interest. A technical and financial evaluation is carried out on those companies which respond to determine whether they shall be invited to tender.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that the director of the Scottish Information Office replies without further delay to the letters of 18 December 1989 and 8 June 1990 from the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I am sorry that the hon. Member has not had a reply. My private secretary has written to him today.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been exempted from paying the poll tax by way of each category of exemption in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole.

  Mr. Lang
  Information held by community charge registration officers on people who are exempt from the

  Known Exemptions from Community Charge

  Inverclyde

  Strathclyde

  Scotland

  Persons aged 18 or over in receipt of Child Benefit

  248

  4,750

  7,776

  Prisoners

  276

  5,306

  6,425

  Foreign armed forces

  39

  1,737

  3,138

  Dependants of foreign armed forces

  5

  247

  247

  Persons aged 18 or over who are severely mentally handicapped

  330

  7,609

  14,794

  Other

  898

  15,458

  21,139

  Total

  1,796

  35,107

  53,519

  Note: "Other' includes patients in residential homes, nursing homes or hospitals, members of religious communities, residents in Crown property, persons of no fixed abode etc.

  Prisoners
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current cost per inmate per week in each of Her Majesty's prisons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest available figures, which are for 1989–90, are set out in the table.

  Establishment

  Approximate gross weekly cost per inmate

  £

  Aberdeen

  350

  Barlinnie

  264

  Castle Huntly

  281

  Cornton Vale

  611

  Dumfries

  398

  Dungavel

  314

  Edinburgh

  310

  Friarton

  376

  Glenochil

  392

  Greenock

  405

  Inverness

  430

  Longriggend

  292

  Low Moss

  184

  Noranside

  305

  Penninghame

  278

  Perth

  336

  Peterhead

  1,008

  Polmont

  289

  Shotts

  318

  The figures include the transfer value of supplies drawn by establishments from central stores and prison industries as well as the direct revenue costs of each establishment.

  Earnings Statistics
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish separate statistics for average earnings for the Scottish Borders, Dumfries and Galloway and the Highlands and Islands;

  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report statistics for average earnings in the Scottish Borders, using samples taken in the Borders.
  212
  personal community charge is not comprehensive. The figures, which relate to 1 July 1990 and are available only for local authority areas, are as follows:

  Mr. Rifkind
  The only information on average earnings for these areas comes from the new earnings survey, which is a sample survey based on 1 per cent. of all employees in PAYE schemes in Great Britain.

  The latest available information, from the 1989 new earnings survey, is given in the following table. It is not possible to provide average earnings estimates for the Borders region, nor for women in Dumfries and Galloway and the Highlands and Islands, because the new earnings survey sample in these areas does not give sufficiently reliable estimates.

  Average gross weekly earnings in April 1989

  Males

  Females

  Males and females

  £

  £

  £

  Borders

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Dumfries and Galloway

  232·0

  n/a

  207·6

  Highlands and Islands

  246·4

  n/a

  219·7

  Notes:

  n/a—Not available.

  Earnings of full time employees on adult rates, not affected by absence.

  A7
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to announce road improvement schemes to be carried out on the A7 trunk road south of Hawick; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department together with Borders and Dumfries and Galloway regional councils are preparing a route action plan to identify and bring forward a series of improvement schemes on the A7 in Hawick and on the Scottish section of the A7 trunk road to the south.

  The final report on a route strategy by the regional councils is due to be submitted in December 1992. Interim reports have been requested during 1991 on an initial series of road safety and overtaking opportunity schemes. Once these reports are available and have been studied by the Department, I will then be in a position to decide which schemes are to be constructed.

  Storm Damage Payments
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which local authorities will benefit from the Bellwin scheme invoked after the severe storms in February of the current year; and by how much.

  Mr. Lang
  Claims for special financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme have now been assessed and I can announce that £62,000 in grant will be made available to three authorities which suffered an undue financial burden in responding to the storms and floods of February under the terms of the scheme which I announced on 8 February.

  The details of grant are:

  £

  Highland Regional Council

  30,761

  Inverness District Council

  13,542

  Perth and Kinross District Council

  18,132

  62,435

  Payments will be issued to these authorities as soon as possible.

  Giant Hogweed
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what money has been allocated in the past five years by his Department to research into the spread, control and eradication of heracleum mantegazzianum;

  (2) what money has been allocated in the past five years by his Department into educating the public of the dangers of contact with heracleum mantegazzianum.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: I understand that the basic facts about the plant and methods for controlling it are well understood without further research. In February 1989 Scottish agricultural colleges published a leaflet "Giant Hogweed: The Problem and its Control" which gives clear advice on the biology of the plant, its dangers and methods of control. If particular local authorities consider that the scale of the problem in their area justifies action they have statutory powers available to them to undertake this.

  The plant is listed in part II of schedule 9 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as a plant that must not be deliberately established in the wild. Under section 25 of the Act local authorities are required to publicise that fact.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Romania
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Romania to discuss economic co-operation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs plan to visit Romania at present. However, I hope that Ministers will be able to discuss economic matters with the Romanian Deputy Prime Minister in the United Kingdom next month. My right hon. Friend discussed Romania's troubled progress towards democracy with his Romanian counterpart in New York on 2 October.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Foreign 214
  Affairs Council is next due to meet to review the postponement of trade and economic and commercial co-operation agreements with Romania; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards such agreements being dependent upon progress towards democratic reforms.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The EC's trade and co-operation agreement with Romania was signed in the margins of the Foreign Affairs Council on 22 October. The Council had earlier agreed that Romania's progress towards political and economic reform justified this positive step. We strongly support the Community's policy of treating individual countries according to their progress and commitment towards political and economic reform. The EC has, therefore, yet to decide to extend economic aid to Romania.

  EC-USA Relations
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met with the United States Secretary of State to discuss relations between the European Community countries and the United States of America.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have no firm plans for my next visit to the United States. I am in frequent touch with Mr. Baker and last met him in New York on 2 October during the meeting of CSCE Ministers.

  Cambodia
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit Cambodia to discuss progress towards peace in that country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans to visit Cambodia, but we regularly discuss developments there with our European colleagues and others among our friends and partners.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had in respect of Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Cambodia; and if any change in that policy is projected.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our policy on Cambodia is kept under constant review. We remain committed to helping to create conditions in which the Cambodian people can elect a Government of their choice, free from the fear of Khmer Rouge atrocities, civil war and foreign invasion.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of other permanent member countries on the United Nations Security Council, regarding the future of Cambodia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discusses Cambodia regularly with his colleagues among the permanent members of the UN Security Council and did so most recently during his visit to the UN General Assembly from 24 to 28 September.

  Germany
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to meet the Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany to discuss the Federal Republic's membership of NATO.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit the Federal Republic of Germany to discuss Germany's membership of NATO.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend expects to meet Herr Genscher in the next few days. It has been a key objective of our policy this year that a united Germany should remain a full member of NATO. We achieved this in the agreement signed in Moscow last month. The outcome is a tribute to Chancellor Kohl and his colleagues in the German Government.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently with representatives of the German Governments about political reunification; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made during discussions in the most recent two-plus-four meetings on German unification.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  On 12 September in Moscow, together with his German, French, American and Russian colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs signed the treaty on the final settlement with respect to Germany. On 1 October in New York, they signed a declaration suspending four-power rights and responsibilities with effect from German unification on 3 October.

  We welcome the unification of Germany in peace and freedom. We will be working with the united Germany as a friend, ally and partner for the peace and prosperity of Europe and the wider world.

  China
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit China to discuss Anglo-Chinese relations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit China at present. He had a useful discussion with the Chinese Foreign Minister at the United Nations General Assembly.

  Kenya
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the protection of civil rights in Kenya.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Kenya's record in this respect has been generally good since independence. The Kenyan Government are aware of the importance we attach to their maintaining this record.

  Albania
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with his European Community counterparts about the situation in Albania.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The situation in Albania is discussed regularly under European political co-operation.

  Political Co-operation
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his counterparts in European Economic Community countries to discuss political co-operation.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to attend a meeting of the European Community Council of Ministers to discuss closer political co-operation.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The United Kingdom strongly supports the developments of closer political co-operation among our Community partners. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be meeting his EC colleagues in Brussels on 12 November when he will discuss various political co-operation issues. There is likely to be a discussion of political co-operation at the special European Council in Rome on 27 October, which will be attended by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  Baltic Republics
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the Baltic republics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have received a number of representations about the Baltic republics from individuals and interested groups in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Our views on this question are clearly on record.

  India
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding Britain's relations with India.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our relations with India are excellent. We continue to look for ways of developing them still further.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet representatives at Amnesty International to discuss human rights violations in India.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans to discuss this particular subject with Amnesty International, but we are in regular contact with it to discuss human rights in general.

  Mauritius
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Mauritius on the future of Ilois persons displaced from the British Indian Ocean territory resident in Mauritius.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None. Those concerned were given considerable financial assistance to resettle and their future now lies in Mauritius.

  Korea
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to expedite the peaceful reunification of Korea.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We shall continue our consistent support for efforts to achieve the peaceful reunification of Korea. We welcome the recent high-level meetings between North and South Korea as a contribution to this process.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to attend a meeting of the European Community Council of Ministers to discuss economic and monetary union.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will accompany my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she attends the special meeting of the European Council in Rome on 27 and 28 October, at which, among other topics, economic and monetary union is likely to be discussed.

  EC Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the President of the European Commission to discuss the agenda of the next intergovernmental conference.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs expects to meet Mr. Delors, President of the European Commission, at the special European Council in Rome on 27 and 28 October which will discuss the preparations for the intergovernmental conference on political union.

  Iraq
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to meet the Foreign Minister of Iraq to discuss the report of Amnesty International on human rights in that country.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans to meet the Iraqi Foreign Minister. Amnesty International's report further documents the terrible crimes against human rights perpetrated by the Iraqis in Kuwait as well as in their own country.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position on international co-operation on the future of Cyprus.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The United Nations Secretary-General's mission of good offices continues. The Secretary-General's special representative is currently pursuing a round of separate talks with representatives of the two communities with a view to the resumption of direct talks. We continue to give our active support to the Secretary-General's initiative.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Community have taken place since 1 August; and if he will make a statement concerning their contents and conclusions.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 15 October about the Foreign Affairs Council on 17 September.

  The Foreign Affairs Council also met in Luxembourg on 22 October. I represented the United Kingdom. Ministers discussed a report prepared by their special representatives on preparations for the intergovernmental conference on institutional reform. They also discussed a report by the chairman of the ECOFIN Council on preparations for the IGC on economic and monetary union. They agreed that both reports should be submitted to the informal European Council in Rome on 27 and 28 October.

  Ministers had a preliminary discussion of the economic problems facing the countries of eastern and central Europe and the Soviet Union. The Council agreed draft declarations on relations between the European Community and the United States, and the European Community and Canada. The presidency will finalise the texts with the Americans and Canadians, in preparation for endorsement by the informal European Council on 27 and 28 October and signature at the CSCE summit in November.

  Ministers agreed in principle the Commission's proposals for the integration of the former GDR into the Community. The House debated this in full on 19 October. The Council's formal position will be adopted after examination of the European Parliament's opinion on the Commission's proposals.

  The Council had a further discussion of the Community's relations with Turkey. It also considered a Commission report on the opening round of negotiations for a free trade agreement with the Gulf Co-operation Council. The issues were referred to the Council of Permanent Representatives for further study. The Council discussed progress in the negotiations between the Community and the EFTA countries for the creation of a European economic area. I underlined the importance we attached to early progress in all areas of the negotiation.

  The Council approved an amendment to the Commission's regulation imposing surveillance licensing on imports of footwear from Korea and Taiwan.

  Ministers discussed the Community's offer on agriculture in the GATT Uruguay round. The issue will

  219
  now go to a further meeting of the Agriculture Council, with Trade Ministers attending, on 26 October. I stressed the importance of early agreement between the Community member states if the EC wished to be taken seriously during the final stages of the Uruguay round negotiations.

  Ministers also discussed EC relations with third countries, including Syria, China, Iran, Vietnam and South Africa. The trade and co-operation agreement between the EC and Romania was signed by the Romanian Prime Minister, the Commission and by the presidency, on behalf of the Twelve.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in discussions with the Chinese Government on the adoption of a number of confidence-building measures in respect to the future of Hong Kong.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There is a continuing dialogue with the Chinese Government on the future of Hong Kong. The Sino-British joint liaison group met in London on 25 to 28 September. The Chinese Government have reiterated their commitment to the joint declaration and its implementation.

  Middle East
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Government of Israel to discuss the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet the Foreign Minister of Israel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the Israeli Foreign Minister on 16 October. They had a thorough discussion of middle east issues. He has no firm plans to meet Mr. Levy again. But they agreed to stay in closer contact in future.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent action he has taken towards assisting progress in the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the peace process in the middle east.

  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's contribution to finding a diplomatic and peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict acceptable to the international community.

  Sir Dennis Walters
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards peace in the middle east.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The need for a solution to the Palestinian problem is more pressing than ever. Once the Gulf crisis is over, when conditions may be more 220
  conducive, we shall return to the peace process with renewed vigour. We are in close touch with the Americans and our friends in the region about possible ways ahead. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs' recent visit to the middle east gave him a chance to talk to senior Egyptians and Israelis directly. We regret that a Palestinian boycott prevented his talking to leaders in the occupied territories also.

  South Africa
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help Her Majesty's Government are currently giving to political organisations in South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) on 13 June 1990, at column 255. In this financial year we have committed over £40,000 under this scheme.

  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the furtherance of diplomatic relations with South Africa.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have consistently maintained regular contact with the South African authorities on a wide range of issues, both here and via Her Majesty's ambassador. We have opposed the diplomatic isolation of South Africa and welcome the increasing number of countries which share our view.

  NATO
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last had meetings with his NATO partners to discuss further developments of the organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We last discussed NATO's future at the London summit in July. We agreed that NATO should change, and set in hand a review of strategy and structure. We also agreed that NATO should develop closer contacts with the Soviet Union and east European countries, in keeping with the new security situation in Europe.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the European Community and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development studies of the needs of the Soviet Union for economic and development aid.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  These studies are continuing. The European Commission should present an interim report to the Rome European Council on 27 and 28 October. The results of the IMF study, in which the OECD is participating, are expected to be available in December.

  Poland
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to pay an official visit to Poland.
  221
  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had a useful visit to Poland from 29 April to 2 May 1990. He has no plans to visit Poland again at present. The Polish Foreign Minister plans to pay an official visit to Britain on 9 and 10 January 1991.

  EC Policies
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals he intends to place before his European Community partners for the development of Community policies.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by my hon. Friend the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 9 May, 13 June and 11 July. We shall continue to play a constructive role in Community discussions.

  Adib Afnan
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has raised with the Jordanian authorities the case of the untried political detainee Adib Afnan.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Jordanian authorities have informed our embassy that Adib Afnan is no longer in detention.

  Treaty of Rome
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with Chancellor Kohl and other leaders of European Community states regarding revisions of the treaty of Rome leading to a transfer of power from the national legislatures to the institutions of the European Community.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The last discussion between Community Heads of Government on institutional reform was at the Dublin European Council on 25 and 26 June. They agreed to call an intergovernmental conference beginning in December, to examine the possibility of treaty changes. Any revision of the treaty will have to be ratified by this House before it can enter into force.

  Israel
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on Anglo-Israeli relations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Anglo-Israeli relations are correct and friendly; profound differences remain between us on policy towards the occupied territories.

  Commonwealth
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Commonwealth Heads of Government will next meet to review the Commonwealth.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Firm dates for the first meeting of the high-level appraisal group of 10 Heads of Government have not yet been agreed, but it is envisaged that it will take place early next year.

  West Berlin
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the West German Government concerning the future of land and facilities currently under British control in west Berlin.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The future of facilities currently used by the three western allies in Berlin was covered in an exchange of notes concluded with the Federal Republic of Germany on 25 September. Some facilities will continue to be required. Others will be returned to the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Bulgaria
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to include Bulgaria in the know-how fund for emerging eastern European democracies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made it clear that Bulgaria will become eligible for support from the know-how fund for eastern Europe once the Bulgarian authorities have shown that they are firmly committed to political and economic reform. We are, therefore, observing with close attention the policies of the new Bulgarian Government.

  United Nations
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters he plans to raise at the next meeting of the United Nations General Assembly.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs addressed the United Nations General Assembly on 26 September 1990, and urged the organisation to redouble its efforts to uphold the rule of law in international relations, with special reference to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Copies of his speech are available in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of income support claimants aged under 60 years are repaying social fund loans by deductions from their benefit payments in the London borough of Newham.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 19 October 1990]: The table shows the number of social fund loans being recovered from income support recipients aged under 60 at the end of August 1990 and the percentage of recipients in that age group that the figure represents.

  Number of recoveries

  Percentage of IS recipients under 60

  Plaistow

  674

  7·5

  Woodgrange Park

  1,315

  9·9

  Canning Town

  660

  18·2

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will now review his powers on determining the levels of social fund payments; and if he will make a statement.
  223
  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many social fund loan applications were refused in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole in the financial year 1989–90 and in the present year due to perceived inability to pay; how many of those suffering such a refusal were offered a community care grant instead; and what financial advice was offered to those denied, in the first instance, a loan and a grant;

  (2) what percentage of applications for community care grants were refused in 1988–89, 1989–90 and in the first six months of 1990 in (a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole: and, of those so refused, what proportion were offered the alternative of a loan.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of households claiming income support are repaying social fund loans by deductions from their benefit payments.

  Mr. Scott
  At the end of September 1990 a total of 426,218 social fund loans were being recovered from income support recipients, representing 14·8 per cent. of the total number of income support recipients.

  Disability Employment Credit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what will be the maximum weekly payment of disability employment credit;

  (2) what will be the percentage taper for withdrawal of disability employment credit;

  (3) what is his estimate of the number of disabled people who will qualify for disability employment credit if (a) there is no means test of capital and (b) there is a means test with a 16,000 capital cut-off;

  (4) at what income level the payment of disability employment credit will be withdrawn.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when he expects to publish his Department's consultation document on the disability employment credit; and what will be the length of time for consultation;

  (2) what will be the minimum number of hours workable for the disability employment credit;

  (3) if he will make it his policy not to means-test a claimant's capital when assessing eligibility for the disability employment credit;

  (4) whether (a) the capital and (b) the income of a claimant's partner will be taken into account when assessing eligibility for the disability employment credit;

  (5) if he will make it his policy to disregard compensation and similar payments for injury when assessing capital for disability employment credit.

  Mr. Scott
  We are still working up the details of the disability employment credit scheme, and hope to be in a position to issue our more detailed proposals shortly.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding no means-testing of capital when assessing eligibility for disability employment credit.
  224
  Mr. Scott
  A number of the responses we have received to "The Way Ahead" have raised this issue.

  Disability Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will now publish the age rules he proposes for the new disability benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  These will be published in due course.

  Claimants of No Fixed Abode
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total number of claimants of no fixed abode for England, and for each English region, and for the following Department of Social Security areas: Bath, Bristol (Central), Bristol (South), Bristol (East), Bristol (Morfield) and Bristol (West), for the years(a) 1986, (b) 1987, (c) 1988 and (d)

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

  Income Support
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of income support claimants under 60 years of age are repaying arrears of their poll tax by way of deductions from their benefit payments in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow. (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on the number of income support claimants under age 60 with a deduction to clear their community charge arrears is not available. The total number of deductions in Greenock and Port Glasgow, Strathclyde and Scotland as a whole at 31 August 1990 is as follows:

  Number

  Greenock

  121

  Port Glasgow

  32

  Strathclyde1

  6,342

  Scotland

  9,081

  1The figure for Strathclyde includes Port Glasgow and Greenock.

  Attendance and Severe Disablement Allowances
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish his best estimates of the number of people classified as mentally ill who were in receipt of(a) attendance allowance and (b) severe disablement allowance in 1989–90.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. We shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what efforts are made by his Department to monitor and review the medical assessments used for the purposes of establishing eligibility for attendance allowance and severe disablement allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The work of examining medical practitioners—EMPS—who examine the claimants for attendance allowance—AA—is monitored continuously throughout the regions by regional office medical officers—ROMOs
  225
  —who can initiate further training of an EMP if required. The work of delegated medical practitioners—DMPs—who decide the entitlement to AA based on the medical evidence, is monitored within the Department by senior medical officers and also, on a regular basis, by the independent Attendance Allowance Board.

  Severe disability allowance—SDA—assessments are made by independent adjudicating medical authorities—AMAs. These assessments are subject to random monitoring by ROMOs. They do not have the power to alter the assessments of the AMAs. They can, however, recommend reference of a case to the medical appeal tribunal if it is considered that the assessment is not in line with the medical evidence.

  AA reviews are handled by the medical officers and lay staff of the AA reviews unit, and, in certain cases, directly by the Attendance Allowance Board. SDA assessments may be reviewed only on the grounds of fresh evidence which, if it had been available to the AMA, might reasonably have altered the assessment made. The review would be carried out by an AMA, and the AMA's decision could be referred to a medical appeal tribunal in the normal way.

  We recently published a consultative document on the assessment and adjudication procedures for the disability allowance which will succeed mobility allowance and largely replace attendance allowance in 1992 and would welcome comments on this.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will make available the findings of the study of costs in residential care and nursing homes in Great Britain carried out by Price Waterhouse for his Department.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to make available the Price Waterhouse report on the cost of care in private residential and nursing homes; and if he will publish the report in full.

  Running costs by type of care

  Sample size

  Running costs £

  Running costs and capital costs

  Running costs and capital costs and profit

  Staff costs1

  Elderly—residential

  median

  462

  120

  154

  168

  68

  mean

  —

  (134)

  (172)

  (188)

  (81)

  Other—residential

  median

  —

  211

  270

  295

  144

  mean

  101

  (240)

  (307)

  (336)

  (158)

  Elderly—nursing

  median

  —

  188

  241

  263

  132

  mean

  143

  (250)

  (320)

  (350)

  (157)

  Other—nursing

  median

  —

  169

  216

  237

  122

  mean

  25

  (209)

  (267)

  (292)

  (167)

  1 Included in "running costs" column 2.

  226
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Copies of the full Price Waterhouse report have today been placed in the Library. The survey has provided important information which has assisted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in making decisions on the April 1991 uprating of the income support limits, announced today.

  The overall objective of the survey carried out by Price Waterhouse was to identify the range of revenue arid capital costs of caring for people with different types and levels of dependency in homes of varying size and staff-resident ratios in different parts of Great Britain. The field work was carried out between July and August 1990 and the data collected related mainly to financial years commencing between October 1989 and May 1990. Although the number of homes initially approached was much larger, information was finally obtained from a total sample of 732 residential care and nursing homes. Not all these could provide information on capital costs in addition to that on running costs.

  The results of the survey show the difficulty of obtaining reliable and consistent data on costs for residential care and nursing homes. The figures obtained cover the period up to May 1990; assume a 90 per cent. occupancy rate in homes, which may be slightly lower than the actual occupancy level in homes. Unit costs reduce with higher occupancy levels; and are more reliable in some respects than others. Cost figures for voluntary sector homes in particular are based on a small sample size; and show that there is significant variation in the capital costs (including and excluding profits) that homes face, both within and across regions, indicating differences both in capital structure and accounting treatment.

  The key findings on costs are as follows:

  Running costs—

  The average bedweek costs obtained from the survey are shown in the table.

ENVIRONMENT

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any reports from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on plans by Lanstar Wimpey Waste in Cadishead to import toxic waste from Italy.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Secretary of State has received no such reports from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. However, he has received copies of notifications under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988 of imports of hazardous waste from Italy by Lanstar Wimpey Waste in Cadishead.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to establish whether plans by United Kingdom toxic waste management and disposal companies to import toxic waste from Italy are in compliance with the European Community directive on the transfrontier transport of waste and the Basel convention guidelines.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 18 October 1990]: The Secretary of State has taken no such steps. The enforcement of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988, which implement Council directives 84/631/EEC and 86/279/EEC is the responsibility of the disposal authorities for the areas in which consignees operate their facilities, not the Secretary of State. The question of compliance with the Basel convention does not arise because the convention is not yet in force. However, the Secretary of State is pressing for the European Community and member states to move rapidly towards ratification.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any notification from ReChem International in regard to its plans to process 150 tonnes of toxic waste from the Karin B waste carrier ship.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 18 October 1990]: The Secretary of State has received copies of notifications under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations of a number of shipments of hazardous waste from Italy to ReChem International's plant at Fawley, Southampton. It is not possible to tell from the documents whether any of the waste was ever on board the Karin B. The purpose of notification is to establish whether the disposal facility can deal with the waste in question, not to give its history. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales receives copies of notifications of shipments of hazardous waste from Italy to ReChem International's plant at Pontypool.

  Development Corporations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his replies of 15 October,Official Report, column 622, if he will publish an edited version of the Garlick report with a view to providing public reassurance on matters dealt with by the full report, including those not covered by his statement of 29 August, while protecting the confidence of those who gave evidence.
  228
  Mr. Portillo
  My answer of 15 October included a detailed statement which summarised Sir John Garlick's findings and the steps which the corporation and my Department are taking to address the shortcomings which he identified.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his replies of 15 October,Official Report, column 622, what steps he intends to take to ensure the implementation of the recommendations in the Garlick report; what steps have already been taken; and which matters have yet to be dealt with.

  Mr. Portillo
  My answer of 15 October set out the steps being taken as a result of the findings of Sir John Garlick's inquiry.

  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. Key
  An ordered table showing rent arrears at March 1989 as a percentage of the rent roll for each English local authority was placed in the Library on 3 April 1990. Figures for March 1990 are not yet available.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the impact of the poll tax on the level of electoral registration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  There is no direct relation between the electoral register and the community charge register and there is no reason why the community charge should have any implication for electoral registration.

  Water Leakage
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much water was lost through leakages in each water authority area during(a) 1989 and (b)

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not held centrally. Information for the former water authorities on water losses, which includes water lost by leakage, was published in the prospectus "The Water Share Offers", a copy of which is available in the Library. The Office of Water Services is developing guidelines for water companies so that the data they produce will allow effective consideration and comparison of water leakages.

  Brookwood Hospital (Redevelopment)
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the proposals for off-site highway works connected with the redevelopment of surplus land at Brookwood hospital, Knaphill, which has been formulated by Surrey county council and Woking borough council, fulfil the criteria recommended by his inspector in his report on the public inquiry into the development.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend is awaiting an undertaking about off-site highway works prior to
  229
  reaching his final decision on the appeals concerning the redevelopment of land at Brookwood hospital. He will be replying very soon to my right hon. Friend's letter of 6 October on this matter.

  Agricultural Dwellings
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he will take to prevent the fragmentation of farmland into non-viable units following the granting of planning permission for an agricultural dwelling.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am considering currently the whole subject of planning permission for agricultural dwellings in the light of the responses to the draft planning policy guidance note "The Countryside and the Rural Economy" which we issued for consultation last winter.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish new guidelines on the planning control of agricultural dwellings.

  Mr. Atkins
  On 5 October we issued a consultation paper on possible changes to planning controls over agricultural buildings other than dwellings. We shall want to consider the responses to that consultation before issuing a revised version of the planning policy guidance note "The Countryside and the Rural Economy"—PPG7—early next year. That note will also contain guidance on agricultural dwellings.

  Passive Solar Design
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies have been sponsored by the Building Research Establishment to research and demonstrate the benefits of passive solar design in buildings; and what steps he is taking to increase the awareness of the benefits of such design among developers, designers and clients, as indicated in paragraph 40, page 289 of the White Paper on the environment (Cm. 1200).

  Mr. Trippier
  The Building Research Establishment is undertaking for my Department and for the Department of Energy's technology support unit a range of specific projects on passive solar design. These currently include studies on modelling methods, the use of daylight for passive solar energy and work on international and European research. Department of Energy research spending currently amounts to some £2 million a year.

  To increase awareness of the benefits of passive solar design an integrated marketing programme is in preparation as part of the best practice programme of the Energy Efficiency Office.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department's property holding organisation will publish the environmental action guide on energy efficiency, as foreshadowed by paragraph C25, page 286, annex C of the White Paper on the environment (Cm. 1200); how many copies of this guide will be printed; at what estimated cost; and to which Departments of Government and associated organisations it will be distributed.

  Mr. Trippier
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office hopes to publish the environmental action guide in December. It 230
  will provide an environmental framework for all aspects of property management and purchasing. The guide will be adopted across Government and will be on public sale for use by other organisations. The number of copies printed and their cost are commercial matters for HMSO.

  Greenpeace
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from Greenpeace; and how he intends to respond.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend received a letter from Lord Melchett, director of Greenpeace (UK) on 27 September. He replied by letter on 17 October 1990.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will finance research to assess the number sleeping rough in the United Kingdom, the causes and the demographic profile.

  Mr. Key
  The 1991 population census, to be carried out in England and Wales by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and in Scotland by the General Register Office for Scotland, will include a count of persons sleeping rough. The Northern Ireland Census Office will not be including a count of persons sleeping rough, as consultations with the charities dealing with the homeless suggest that the numbers involved are very small. My Department is in the process of commissioning a study of single homeless people which will include those who sleep rough in England.

  Pollution Inspectorate (Annual Reports)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the 1988 annual reports of the 12 Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution district inspectors; and whether the new Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution regions will publish separate regional annual reports.

  Mr. Trippier
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution district reports for 1988–89 have been published. Copies are available in the House of Commons Library. Regional chapters will be incorporated within HMIP's 1989–90 annual report.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people have been exempted from paying community charge(a) by each category of exemption, (b) in Leeds, West, and (c) in England and Wales.

  Mr. Key
  The categories for which information is available are given in the table. No information is available for Leeds, West. Figures for Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Estimated numbers exempt from community charges in England at 1 June 1990

  Numbers

  Members of visiting forces, international headquarters and defence organisations and their dependants. Including diplomats

  40,000

  Severely mentally impaired

  97,000

  231

  Numbers

  Aged 18 who attract child benefit because they are still at school, of aged 18 or 19 and on full-time courses of further, but not higher education

  179,000

  Full time students whose term time address is in Scotland or Northern Ireland

  2,500

  Members of religious communities

  11,000

  Patients whose main residence is in an NHS hospital

  42,000

  People whose sole or main residence is in a residential care home, a nursing home, a mental nursing home, a private hospital, or a hostel providing a substantial level of care, and who are also being treated or cared for in such an institution

  321,000

  Residential care workers employed at a very low salary

  1,500

  In detention

  45,000

  Total of categories listed

  739,000

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each local authority district area the latest figures on the number of premises liable for the standard community charge.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am arranging for the available information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Properties subject to a standard charge with a multiplier of zero are not included.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring is being undertaken by his Department on the operation of the rules relating to exemption from the poll tax for those suffering from severe mental impairment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  My Department is in constant touch with local authorities on all aspects of the community charge. We also maintain close contact with officials in the Department of Health on issues relating to the exemption for persons with a severe mental impairment. Supplementary advice on the exemption was sent on 2 July 1990 to community charge registration officers and general medical practitioners from both Departments.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish the latest figures on the number of people who have been exempted from the poll tax due to(a) severe mental impairment, (b) residence in a hospital or home, (c) aged under 20 years at school or in further education, (d) membership of visiting forces, (e) persons in detention, (f) membership of a religious order, (g) homelessness and (h) others;

  (2) if he will publish his best estimates of the number of people classified as suffering from mental illness who have been granted poll tax exemption under the severe mental impairment provisions;

  (3) if he will publish his best estimates of the number of people classified as suffering from severe dementia who have been granted poll tax exemption under the severe mental impairment provisions.

  Mr. Portillo
  The estimated numbers exempt from community charges in England at 1 June 1990 are as follows:
  232

  Number

  Severely mentally impaired

  97,000

  Patients whose main residence is in an NHS hospital or people whose sole or main residence is in a residential care home, a nursing home, a mental nursing home, a private hospital, or a hostel providing a substantial level of care, and who are also being treated or cared for in such an institution

  363,000

  Aged 18 who attract child benefit because they are still at school, or aged 18 or 19 and on full-time courses of further, but not higher, education

  179,000

  In detention

  45,000

  Members of visiting forces, international headquarters and defence organisations and their dependants. Including diplomats

  40,000

  Members of religious communities

  11,000

  Persons without fixed abode or living in short stay hostels

  n.a.

  Residential care workers employed at a very low salary, and full time students whose term time address is in Scotland or Northern Ireland

  4,000

  Note: Separate information is not available on the number of exemptions of people classified as suffering from severe dementia or mental illness.

  n.a. Not available.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will(a) place copies in the Library of all material produced by his Department designed to promote awareness of the right to poll tax exemption for certain groups of people and (b) state the level of expenditure being incurred on such material; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Copies of all departmental published material on exemptions from the personal community charge, including circular letters sent out to all community charges registration officers have been placed in the Library.

  The cost of producing this material has been approximately £1·2 million so far.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to introduce legislation to prevent district councils from recovering poll tax debts from individual housing benefit allocations.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  Legislation does not provide for local authorities to recover arrears of community charge from housing benefit.

  Pollution Exhibition
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition by the Institution of Civil Engineers relating to pollution and its containment to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 3 to 7 December.

  Environmental Protection Bill
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the regulations under part I of the Environmental Protection Bill will be issued for consultation.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have issued today draft regulations governing the application procedure for making authorisations under integrated pollution control and local authority air pollution control under part I of the Bill; the procedure for varying those authorisations; the appeals procedure; and details of the public registers of information. A copy of the regulations, and an accompanying guidance note, has been placed in the Library. Responses are required by 14 December.

  The common theme throughout our proposals is the involvement of the public. Subject to the Bill being approved by Parliament and the results of the consultation, the regulations provide that applications for authorisations and substantial variations of those authorisations must be advertised so that the public has an opportunity to comment on the proposals. Those comments will then be considered in determining the application. The regulations also require appeals made under clause 15 of the Bill to be advertised so that the public has the opportunity to make representations which will be taken into account in determining the appeal. The information about applications for authorisations and variations, and appeals will be held on the comprehensive public registers of information which are also established under these regulations.

  We intend to issue next month a further set of regulations, prescribing the substances and processes for control under part I of the Bill.

  Barkby Thorpe Landfill Site
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the number of times Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has visited the landfill site at Barkby Thorpe, Leicester; and what are the dates of the visits;

  (2) if he will publish the report of Her Majesty's inspector of pollution following his visit to the landfill site at Barkby Thorpe, Leicester.

  Oldham

  North West

  England

  Total

  Percentage of stock

  Total

  Percentage of stock

  Total

  Percentage of stock

  Unfit dwellings

  7,765

  8·9

  126,100

  4·6

  571,600

  3·0

  Dwellings fit but lacking basic amenities

  2,837

  3·2

  57,300

  2·1

  382,300

  2·0

  Non-standard dwellings in need of renovation1

  23,180

  26·4

  537,000

  19·4

  3,202,000

  16·6

  1 Dwellings requiring repairs estimated at more than £3,000.

  Corresponding information for April 1990 is not yet available.

  Disabled People (Housing)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of(a) wheelchair housing starts and (b) wheelchair housing starts and completions for 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 and the number of planned wheelchair starts for 1991.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: The available figures for 1986 to 1989 for England appear
  234
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  An inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution made one visit to the Barkby Thorpe site, Leicester in July 1989. The visit was made in conjunction with discussions held with local authority officials. No site visit report was prepared.

  Beach Huts
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the application of the community charge to beach huts without a postal address, road access or connecting services.

  Mr. Key
  The standard community charge is payable by the freehold owner or lessee of a domestic property which is no person's sole or main residence. The Local Government Finance Act 1988 defines a building as domestic property if it is used wholly for the purposes of living accommodation. Whether or not a beach hut constitutes living accommodation will be a matter for the community charges registration officer to establish in the light of the facts of the case. It would be open to an individual to appeal against a registration officer's determination to a valuation and community charge tribunal.

  Housing Conditions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of (i)) unfit dwellings, (ii) dwellings fit but lacking basic amenities arid (iii) non-standard dwellings in need of renovations in(a) Oldham, (b) the north-west and (c) England and the percentage of stock that these numbers represent in each case.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 18 October 1990]: Local authorities are asked for these figures in their annual housing investment programme returns; the figures are not necessarily comparable as authorities' criteria differ arid they are not consistent with national and regional estimates from the 1986 English house condition survey.

  The figures based on local authority returns for April 1989 are as follows:

  in table 6.7 of the annual "Housing and Construction Statistics 1979–1989: Great Britain" and for the first half of 1990 in table 1.5 of part 1 of the June quarter 1990 edition of "Housing and Construction Statistics: Great Britain". Copies of both are in the Library.

  The statistics cover wheelchair dwellings provided by local authorities, new towns and housing associations. There are no reliable estimates of the number of such dwellings built privately nor does the Department make forecasts for future periods.

  Bradford (Development)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost of considering the application by 3D Developments Ltd., for a city grant towards the west end development scheme in Bradford.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) on 12 July at column 459.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the position reached in the negotiations between 3D Developments Ltd., and his Department on the application for £40 million city grant towards the west end development in Bradford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: 3D Ltd's proposals for the west end development scheme are being carefully considered by my officials.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will obtain for his Department's library the book "Waste Management" by O. P. Kharbanda and E. A. Stallworthy published by Gowar Publishing Company in January.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: The Department's library has this book.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he, or any officials of his Department, were invited to attend or present a paper at the "Waste Management in Europe 1992" conference in Amsterdam held between 10–14 September, organised by the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: Yes. An invitation for an official to give a paper was received but it was not taken up.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider setting up an interdepartmental agency to assess the extent of homelessness and possible solutions to homelessness in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: No. The Government's review of the homelessness legislation published last November concluded that local authorities were the appropriate agencies for helping homeless people and assessing their needs, as provided for in the Housing Act 1985.

  Combustion Plants (Emissions)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government have submitted a detailed proposal to the EC Commission on how they will achieve their emission reduction targets in accordance with the large combustion plant directive (609/EEC); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 23 October 1990]: The Government issued a second consultation document on
  236
  the implementation of the large combustion plants directive on 18 September. The paper included the United Kingdom's draft plan for national emission reductions of sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen. British officials met informally officials from the European Commission to present and discuss the proposals in the draft plan on 11 October. The Government are currently considering all the responses to the consultation and will submit the final plan to the Commission before the directive's deadline of the end of this year.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish a table showing the amount of funding given by English Heritage and the Department of the Environment to projects in the last 10 years;

  (2) if he will list section 3A payments given by English Heritage since February 1990;

  (3) if he will give the current staffing complement of English Heritage;

  (4) if he has met the chair of English Heritage to discuss relocation; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) if he will list the amount of money given to English Heritage in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Trippier
  The detailed breakdown of expenditure on building repair grants and information on staff complement are matters for English Heritage. I have asked the chairman, Lord Montagu, to write to the hon. Member. Government funding to English Heritage since it was established in 1984 is as follows:

  £ million (cash)

  1984–85

  49·9

  1985–86

  52·2

  1986–87

  60·1

  1987–88

  65·3

  1988–89

  66·2

  1989–90

  72·9

  1990–91

  78·5

  Comparable information in respect of the period from 1979 until English Heritage was established, when the Department of the Environment had responsibility for funding historic buildings, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Secretary of State and myself have met the chairman of English Heritage on a number of occasions and have discussed many issues, including relocation. In line with Government policy, English Heritage has been considering options for relocating its London headquarters staff to the regions. On 17 October, English Heritage commissioners agreed to move the majority of their London-based posts (about 650 administrators and specialists) to Nottingham in 1992–94. This is subject to the acquisition of a suitable building and detailed approval from the Government, particularly on the resources involved.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the percentage unemployment changes in all Lancashire travel-to-work areas as between mid-1987 and the latest available date.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is available in the Library. Percentage changes in unemployment between June 1987 and September 1990 for all the travel-to-work areas covering the county of Lancashire were:

  Travel to work area

  Percentage change1

  Blackpool

  -56·6

  Settle

  -56·0

  Pendle

  -51·1

  Lancaster and Morecambe

  -47·3

  Wigan and St. Helens

  -44·8

  Clitheroe

  -44·5

  Bolton and Bury

  -44·2

  Burnley

  -43·1

  Preston

  -42·4

  Accrington and Rossendale

  -42·0

  Blackburn

  -39·4

  Rochdale

  -38·2

  Liverpool

  -34·6

  1 Unadjusted unemployment.

  The comparison is affected by seasonal influences as well as by the changes in the coverage of the count that have occurred over the period.

  Enterprise Ealing
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs are estimated to have resulted from the efforts of Enterprise Ealing; at what cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Enterprise Ealing estimates that it has created approximately 1,200 new jobs since commencing 238
  operation in September 1986. Since that date Enterprise Ealing has received a total of £54,000 from my Department under the local enterprise agency grant scheme which has levered a larger amount of private sector sponsorship. I understand that Home Office funds have recently been secured to support the post of an ethnic minority business counsellor to work in Southall and Acton.

  Enterprise agencies like Enterprise Ealing can provide a valuable local resource in the changing enterprise support world, especially in co-operation with the training and enterprise councils.

  Textiles and Clothing
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been lost in the textile and clothing industries in each of the last 12 months.

  Mr. Jackson
  Changes in the number of employees in the textile and clothing industries are supplied in the table.

  Employees in Textile and Clothing industries Textiles and Clothing excluding footwear

  (Great Britain)

  Net monthly change (thousands)

  1989

  August

  5·8

  September

  0·2

  October

  -1·1

  November

  1·1

  December

  3·2

  1990

  January

  -0·6

  February

  5·9

  March

  -0·5

  April

  -0·8

  May

  -0·3

  June

  -0·7

  July

  1·4

  August

  -0·8

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Radar Transmitter, St. David's Peninsula
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have recently re-examined the case for the over the horizon radar transmitter at St. David's in Pembrokeshire.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, no. The Government see no reason at present to re-examine the case for the over the horizon radar transmitter at St. David's.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but naturally I am disappointed by it. I had hoped that, in view of the changing world circumstances, the Ministry might have thought again. Does the Minister realise that that installation will be visible from the whole of the coastal path around St. David's Head; that that is a national park; that the entire population of St. David's is up in arms against it; and that apart from the health risk there is a great fear that it will have a destructive effect on tourism which is one of the great industries of that part of the country? Is it too late to ask the Ministry to think again?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, of all our defence commitments, the direct defence of these islands is one that we should never contemplate abandoning. In maintaining it, we need to maintain our ability to provide early warning of any military activity in or above the huge expanse of the Norwegian seas to the north of the United Kingdom. We believe that OTHR can make a substantial contribution to that difficult surveillance task.
As regards the second part of the noble Baroness's question, of course we are sensitive to the objections relating to national parks. We are committed to consulting fully the local planning authority and the Countryside Commission over any significant development within a national park. Military use and tourism are by no means incompatible, as, for instance, at Fylingdales in the north Yorkshire moors national park.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while I do not share the views of those who think that the risk has disappeared from the world or that it is unseemly to have a defence installation near the holy place of St. David's, I am deeply sceptical of the view that it is impossible to consider a location that will do less environmental damage? Will he accept from me, as one who was a local Member of Parliament and lived for a number of years less than a mile from the site, that there is well justified concern at the serious damage that that siting would do to the
1328
beautiful and extremely important environment of the St. David's peninsula, which, as he has reminded us, is part of a national park?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I fully appreciate the local concern upon which my noble friend comments. An environmental impact assessment will be done. That is essentially a technique for ensuring that the likely effects upon the environment of a new development are fully understood and taken into account. By providing a full analysis of the proposal's likely effects, an EIA can help to allay fears created by a lack of information. At the same time, it can help to inform the public of the main issues that the local planning authority will have to consider in reaching a decision on the planning application.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the recess I walked the 200 miles of the Pembrokeshire coastal path in 10 days? I can inform him, without fear of successful contradiction, that St. David's peninsula is one of the most beautiful, magical and holy parts of that extraordinarily beautiful area. Is he further aware that I would willingly walk it again, if he would agree to accompany me, to point out to him a dozen sites in that area which, from an environmental point of view, would be infinitely better as a site for his equipment?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord had such an interesting recess; that he covered 200 miles; and that he is willing to cover it again. Equally, I am aware of the sensitivity of that location and the strength of local feeling about it. I can say categorically that St. David's was selected as a location for the transmitter only after an exhaustive search for suitable sites. In fact, 160 other sites were considered.
Our proposals will be submitted to the local planning authority—in this case the Pembrokeshire coast national park—and will fully address the need for appropriate landscaping to minimise the impact upon the environment. The point is that the distance between the transmitter and the receiver should be on a latitude of between 50 miles and 150 miles. That site was thought to be the only one that fitted those requirements.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, in his categorical reply was the Minister taking into account the fact that last week the American Congress cut out of the Pentagon's budget expenditure for that purpose? If he is so certain that it is necessary, what will he do if that disagreement persists and Congress has its way?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is our understanding that as part of the scrutiny of the United States Government spending proposals for the fiscal year 1991, Congress has requested that the United States Navy should re-examine the requirement to locate the radar in the United Kingdom. The response to that request is a matter for the United States Government. However, we understand that they remain fully committed to the proposal to undertake a joint two-year trial of OTHR in this country.
Baroness White: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that this is purely a bilateral arrangement between the military authorities of Great Britain and those of the United States, and that it has nothing to do with, for example, any NATO commitments that we may have? Does the Minister understand that if he tried his hardest he could not have found a more sensitive site in the whole of Wales for this installation? This is not just a matter of local opposition. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is fully aware of that fact. To put the matter at its lowest, does the Minister recognise that if the Government want to lose the few Conservative seats that they still hold in Wales, this is an excellent way to start that process?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not accept the final point that the noble Baroness made. I must repeat that we are extremely sensitive to all the implications of this matter. As regards the first point that the noble Baroness made on NATO, I must emphasise that this is a trial project. We would not normally expect to seek or to be granted NATO funds for such a purpose. However, the air defence of the United Kingdom region is an important NATO endorsed task. We are confident that the alliance will be interested in the implications of a successful outcome of this trial.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister recognises that the United States Congress does not like this project. He has said that the Government will apply for planning authority through the normal channels. Given that this application will inevitably be opposed, will the Minister give an undertaking to this House on behalf of the Government that if the application is turned down the Government will not override that decision on defence grounds?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, if the project were turned down, any decision that was taken would be entirely a matter for the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Wales.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the Minister accept that although many Members of your Lordships' House are not Welsh they are nevertheless greatly disturbed by this development? Many of us have spent time on that coast and recognise how beautiful it is. We recognise that it should not be disturbed except absolutely as a last resort. Will the Minister please go away and tell his honourable and right honourable friends in the Government that they must think again about this matter because considerable concern is felt by noble Lords in all parties and in all parts of the House, whatever their nationality?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I trust that when the noble Lord told me to go away he meant it metaphorically. I must repeat again that once we have submitted the planning applications we intend to give full public presentations of our proposals. There will be a 16-week statutory limit on that. I assure noble Lords that no construction work will begin before the planning process has been completed.

Housing Account: Subsidy Determination
2.46 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated cost to public funds of the error in drafting of the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy Determination 1989, and what action is being taken in respect of those responsible for the error.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, there have been some very misleading press stories recently, making allegations of error based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the subsidy rules. There is no error of the kind alleged and the drafting of the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy Determination 1989 fulfilled the department's policy intention at that time. The department now considers, however, that the rule in question should have been tougher in certain circumstances. We might save another £2 million to £3 million by that means. We are consulting on the change.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, is it not a fact that if the original order had been drafted as my noble friend now suggests it will be, that would have saved between £2 million and £3 million of public expenditure? Is it not quite clear that the department failed to provide for the case where overspending by local authorities should be counterbalanced by a governmental charge as is now proposed? In view of the fact that £2 million to £3 million of public expenditure is of considerable importance, will my noble friend take this matter back to the department and ask it to do better?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is important to make a distinction between the £2 million to £3 million referred to by my noble friend and the allegations that have been made about £250 million. Those two sets of figures are quite separate and distinct. However, the matter could have been thought through and the point at which the subsidy cut-off was made could have gone on to infinity; in other words, the subsidy could have been phased out altogether. Had that been done when the legislation was implemented, it would have saved £2 million to £3 million. However, speedy action was taken. The situation was spotted very quickly. I am pleased to say that it is proposed that the change will come into effect on 1st April 1991.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I do not wish to condone any mistake where the cost of that mistake has to be borne by the public purse. However, could the mistake have been made as a result of the complexity of the legislation which was being implemented? As we pointed out during the passage of that legislation in your Lordships' House, it is complicated. Is it the case that what happened was more the result of a misunderstanding than of a mistake?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I refute very strongly the suggestion that there was a mistake. We are not talking about a mistake; nor did I concede to my noble

1331
friend that there had been a mistake. When the 1989 Act came into effect some subsidy was left, at whatever level authorities spent. It has subsequently been thought fit that subsidy should be phased out altogether for the period between 1988 and 1990. That was an adjustment of policy and not the correction of a mistake.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am glad to accept from the Minister that there was not a mistake. However, I wonder why the Question was raised.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that what she said was not a mistake was the failure to do what she said will now be done, and that that failure has cost the British taxpayer between £2 million and £3 million? If that is not a mistake I wonder what my noble friend regards as a mistake.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is important to note that at the time the Act was implemented it was felt that some subsidy should be left in the system, at whatever level a local authority spent. It has been determined subsequently in the light of the levels of spending of some local authorities that the subsidy should be phased out altogether. It is that adjustment of policy and not the correction of a mistake with which we are concerned.

Cambodian Conflict
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to bring about an end to the war in Cambodia.
Lord Reay: My Lords, as a Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council we played a full part in negotiating the Five's Framework for a comprehensive political settlement which the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly have endorsed. Although the Cambodian parties have accepted it in its entirety as the basis for settling the Cambodian conflict, civil war continues. We call upon the parties to the conflict to stop the fighting and co-operate to the full in working out the details of a comprehensive political settlement.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that information. However, does he agree that in the absence of a UN Security Council requirement for a cease-fire there is a very real danger that the Khmer Rouge will continue to keep the war going as it is in its interests to prevent the UN peace framework from being put in motion? Will the Minister say what Her Majesty's Government are doing in order to bring about a cease-fire? In view of the appalling poverty in Cambodia, the hundreds of children who are dying each day from preventable diseases, the fact that 80 per cent. of the water is contaminated and the enormous number of amputations carried out daily as a result of injuries caused by minefields, will he also say when Her Majesty's Government will restore bilateral aid to Cambodia?
1332
Will he also say when the UN Development Programme will allow Cambodia to have the 40 million dollars set aside for that purpose?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that a cease-fire is an essential part of a comprehensive political settlement. As I said in my original Answer, we have repeatedly called on all parties in the conflict to stop fighting and co-operate to the full in working out details of such a settlement.
With respect to aid to Cambodia, we have committed £565,000 in support of 12 NGO projects inside Cambodia under the joint funding scheme. We have also given support for the humanitarian needs of the coalition members, excluding the Khmer Rouge, outside Cambodia. We contributed £780,000 to British NGOs and multilateral agencies in 1989–90 and are considering how best to contribute to their activities in the future.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, at the present time is there any sign whatever of a settlement taking place?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the five Permanent Members of the Security Council will continue their work to prepare for detailed discussion of a settlement based on the New York framework. That includes pressure being brought on the Cambodians to settle their differences over the appointment of a chairman to the Supreme National Council. Against that background we hope that the co-ordinating committee of the Paris International Conference on Cambodia will reconvene soon to agree details of the settlement and we hope that that could lead to a plenary session of the Paris International Conference on Cambodia before the end of this year to sign agreements which will lead to such a settlement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we appreciate the acute difficulty of those negotiations and support the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to bring the matter to a conclusion. Can the Minister say whether the Government support the proposal that the proposed Supreme National Council for Cambodia should contain representatives of the Khmer Rouge? As regards the point raised by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs about the appalling suffering of the people of Cambodia, can the Minister say when the UN Development Programme money, which I believe amounts to 40 million dollars, will be released to help the people of Cambodia?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the composition of the Supreme National Council, which was agreed by the Cambodian parties in Jakarta on 10th December, is a matter for those parties to decide in accordance with the New York framework agreement. That agreement specifies that it should be composed of representative individuals with authority among the Cambodian people. Members of that council will not represent any faction or party. Also, in accordance with the framework agreement, they have to be acceptable to each other.
Regarding the question of the United Nations development aid, the planned allocation to Cambodia

1333
for the five-year period will be 41 million dollars but a number of United Nations agencies are active there and we support them.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, regarding support for the Cambodian economy, can the Minister say what trade we have with Cambodia—what exports go to Cambodia from this country and what imports come here?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have with me figures on our trade with Cambodia. However, I can add that we make emergency relief funds available in addition to the funds which I indicated. The comprehensive settlement is likely to be very expensive and we shall be making a substantial financial contribution to it which will probably run into millions of pounds.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that there is no truth in the suggestion in newspaper articles that the SAS has been training Khmer Rouge people?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot comment on that allegation. However, I can say that we have given no assistance of any kind to the Khmer Rouge.

Bird Control Measures: Proposals
2.57 p.m.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have taken to seek an amendment to the EC Birds Directive to ensure the continuing availability of measures to control bird species listed as pests in Schedule 2, Part II, to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have consistently urged the European Commission to bring forward proposals for amending the directive which, without compromising its conservation objectives, would permit member states to control effectively the problems and damage caused by pests such as crows and magpies. We raised the matter in the Agriculture Council only last month. Very recently the Government have learnt that the Commission may intend to come forward with a proposal to address the problem. Any such changes would need the unanimous approval of all member states.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that it will come as a great relief to sheep farmers who suffer from damage caused by black-backed gulls and crows, arable farmers suffering from damage caused by pigeons and those interested in wildlife which may be wiped out by crows and magpies? Will the Minister do all she possibly can to try to have this matter placed on a permanent basis rather than subject to an annual licence?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it will come as a great relief to us all, and to the Government in particular, if we can bring about a change to the directive to deal
1334
with the problem of pest control. I can give my noble friend an absolute assurance that we shall do all we can to press for such changes.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the commissioners and their officers are looking again at the birds directive, and that many representations have been made to them? Can she therefore explain why the Government are so insistent that the order must be made by 1st December this year? If there is no change of direction in Brussels, would it not be preferable to contest the European Commissioners' decision in the European Court rather than introduce a ridiculous, defective and unenforceable licensing system for the control of bird pests?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have absolutely no choice in the matter of conforming with the directive. We have recently received formal notification that we are in breach of the directive. We have to respond to that formal notification and we are doing so. I repeat that we shall do all that we can to make sure that the changes to the directive are brought about. I am assured by much legal advice that we should stand no chance whatever in the European court. Knowing that our chances are somewhat slim, it would not be a good idea to continue in breach. We should use all our energies to bring about a change in the directive.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister accept that if a review of the present lists were accompanied by improved monitoring, the result would be very acceptable to the RSPB? That has long stressed the need for continued monitoring of the species on the list of pests. The RSPB take a sensible view about the need to control certain bird species. However, the necessity to re-examine the list is illustrated by the fact that golden plovers, for example, can be shot by someone without a licence and those birds are now becoming very rare. Whatever happens about the list generally, can she assure the House that there will be continuous monitoring of birds which are either included or excluded?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Wildlife and Countryside Act has served very well in terms of making sure that if we are to kill birds, it will be pests that we kill. Speaking on behalf of the Government, I am the first to say that if we are able to bring about a change in the directive, we shall do so after severe scrutiny of any birds prescribed for the list.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Scotland the wood pigeon is a big pest, but magpies cannot get a living? The wood pigeon does enormous damage all the year round. Wood pigeons can clean out a field of oilseed rape in two nights. Does she agree that if this order is not amended, the Government, along with the Commission, will be stigmatised in most rural areas and constituencies as stark raving mad?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am tempted to say "Caw!" I learn something every day at the Dispatch Box. I am grateful to the noble Lord for improving my education on these matters. We are talking about a

1335
very serious problem. It is not about conservation but about pests. My understanding is that there has been a great increase in the number of magpies, for example, and if we are not allowed to bring about this change and operate sensibly, as we do in this country, we shall have a very serious problem here. That gives urgency to the need for a change.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, does my noble friend agree I that she could usefully bear in mind when encouraging the European Commission to bring forward an amendment that several of the species in Schedule 1 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act are preyed upon by these species which are now to be afforded further protection in Part II of Schedule 2? Is not that in itself a major nonsense?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have now learnt something else. I note what the noble Lord said, and in any representations that we make we shall bear it in mind.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in this country we suffer from a torrent of regulations and directives which constitute an onerous burden on the British public and British business? Does she agree that it is about time that we had a close season on these regulations and directives?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, given that we have spent so much time recently discussing matters in the Chamber, I do not believe that anybody could argue against a European approach to protection of wildlife. That is what we are talking about in this directive. We are full members of the Community and if we believe that there is a nonsense, as we do in this case, we should do what we can and use all our energies to remedy the situation.
3.5 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I must put it to your Lordships that this Question could continue for a very long time indeed. Possibly this is one occasion on which we should resort to a little rough justice. Perhaps I may suggest to the House for once that we end this Question now. We can always return to it on another occasion.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Reay will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the Middle East which will be made in another place. After that, my noble friend Lord Henley will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on social security benefits up-rating.
City of Dundee District Council Order Confirmation Bill

  Zetland Masonic Sick and Widows and Orphans Fund Order Confirmation Bill
  3.6 p.m.
  Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill

  London Docklands Railway Bill
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, these are two Commons Bills that are still passing through that House, which the Commons have agreed to carry over. We are asked to concur. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do concur with the orders made by the Commons set out in their Message of 18th October.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [H.L.]
  Heathrow Express Railway Bill [H.L.]

    Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Australia, and Menley & James, Australia Bill [H.L.]
    The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, these are three Lords Bills which are now in another place, which it has agreed to carry over. I beg to move.
    Moved, That the Commons Message of 18th October be now considered; and that the Promoters of the Bills have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this Session, in order to proceed with the Bills in the next Session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments;
    That such Bills shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bills are the same in every respect as the Bills at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
    That the proceedings on such Bills shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to

    1337
    every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
    That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

London Underground (Victoria) Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, this is a Commons Bill to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading yesterday and which I hope noble Lords will agree to carry over. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with it if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Commons in the next Session, the agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Midland Metro Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, this is a Commons Bill which is also still going through its passage in another place and which the Commons have agreed to carry over. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do concur with the orders made by the Commons set out in their Message of yesterday.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
3.7 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.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I rise with considerable sorrow and only a modicum of anger in regard to this Bill and the way in which this House is asked to consider 300 or so amendments from another place. I find it very easy to be angry with the Government and extremely difficult to be angry with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Indeed, from my point of view as well, I hope, as from that of your Lordships he is the object of sympathy. It is an impossible situation in which this House has been placed.
I do not know to what hour we shall sit but we have here one of the greatest reforms, whether we like the measures or whether we do not, to be made in our courts and the legal profession. I appreciate that there are undertakings which have to be observed and which the noble and learned Lord has observed with regard to the proceedings before your Lordships' House to see that certain amendments were effected in the other place. However, it is impossible for your Lordships' House and for the reputation of your Lordships' House to deal with important legislation of this kind in this way. I can only conclude that there is something rotten in the state—and it is not Denmark.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has raised the matter, and in such a cogent way. Many of the amendments are welcome. Indeed many are in response to points made in your Lordships' House when the Bill was before your Lordships. But it is, first, the sheer bulk of the amendments which is questionable. Secondly, the problem is compounded by continuation of a style of drafting which stands in defiance of the recommendations of the Renton Committee on Preparation of Legislation. Thirdly, in this respect the Bill does not stand alone; nor does this year stand alone. Your Lordships returned one week before the other place resumed. We had to deal with three important Bills and a great mass of other legislation. The notice of business warned almost every day,
"The House may sit late or very late".
"Late" means after 10.30; "very late" means after midnight; and so it has been.
This situation is an annual performance. Last year it occurred during debate on the Children Bill when the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, made a notable contribution. Then the Commons amendments—almost all government amendments, like these—exceeded in length the Bill that was sent by your

1339
Lordships. This year the position is almost as bad. The Bill runs to 130 pages; the Commons amendments run to 99 pages.
It is almost an annual event. Your Lordships are fortunate in having leaders whom we hold in high respect. When we are assured annually that this situation will not recur, we listen readily. However, unfortunately it does recur. It recurs every year except when legislative decks have to be cleared to allow for a possible general election. I do not know how the next Session will stand in that respect. This year has been very bad.
I have referred to the style of drafting. The Renton Committee had a very important memorandum from the then Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk, my noble and learned friend Lord Emslie, and the late Lord Wheatley. They stated that if one tries to cover in a Bill every detail that can be envisaged one is sure to miss some important points and the courts will then be left in great difficulty. They continued, "We, the courts, are used to applying general rules to specific situations. If we were given general rules to apply it would be very much easier". That recommendation was endorsed by the Renton Committee but has been totally disregarded.
That memorandum has not only been disregarded in this Bill. Last year we debated the Children Bill where Commons amendments sponsored by the Government ran to more pages than the Bill. But the matter did not rest there. By the time the present Bill was pat forward it was discovered that more amendments were needed to the Children Bill. A long schedule, Schedule 12, made further amendments. The matter did not rest there. Another four and a half pages of amendments have been made in the Commons to Schedule 12 to this Bill, amending the Children Bill.
I venture therefore to ask this question. What will be done to relieve the burden of legislation on Parliament and in particular on your Lordships' House in the autumn? What will be done to ensure that the drafting is more in accordance with what was recommended by the Renton Committee?
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what the noble and learned Lord said about the method and style of drafting. However, it is only right to place on record that nearly all of the Commons amendments result from criticisms and representations made by your Lordships when the Bill was before us and further representations made in another place. The Government were very responsive to the representations made in another place. However much one may regret the style of drafting and the mass of amendments to be considered, it is only fair to record on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and others in the Government who have co-operated with him that in substance we shall welcome nearly all the amendments. The amendments to the amendments are of a very limited character, which shows that for the most part we should be able to welcome them.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, from these Benches I support what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said by way of protest. In referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, it is only right that one should point out that throughout the proceedings in this House protests were made from all sides as to the scope of the Bill. It was argued that Part I should have formed part of a quite different Bill and should not have been included in the current Bill.
I note that more than 90 amendments refer to Part II of the Bill. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will agree that because of the extraordinary complexity and bureaucratic nature of the mechanism which has been set up in the Bill to govern the supply of legal services, this enormous number of amendments was absolutely inevitable from the beginning. To that extent, although we are grateful for the changes that have been made, it must be said that the Government have brought this situation upon themselves.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am surprised at the reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Despite the number of amendments involved, is he suggesting that the other place is not entitled to do what it considers right to legislation that is published in its name as well as ours? To object to the length of time involved in doing what is right is splitting hairs in a way that is not helpful to general procedures.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, on behalf of the Government I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the Marshalled List to be considered by your Lordships' House is a weighty document. If the House sits particularly late, I shall regret that as much as anybody. However, with respect to the noble Lord, I disagree that there is, as he said, something rotten in the state of Denmark. My noble friend Lord Renton put his finger on the point. Many of the amendments to be considered today by your Lordships are in response to points that were made in your Lordships' House. Quite rightly, your Lordships would be the first to point out if the Government had not endeavoured so to respond.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, will forgive me if I do not follow them down the roads of discussion about parliamentary drafting or the scope of the Bill, enormously important and relevant though both subjects are.
I wish to make two quick points. This is not a Bill which has just arrived from the Commons. Your Lordships have had time to think about what the Commons has done because the Bill left there at the end of July. Secondly, realising the weight upon your Lordships' House, my noble and learned friend characteristically sent out a massive briefing on a personal basis to all noble Lords who have been involved in the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AMENDMENTS AND MOTION TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS COMMONS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 1, page 2, line 22, at end insert:
'(3A) An order under subsection (1) (b), (e) or (g) may specify one or more particular county courts in relation to the proceedings so specified.
(3B) Any jurisdiction exercisable by a county court, under any provision made by virtue of subsection (3A), shall be exercisable throughout England and Wales.
(3C) Rules of court may provide for a matter—

(a) which is pending in one county court; and

(b) over which that court has jurisdiction under any provision made by virtue of subsection (3A),

K2 be heard and determined wholly or partly in another county court which also has jurisdiction in that matter under any such provision.'.
2 Page 3, line 4, leave out 'High Court' and insert 'Supreme Court'.
3 Clause 2, page 5, line 27, after 'any' insert 'judge, district judge or'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 en bloc. The amendments concern the first two clauses in the Bill, which deal with the allocation of business between the High Court and county courts, and the transfer of proceedings between courts.
Amendment No. 1 would enable me, when conferring jurisdiction in a particular area of law on the county courts under subsection (1) of Clause 1, to choose one or more county courts which should exercise that jurisdiction rather than conferring it upon all county courts. This follows an undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, during Report stage to consider whether the Bill in its present form would allow specialist jurisdiction to be conferred upon particular county courts. Your Lordships will know that we have done that in relation to patent jurisdiction in respect of a county court.
Amendment No. 2 concerns subsection (9) of Clause 1, which presently requires me to report to Parliament annually about the business of the High Court and the county courts. The amendment substitutes for the reference to the High Court a reference to the Supreme Court, thus including the Court of Appeal and the Crown Court as well as the High Court. These courts are all part of the court service for which I have responsibility and are already covered in my annual report on the court service. It is appropriate that the report made to Parliament should deal with the court service as a whole. Your Lordships will have seen my report since we last discussed this matter.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to clarify Clause 2(4) to make it clear that judicial officers, judges or district judges may make an order for transfer to another county court in the course of some other action on the case.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, these amendments are most welcome.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
4 Clause 4, page 6, line 35, after legal' insert 'or other'.
5 Page 6, line 41, at end insert:
'(5A) In any proceedings mentioned in subsection (I), the court may disallow, or (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet, the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with rules of court.
(5B) In subsection (5A), "wasted costs" means any costs incurred by a party—

(a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative; or

(b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay.'.

6 Page 7, line 26, after 'legal' insert 'or other'.
7 Page 7, line 29, at end insert:
'(2) In section 52 of that Act (costs in Crown Court) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
"(2A) Subsection (5A) of section 5i applies in relation to any civil proceedings in the Crown Court as it applies in relation to any proceedings mentioned in subsection (1) of that section".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 7 en bloc. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 and 159.
The amendments establish in primary legislation an identical power and identical test for its exercise in each court whereby legal and other representatives may be ordered to compensate others for costs resulting from the representative's fault. In so doing, the amendments clear up existing confusion in the law about the applicable test in such cases in the Supreme Court. Following earlier debate in this House the Government are in no doubt that the applicable test ought to be one of simple negligence and that the test needs to be clearly established in primary legislation. In plain terms, justice surely demands that all the courts have power to shift the loss from an innocent party to the representative whose negligence has caused it.
Amendment No. 5 establishes the simple negligence test for the High Court and the Court of Appeal Civil Division as a gloss on the general costs power in Section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Amendment No. 7 achieves the same result for civil cases in the Crown Court through Section 52 of the same Act. Amendment No. 154 brings Clause 86 into line for the magistrates' civil jurisdiction and Amendment No. 153 does the same for criminal proceedings in the Crown Court and magistrates' courts by means of a new section in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. During debate on Report in another place the Government accepted an amendment to provide an appeal from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal. Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 155 and 157 apply the power to representatives who are not lawyers.
Amendment No. 159 and subsection (2) of Amendment No. 153 provide the important new

1343
safeguard of an appeal from the magistrates to the Crown Court. Amendments Nos. 156 and 158 are purely consequential on the other amendments.
Finally, I should be clear about the relationship between these amendments and the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Wherever costs are incurred through the fault of a representative, the power which is the subject of these amendments will be available. It will not be affected in any way by the inherent disciplinary power of the Supreme Court. Conversely, the latter remains intact and the negligence test applicable under these amendments in no way affects any stricter test applying under the inherent jurisdiction.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 7.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will appreciate that in the midst of subsection (5B) of Amendment No. 5 there appears the word "unreasonable". It is necessary to say a few words about that and I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord to confirm my view. It is important to realise that this is a provision in regard to wasted costs which can be made against a professional man, a solicitor. The word "unreasonable" needs a little attention.
It may be that as regards one's opponent in a case one may be deemed to be unreasonable and the court may believe that to be so. However, if there is no breach of any rule a professional man handling the case of his client has no duty whatever to his opponent except to act in accordance with the normal laws of professional etiquette and in accordance with the rules of court. That should be made clear so that judicially— I say this with deep respect—no doubt exists as to the meaning of the word "unreasonable".
I wish to make one other point. There is an appeal procedure from the Crown Court where such an order has been made. Your Lordships will appreciate that if a lawyer has such an order made by a court it is equal to a stern disciplinary rebuke which affects his reputation. Therefore, it is absolutely correct that there should be a right of appeal. However, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice pointed out in recent cases, when the appeal is successful it is not possible for the Court of Appeal to award costs to the appellant out of common funds.
That appears to me to be entirely wrong. The professional man has appealed in order to save his reputation. He has succeeded and he is left to bear the costs. That is not analogous with the ordinary case where one says, "There was a judicial error and there it is. You cannot expect the state to pay for judicial errors when an appeal is successful. You can expect the other party in a civil appeal to have to pay them but not in the kind of case to which I have referred".
I cannot, and do not intend to, move an amend rent relating to that today but I hope that, in confirming my view about the word "unreasonable", the noble and learned Lord will also consider for the future the right of the successful appellant in these circumstances to have his costs paid by the state.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is becoming unreasonably excited about the inclusion of the word "unreasonable", bearing in mind that in the Commons amendment it is sandwiched between the words "any improper" and "or negligent act or omission". I believe that only exceptionally unreasonable circumstances would apply in this case. That would be something which the courts could handle very easily.
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to my noble friend for their comments on this amendment. The standard to be applied by the court in this matter will be the standard of the legal adviser for the party in question. Merely because the other side does not like it will not mean that the conduct is unreasonable. It is conduct which is unreasonable viewed from the standpoint of a legal representative in the position of the person whose conduct is in question. The courts know how to judge standards of reasonableness and I should have thought that the factors mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would be the principal factors in deciding that.
As regards costs from public funds, as I see it this is a matter not of discipline—I have mentioned that already: this is a matter of dealing with what are described as wasted costs. I believe that the rule is and should be that initial decisions are the responsibility of the judiciary and are to be carefully taken. If a decision is successfully appealed, the costs must be dealt with in accordance with the powers of the court as between parties. I hope that your Lordships will agree to these amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
8 Clause 5, page 7, line 34, leave out 'lead' and insert `adduce'.
9 Page 7, line 39, leave out 'leading' and insert 'adducing'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 en bloc. I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 and Amendment No. 27. With the exception of Amendment No. 16, these are drafting amendments.
Amendments Nos 8 and 9 concern Clause 5 (witness statements). In the other place it was suggested that the word "adducing" should replace the word "leading" which appears in Clause 5 in relation to evidence, and which might be ambiguous in view of the common meaning of the term "leading evidence". The point was referred to the draftsman, who agreed that the substitution was wise.
Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 concern Clause 9 (representation in certain county court proceedings). Amendment No. 14 is a drafting addition designed to make it clear that the order removing any restriction on rights of audience for particular classes of county court proceedings may be limited in its application to particular sub-classes. My intention has always been that, for example, an order deregulating rights of audience in relation to proceedings for debt under

1345
subsection (2)(a) should be capable of being limited so that it applies only to debts below a certain sum. This is particularly necessary in view of my plans to use powers under Clause 1 to abolish the county court limit, which could result in very substantial cases being heard in the county courts.
Amendment No. 15 simply deletes paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 9(3) which, as a result of other consequential amendments, serve no further purpose.
Amendment No. 16 is a substantive amendment which allows county court judges to disqualify persons who have misled the court, or otherwise demonstrated that they are unsuitable to exercise rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation, from taking advantage of any deregulation under Clause 9. The purpose of this amendment is to meet the anxieties expressed in this House that the clause did not adequately protect litigants in small county court cases against people who misuse the new right to offer their services as lay representatives. That was an anxiety expressed by, among others, my noble and learned friends the Master of the Rolls and Lord Ackner.
Clause 9 allows the Lord Chancellor to remove any restriction whatever on rights of audience in various specified classes of case in the county courts—principally debt, housing and small claims. This follows a recommendation of the Civil Justice Review.
The purpose of this clause is to allow litigants the freedom to choose the representative of their choice. It is not my intention here to set any standards of competence but to make it possible to disqualify people who have demonstrated that they are unsuitable to exercise these rights by having misled the court or otherwise misused their rights.
Amendment No. 27 alters the drafting of Section 75(3)(d) of the County Courts Act 1984, which deals with the power of the county court rules to prescribe cases in which functions may be allocated to judges, registrars and other officers.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 en bloc —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
10 Clause 7, page 8, line 16, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.
11 Page 8, line 20, at end insert:
'(1 B) Any enactment which authorises leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal being given by a single judge, or by a court consisting of two judges, shall have effect subject to any provision which—

(a) is made by Rules of the Supreme Court; and

(b) in such classes of case as may be prescribed by the rules, requires leave to be given by such greater number of judges (not exceeding three) as may be so specified.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 en bloc. This is an important matter which again follows on discussions in your Lordships' House. The purpose of these amendments is to meet anxieties expressed in this House and the other place that the requirement to
1346
apply for leave would involve a risk of injustice, particularly in cases where the liberty of the subject is at stake.
On Report I suggested that that risk could be eliminated in practice by requiring applications for leave in certain classes of case, such as those involving the liberty of the subject, to be heard by three judges —the same number as would sit to hear a full hearing. These amendments empower the rules of court to impose such a requirement in appropriate classes of case.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I believe that the spirit of this amendment will commend itself to the whole House. However, there is a very dangerous precedent being set and I feel it my duty to call the attention of the House to it.
The right of appeal to the Court of Appeal or, indeed, any right of appeal, is very much a sacred matter which should be dealt with by Parliament. For the first time as far as I know—and the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but even if there is a precedent it is a bad precedent—we are here saying that the Rules Committee can legislate for the number of judges who might constitute a proper Court of Appeal in certain cases. That is a bad precedent because I and my colleagues in the profession believe it should be a matter for Parliament and dealt with by primary legislation and not as is envisaged in this amendment by the Rules Committee. That is the comment which I feel it is proper for me to make to your Lordships' House. However, I do not intend to resist the Commons amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, the present position is that where leave to appeal is applied for to the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal, so far as statute law and Parliament are concerned, in every case it would be dealt with by a single Lord Justice sitting by himself. Furthermore, his decision is final.
We have domestically—if that is the right word—made some exceptions to that and on occasion applications for leave to appeal are dealt with by courts consisting of two or three Lord Justices. However, the purpose of this amendment is to relieve anxieties such as those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, by providing in terms in what categories of cases such applications shall be heard by more than a single Lord Justice, which represents the present law of Parliament.
Therefore, it is not a case of Parliament delegating to the Rules Committee a power in any way to restrict the rights of the litigant. If one were to stand it on its head and be a little inaccurate, it is giving the Rules Committee the power to restrict the freedom of action of the judges.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say that the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls, as always, has answered an argument with great ability. But it was not the

1347
amendment to which I was objecting—I said I would not oppose it—it was the precedent by which the Rules Committee was given some jurisdiction over the numbers of judges of the Court of Appeal, whether increasing the numbers or otherwise. That was the point I wished to draw to the attention of the House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls pointed out, the amendment concerns leave to appeal. As I understand it at the moment that is at large for the Court of Appeal to decide. It is therefore a step in the direction in which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes to go; to provide power to the Rules Committee to vary the numbers of judges in specific cases. It is a response to what was said. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wished to put the position on record. It is more in relation to the material already in the Bill and not covered by the amendment that the matter arises. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is content that the amendment should go through.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Middle East
3.40 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the Middle East. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement about developments in the Middle East since the emergency debate on 6th and 7th September.
"Then, the House endorsed the Government's policy, which is that of the entire international community. Saddam Hussein must leave Kuwait and the legitimate government must be restored. Iraq must release our hostages.
"Since the House met, at the United Nations we have applied growing pressure to Iraq. Negotiations are now under way in New York for a further resolution, to hold Iraq liable to pay compensation for the damage resulting from its actions, including the maltreatment of foreign nationals and property.
"Sanctions have been enforced, in particular by the effective blockade by allied ships now operating in the area. Over 100 ships from twelve countries are on constant patrol enforcing the embargo. The Royal Navy has challenged over 1,100 vessels and hay taken part in 10 boarding operations. The House will wish to pay tribute to the courage and professionalism of the Royal Navy.
"The United Nations will continue to tighten the screw of sanctions. We cannot relax our determination to ensure Saddam Hussein's complete and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait. Since the House met, there have been many more examples of his tyranny. All the evidence suggests that, far from being under strict orders to behave with discipline in Kuwait, Iraq's soldiers have been
1348
allowed complete licence. The House will be aware that many Kuwaitis who have been able to escape their occupied country have testified to wanton destruction of property and to cruel and inhuman treatment of Kuwaiti citizens, including several murders carried out in front of wives and children, rape and torture. I remind the Iraqis once again that at all levels of authority, military or civilian, they are personally responsible under the Geneva Convention for illegal acts committed as occupiers in Kuwait.
"In these circumstances, one of our first concerns has been the welfare of the 800 British people still in Iraq, and of the remaining substantial British community in Kuwait. In Kuwait, our Embassy, one of the last to stay open, is now staffed by the Ambassador and one colleague. They will continue, through the warden system, to help Britons in Kuwait as long as is physically and practically possible.
"We welcome the release of British nationals in response to the humanitarian appeal by my right honourable friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. But I find it grisly and repulsive that the Iraqis should set about deciding who is so sick and so old that they should be released from a position in which no human being should ever have been placed and in which hundreds still remain. All our nationals—all foreign nationals—should be allowed to leave Iraq. I admire the courage of those detained or in hiding in Iraq and Kuwait and of their families here. Our Embassies have helped organise the evacuation of over 900 women and children and we are doing what we can to ensure that those who remain in Iraq have the money and comforts they need.
"The situation is particularly agonising for families here at home. We are working closely with the Gulf Support Group to provide as much help and information as we can. We cannot work miracles. But my staff and that of the Embassy in Baghdad are working round the clock on these problems. Where complaints have been made, we are investigating them urgently. Where there is room for improvement, we are making those improvements as quickly as we can.
"We should not forget that the plight of our hostages is caused by Saddam Hussein. It is he who is playing cat and mouse with them. The British Government and this Parliament cannot be blackmailed.
"The United States and Britain moved fast immediately after the invasion of Kuwait to protect Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries from the threat of attack. Since then, a unique coalition of forces from 25 countries has been established in the Gulf. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 14th September the deployment of the 7th Armoured Brigade (the Desert Rats) and of more Tornado aircraft. This will bring the total number of British forces committed to the Gulf to some 16,000.
"Saddam Hussein will seek to cling on to the country which he has acquired by force or perhaps to negotiate his way out so that he can claim some gain from his aggression. He has tried to sow disunity among the coalition ranged against him, with a variety of bogus peace plans, delaying tactics and smokescreens. One of these is his attempt to present himself as the champion of the Palestinian cause. In fact, the Palestinian cause has been set back by Iraq's aggression and the credibility of the PLO has been damaged by their ambivalent response to it.
"Some have suggested that Saddam Hussein should be persuaded to withdraw from Kuwait in exchange for an international conference on the Middle East. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the countries of the Gulf and the government of Kuwait have all firmly rejected that suggestion. Iraq's withdrawal must be complete and unconditional. Members of this House and the British Government have long argued the urgent need to find a lasting settlement in the Middle East. Once Iraq is out of Kuwait, we must return to this issue. The policy of the British Government is clear and is the one I restated during my recent visit; that is, self-determination for the Palestinian people and the right of Israel to live in peace behind secure borders.
"The killing of 21 Palestinians on the Dome of the Rock or Temple Mount on 8th October and the latest murder of Israelis underlines the tragedy of the Arab/Israel dispute. The cycle of violence is repeating itself. I hope the government of Israel may yet agree to accept the UN Secretary General's mission to investigate those killings. To do otherwise will risk diverting the Security Council from its main task—getting Iraq out of Kuwait—and will give Saddam Hussein a cause which he will exploit ruthlessly.
"Mr. Speaker, our aim remains Iraq's complete withdrawal from Kuwait and the restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government. At a meeting of the Kuwaiti ruling family and their people in Jedda earlier this month, there was an impressive display of the loyalty of all Kuwaitis and of the unity which the crisis has produced. The Kuwaitis have announced their intention to implement in full the 1962 democratic constitution when the legitimate government is restored. Many will welcome that decision, which was taken freely by Kuwaitis. In the meantime, the pressures on Saddam Hussein remain diplomatic isolation, the economic blockade and the threat of forcible expulsion from Kuwait. Saddam Hussein's choice is simple: retreat or defeat. The Government, and doubtless this House, strongly hope that the restoration of Kuwait will be achieved without further bloodshed. But the daily destruction of Kuwait and the murder of its people continue. We are tightening the screw of peaceful pressures but we cannot shirk our part in the alternative course if that course finally becomes necessary."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. In the Statement the Foreign Secretary refers to the objectives of the United Nations laid down in the Security Council Resolutions 661, 665 and 670. It speaks of the effective blockade now in operation.
We join the right honourable gentleman in paying tribute to the Royal Navy and our other forces now stationed in the Middle East. However, can the Minister go a step further and say what evidence there is of that effectiveness? Can he confirm that there have been no serious breaches of the sea, land and air blockades? That is a point of some importance. We see a great deal on television, with some evidence that there is no lack of foodstuffs in Iraq. To what extent is that true, or is that propaganda? We know that Saddam Hussein is an expert propagandist.
Can the Minister give an estimate of how long the Government consider it will take for the sanctions to force the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait? In the Statement, the Foreign Secretary referred to continuing to tighten the screw. What does that mean? Is any further or different action from that now taking place proposed for our forces or the United Nations forces?
We join with the Secretary of State in condemning the Iraqi troops who are guilty of barbaric acts of cruelty towards the innocent population of Kuwait. If justice is to mean anything in the international community then Saddam Hussein must answer to that at some stage.
In regard to Israel and the occupied territories, does the noble Lord agree that the recent Temple Mount shootings and the present disturbances threaten to deflect attention from the main cause of the current crisis in the Middle East; namely, the unprovoked aggression by Saddam Hussein? Further, while appreciating the extreme delicacy of the situation in Israel and throughout the Middle East as a whole, is the noble Lord able to tell the House when the Foreign Secretary will be able to meet Palestinian representatives? Can the Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government have made representations to the Israeli government on the present curfew that is being enforced in the occupied territories?
The House should be grateful to Mr. Heath for his personal efforts to secure the release of 33 British hostages who have been held in Iraq. While not losing sight of the fact that the retention of hostages by the Iraqis is a flagrant violation of international law and an act of historic cruelty, against that background can the noble Lord tell the House how many more hostages he expects to be released? Can he also inform us of what further steps the Government are taking? I believe that Mr. Heath referred to possible constitutional measures, but what he was thinking of I do not know. Are the Government prepared to take any other steps to secure the release of the remaining hostages?

1351
Finally, in the Statement the Foreign Secretary expresses the hope that the restoration of Kuwait will be achieved without further bloodshed. We echo that hope and will support all steps taken to that end.
Lori Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for repeating the Statement and I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in looking forward to the answers to the questions that he has put to the Minister.
We on these Benches agree with the Statement in so far as we agree that the pressure of sanctions must be maintained. We also associate ourselves with the tribute paid in the Statement, and by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, to the work of our armed forces in that area. We also agree that the Government must maintain pressure in connection with the 800 British nationals still in Iraq. I pay tribute to the efforts made by Mr. Heath to secure the release of all too few of them.
The aim of the Government's policy—and we are in total agreement with it—must be to secure the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. There are, of course, many other issues which need to be discussed, but a Statement is hardly the right occasion on which to raise them. However, I hope that the debate on the Queen's Speech will provide that opportunity and that the subject can be debated more fully.
I must confess that one aspect of the Statement surprises me. When we were told that the Statement was to be made I drew the conclusion that it would be about the Foreign Secretary's visit, on why he went, what he expected to achieve and what in fact was the outcome. The Statement covers none of those aspects. That is rather odd. The Foreign Secretary has made an important visit to the Middle East—a very important visit— and I am sure that it was not his fault that it was hardly one of the most successful diplomatic ventures in which he has been engaged. If a Statement is made about the Middle East within a week of such a visit, surely some reference should have been made to that visit. For example, the Statement says:
"The policy of the British Government is clear and is the one I restated during my recent visit; that is, self-determination for the Palestinian people and the right of Israel to live in peace behind secure borders".
Your Lordships know that this was a critical matter during the course of the Foreign Secretary's visit. As a result of a statement which he made, which he says was misreported, his meeting with the Palestinians was cancelled. I should have expected to hear the contents of the statement he had intended to convey and what the outcome has been as a result of the misreporting.
I am most grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I look forward to hearing his answers to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, but I must register my surprise that a Statement made after such an important visit should be so uncommunicative.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for his reception of the Statement and also for much, though not all, of what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, had to say.
1352
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked what information the Government have on sanctions and the breaching of sanctions. Our monitoring shows that some limited supplies are still getting through. We are following up all reports of breaches either bilaterally in the capitals or through the United Nations. We do not believe that there is systematic breaching of sanctions by any government, but the noble Lord will appreciate that it is virtually impossible to prevent all breaches of the sanctions. The key point is that Iraq is exceptionally vulnerable to sanctions and that the current embargo is exceptionally tight. There is no question but that it is making life extremely difficult for the Iraqis and that it is bringing home to Saddam Hussein the extent of his international isolation.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also asked about the effect of sanctions. I can say that all the outlets for oil are now effectively blocked. Neighbouring countries—Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Jordan—have all announced that they are implementing sanctions. That is the information I have for the noble Lord and for the House on that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also referred to Israel and the Israeli/Arab conflict. Our concerns about the situation in Israel have been made clear to the Israeli Government and we hope that they will receive the United Nations mission as called for in Security Council Resolution 672.
The noble Lord also asked about the hostages. There is intense international pressure on Iraq to allow all foreign nationals who wish to do so to leave the country. We have appealed frequently and vigorously to the Iraqi authorities in Baghdad and to the Iraqi ambassador in London for the release of all British nationals.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that he was surprised about the nature of the Statement and complained that it is not very informative. On the contrary, it is an extensive Statement giving a considerable amount of information. It explains why it was made; namely, to bring the House up to date since we had the emergency debate in September on the Middle East generally.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, was not my noble friend right to draw attention to the fact that the Statement does not cover the very important but disappointing events that followed a remark made by the Foreign Secretary to some Knesset members when he visited Israel? The remark implied, rightly or wrongly, that the Government were antipathetic to the idea of a Palestinian state. Can the noble Lord clarify that? He said that the Government support self-determination for the Palestinians. That surely must mean that, when the Palestinians are free to decide, if they decide on a independent state, then the British Government believe that they have a right to do so. Is that not the case? Can the Minister say how it came about that the Foreign Secretary was misunderstood as being antipathetic to the idea of an independent Palestinian state?
Lord Reay: My Lords, our position on this matter has not changed. It is still one of belief in self-determination.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the question which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has just put? In the Statement the Foreign Secretary says that he made it plain that it was the continued policy of Her Majesty's Government to support self-determination for the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Does that mean that the British Government do or do not support the concept of a separate Palestinian state? Further to that point, I understand that the luncheon for the Foreign Secretary and the Palestinian representatives was cancelled because of what the Foreign Secretary held to be a misrepresentation of what he had said at a meeting with a number of Israelis. That interpretation was broadcast on Israeli television at nine o'clock in the evening before the day of the luncheon. Can the Minister say what the British diplomats in Tel Aviv and the Foreign Secretary's entourage were doing if they did not bring that statement to the notice of the Foreign Secretary so that he could contradict it if he had been falsely reported? I ask the Minister to answer those two questions. Does self-determination include the right to a separate Palestinian state? What were the details concerning the cancellation of the luncheon with the Palestinian representatives?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we believe that there has to be a freely-negotiated settlement. Only by that means is there a route to Israeli security and the satisfaction of Palestinian aspirations. We must first get Iraq out of Kuwait; then we can return to the peace process. We believe that is the right procedure.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, can the Minister give some further elucidation on the position in Jordan? What is the latest position concerning refugees coming out of Iraq? Can the Minister say what the conditions are in the camps at the moment? Do the Government foresee a further flood of refugees in the near future? Further, is the noble Lord aware that the happenings in Israel and the stopping of Palestinians going about their lawful occasions and going to work, will put even greater economic pressure on the Palestinian community there which is already suffering because of the loss of remittances from Iraq? Can the Minister say what can be done about that and what pressures have been put on the Israeli Government for them to understand that situation?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the vast majority of refugees in Jordan have now been returned to the home nations. Apart from that a considerable amount of assistance is being made available to them through various international organisations in which we play our full part.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there appears to be a growing divergence at least in atmosphere between some of the countries in the area and the United States and Great Britain concerning the issue of whether Saddam Hussein should be made to disgorge Kuwait through the process of negotiation or whether we should merely stand firm and pat on the issue of seeing whether sanctions work and, if
1354
necessary, use force? Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are satisfied that the alliance, so painstakingly and successfully set up after the invasion, is still holding firm? Can the Minister further say whether the basic attitude of all the countries in that alliance still remains the same? I am sure that he will appreciate that if there are divergences of opinion we should consider them very seriously indeed.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I repeat that our objective, which is shared with the United Nations, the United States, our European friends and allies and most of the Arab states, is to secure the complete and unconditional withdrawal of Iraq. We do not believe that there is anything to negotiate about. The international community has made perfectly clear its requirement that Iraq should comply with the Security Council resolutions. We have seen remarkable determination and purpose in the role of the United Nations. It has responded with unprecedented solidarity and vigour to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. We fervently believe that that will continue.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wonder whether—
Noble Lords: Lord Callaghan!
Lord Callaghan: My Lords, as I understand it, the Government's belief and hope—and I believe it is also the belief and hope of all of us—is that sanctions will be sufficient in the end to compel the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein without war. I hope that we all trust that that will be so. In those circumstances, will the Minister convey to all his Cabinet colleagues that it is of supreme importance that the British and American public understand that sanctions will not work in the short run? I trust that that is a viable policy and will produce the required results. If that is so, then that policy must be given a long time to work. We cannot expect to produce a withdrawal within a short period of time. If that policy does not work then we shall be faced with some very difficult questions.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the House will wish to ponder carefully the words of the noble Lord. We strongly hope, as I said in my original Statement, that the restoration of Kuwait will be achieved without further bloodshed.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. He will doubtless be as surprised as I am at his popularity on the Government Back-Benches. It has not always been the case. Will the Minister now answer the question I put to him concerning the situation in the occupied territories?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not have any further information to add to what I said regarding the situation in the occupied territories. I repeat that we hope that Israel will agree to receive the United Nations' mission.
Lord Morris: My Lords, we bear in mind the very wise remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, as to the general hope that sanctions will work. Have Her Majesty's Government worked out how much this crisis costs per diem as it continues? Can the Minister say how much it is costing the Western world each day?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot put a figure on our contribution to the costs of the Western effort. I can assure the noble Lord that we are carrying our full share of the burden.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, following on the question asked by my noble friend Lord Callaghan, has the Minister seen reports that it is estimated that Iraq will be able to withstand sanctions for as long as 14 months? Has he also seen other reports that Iraq is now capable of producing not only chemical weapons, but also biological ones? In addition, Iraq may well have the ability to deliver such weapons. Is it not a fact that as well as causing strains within the alliance, the longer the crisis continues the greaten the length of time that will be given to Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis further to develop biological and chemical weapons to the detriment of the alliance?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we have no evidence of Iraq having, usable biological weapons.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I wish to press the noble Lord on the very disappointing answer he gave on the question of the Government's attitude to self-determination for the Palestinians. From that answer it follows clearly that the Government believe that the Palestinians' right to self-determination is qualified. It is qualified by the noble Lord stating that their right to an independent state is subject to agreement between the parties concerned. That is the only possible interpretation of the answers he has given. In effect therefore the state is subject to an Israeli veto. That is a serious falling back by the Government on previous policy statements.
Lord Reay: My Lords, there has been no falling back by the Government on previous statements. I can assure the noble Lord that our policy remains unchanged.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, further to that point, surely the Minister should say either that self-determination includes the formation of a Palestinian state if the Palestinians so desire, or else that 11e does not know the answer, that he will find it and will then write to us.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have already given the answer. We believe in self-determination on the basis of a United Nations Security Council resolution.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, am I right in supposing that the West Bank is a piece of Jordan? What my noble friends propose is that a piece of Jordan should be given away to somebody else. Has not Jordan quite enough trouble on its plate at the moment without our trying to add to it?
Lord Reay: My Lords, that may or may not be so. Self-determination may or may not result in an independent Palestinian state. That is the Government's view.
Lard Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is not this attempt to move the emphasis of this Statement to the Palestinian question playing Saddam Hussein's propaganda game? That is what he is trying to do. I do not think that we in this House should help him by moving in that directon.
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right. This is a distraction from our primary purpose and primary goal today, which is to get Iraq out of Kuwait.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case that the Statement is headed "Statement on the Middle East"? Is it not further the case that the usual channels were told that there was to be a Statement on the Middle East and not just a Statement on Kuwait?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not think anyone was complaining about the noble Lord's right to ask questions on these other matters. Neverthless, the primary goal today is to see that Iraq leaves Kuwait; and to attend to other matters is a distraction from that goal.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is it not a fact that the PLO is giving support to Iraq? It should be condemned for that; and, likewise, Israel should receive the United Nations mission. What are the Government doing to make the Israelis understand that they will be firm about Israel's right to exist? They should not give too much sympathy to the PLO.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the original Statement included a reference to Israel's right to exist within secure boundaries. In our view it is vital that the PLO should stick to the path of moderation which it agreed at Algiers in 1988. Its rejection of terrorism should remain unequivocal.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
4.15 p.m.
Consideration of amendments and Motion to be moved on consideration of Commons amendments resumed.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
12 After Clause 8, insert the following clause:
Allocation of family proceedings which are within the jurisdiction of county courts
'.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may, with the concurrence of the President of the Family Division, give directions that, in such circumstances as may be specified—

(a) any family proceedings which are within the jurisdiction of county courts; or

(b) any specified description of such proceedings, shall be allocated to specified judges or to specified descriptions of judge.

(2) Any such direction shall have effect regardless of any rules of court.
(3) Where any directions have been given under this section allocating any proceedings to specified judges, the validity of anything done by a judge in, or in relation to, the proceedings shall not be called into question by reason only of the fact that he was not a specified judge.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1) "county court" includes the principal registry of the Family Division of the High Court in so far as it is treated as a county court.
(5) In this section—

"family proceedings" has the same meaning as in the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and also includes any other proceedings which are family proceedings for the purposes of the Children Act 1989;

"judge" means any person who—

(a) is capable of sitting as a judge for a county court district;

(b) is a district judge, an assistant district judge or a deputy district judge; or

(c) is a district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division of the High Court; and

1357
"specified" means specified in the directions.'.
13 After Clause 8, insert the following clause:
Family proceedings in magistrates' courts and related matters
'.—(1) In this section "family proceedings" has the meaning given by section 65(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
(2) For the purpose of giving effect to any enactment mentioned in that section, rules made under section 144 of that Act may make, in relation to any family proceedings, any provision which—

(a) falls within subsection (2) of section 93 of the Children Act 1989 (rules of court); and

(b) may be made in relation to relevant proceedings under section 93 of the Act of 1989.

(3) In section 35 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (composition of committee of magistrates for inner London area), in subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (b) for the words "three members of the juvenile court panel" there shall be substituted "one member of the juvenile court panel"; and

(b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(bb) two members chosen, in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made for the purposes of this subsection, from any family panel or combined family panel for the inner London area".

(4) At the end of that section there shall be added the following subsection—
"(7) No rules shall be made under subsection (3) (bb) above except on the advice of, or after consultation with, the rule committee established under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980."
(5) In section 37(1) (a) of that Act (justices' clerks) after the words "juvenile courts" there shall be inserted "and family proceedings courts".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. I shall speak at the same time to Commons Amendments Nos. 161, 162, 217 to 226, 274, 283, 287 and 300 to 303.
These amendments are concerned with the Children Act. They are intended to assist the Children Act to deliver its aims and objectives more fully in all family proceedings. The new clause at Amendment No. 12 enables the Lord Chancellor to make directions about the allocation of family proceedings in county courts. The directions will fall into two parts. First, directions will be made allocating a particular type of proceedings to a particular level of judge. The new clause will enable the Lord Chancellor to give a comprehensive direction covering all family business and to ensure that particularly sensitive proceedings, such as care cases, are heard by judiciary of sufficient standing.
Secondly, directions will be made allocating a particular type of proceedings to a specific individual judge. The effect will be to create a nominated group of circuit judges and district judges who will specialise in specific types of family work in the county courts. The selection of the specialist judges will be a matter for the Lord Chancellor on the advice and with the concurrence of the President of the Family Division.
The new clause at Amendment No. 13 extends the rule-making provision in Section 93 of the Children Act 1989 to cover all family proceedings. This will ensure that children cases and other family proceedings cases brought in the magistrates' courts under the Children Act will be subject to the same rules of procedure. It also provides for representatives
1358
of the new commission-wide family panel for inner London, which is to be established under the Act, to be represented on the committee to appoint a chief clerk for the new family proceedings court.
Amendment No. 161 will ensure that the power to make rules of court contained in Section 93 of the Children Act 1989 will extend to the relevant rule-making authorities in Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 162 provides for rules to allow for delegation of the duties or powers of a justices' clerk to someone who is his deputy or who assists him.
Amendment No. 218 honours a commitment I made during the later stages of the Children Bill to introduce a reserve power—this is an important power —for the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury to make a specific grant towards expenditure for the administration of guardian ad litem panels. This is intended to ensure that local authorities make sufficient funds available to provide an efficient and effective service for the courts, including a sufficient supply of guardians ad litem.
The remaining substantive amendments make further minor but worthwhile changes. Amendment No. 221 concerns Section 97 of the Children Act 1989, which provides for rules to enable a magistrates' court to sit in private in certain proceedings under the Act, and restricts the publication of material which might identify a child. These provisions are intended to supplement other statutory provisions concerning privacy and the amendment clarifies this. The amendment also removes the 90-day time-limit for complying with a direction made under a supervision order. This limit, which applies to criminal supervision orders under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, is thought inappropriate to civil supervision orders under the Children Act.
Amendment No. 217 makes it clear that when a young person is brought before the court for variation or discharge of his supervision order, or is arrested to achieve that objective, and the court at this stage is unable to reach a decision it can either release him or remand him to local authority accommodation if he is under the age of 18, or to a remand centre or prison if he has attained that age.
Amendment No. 222 will ensure that no child in care will remain a ward of court, following the Act's commencement. This brings into line all committals to care made prior to the Act. The remaining amendments in this group make the necessary consequential amendments and repeals and minor technical changes and correct some inconsistencies and technical errors in the earlier draft. The amendments will provide the necessary changes to enable the Children Act to deliver its aims more fully.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. -(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am absolutely sure that these amendments will meet with the sympathy, understanding and indeed the approval of the whole House. There will now be, as we have had in the High Court, specially trained judges to deal with family

1359
affairs at magistrates' level and at other levels. The old registrars will be brought into the matter under their new name. That is a very welcome step. It is also a very welcome step to know that in child abuse cases (which have concerned all of us so much, especially when the figures have been brought to our attention; and some dreadful cases have been brought to our attention of late) these may go straight away to the High Court instead of going through the procedure of being made wards of court, as in the past.
This is a very welcome step; and one can see also, one dreams, the beginnings of a family court where all this will be done in a unified way in one court, and we are preparing the way with our specialist judges for just that to happen. I hope your Lordships will not think t lat this is an inappropriate moment to mention a dream which has been very often spoken of in your Lordships' House, very often hoped for and is one which, pray God, will be realised one day.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I very much welcome this group of amendments, and particularly Amendment No. 12. The exercise of family jurisdiction demands the qualities which are always necessary judicially but in a special degree. I also echo what the noble Lord said about this being a step towards a unified system of a family court.
I have only one point, and that is to wonder why subsection (3) of Amendment No. 12 is necessary. I should have thought that a judge exercising judicially functions de facto, even if not de jure, will exercise those functions effectually without needing to say so. It would be a judge ex officio. The high authority in the New Zealand Court of Appeal, if my recollection is right, to that effect was a judge actually exercising criminal jurisdiction de facto but not de jure.
I only raise the point because I have already ventured to expostulate against the wording of our legislative system. I wonder whether really sufficient examination is made to see whether everything that is put into a statute is strictly necessary. In this case, I am convinced that it was unnecessary.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I appreciate the general welcome which has been expressed for these provisions by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I believe these are important steps towards a unified family jurisdiction, which may be the right answer to the attainment of the goals which have sometimes been described under different phrases in the past.
So far as concerns the point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale about the need for subsection (3), the judgment was made that this was a wise provision to make when we were laying down the need for specified proceedings to go to a specified judge. What is necessary is always a question of judgment. One can leave it to the court, but I believe this was a wise provision to make.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Benefits: Up-rating
4.22 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the up-rating of social security benefits being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the up-rating of social security benefits. This will take place for most benefits in the first full week of the tax year—that is to say, the week beginning 8th April. The necessary statutory instruments applying both to Great Britain and Northern Ireland will in due course be laid before both Houses for debate.
"As is customary, I will deal first with the main national insurance benefits, including most notably the retirement pension which now goes to some 10 million people. The basis for the up-rating is the latest available figure for the increase in the Retail Price Index: the 10.9 per cent. rise recorded for the year to September 1990.
"The retirement pension will accordingly rise by £5.10 a week for a single person, from £46.90 to £5200, and by £8.15 a week for a couple, from £75.10 to £83.25. This increase alone will cost some £2.3 billion, underlining once again our clear and continuing commitment to maintaining the pension's value
"Unemployment benefit will rise from £37–35 to £41.40 for a single person and from £60–40 to £66.95 for a couple; and sickness benefit from £35.70 to £39.60 for a single person and from £5780 to £64.10 for a couple.
"National insurance invalidity benefit will go up in line with the retirement pension. There will also be a 10.9 per cent. increase in all other non-income-related benefits for disabled people or those who are sick for a long period—severe disablement allowance, industrial injuries benefits, war disablement pensions, invalid care allowance, mobility allowance and attendance allowance. The 615,000 people now receiving mobility allowance will see it rise by nearly £3 a week to £29.10. For the three-quarters of a million people now receiving attendance allowance, there will be an increase of £2.75, to £27.80, in the lower rate, and of over £4, to £41.65, in the higher rate.
"The age-related additions known as invalidity allowances, currently confined to those receiving invalidity benefit but being extended in December to give up to £10 a week extra to some 100,000 people receiving the non-contributory severe disablement allowance, will rise further in April to a maximum of £11.10.
"Similarly, 10.9 per cent. increases will take place in widows pensions including widowed mothers allowance, war pensions, and all public service pensions, together with the special Ministry

1361
of Defence payment to the pre-1973 war widows, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence will raise from £40 to £44.36 per week.
"For the income-related benefits—income support, housing benefit, community charge benefit and family credit—the up-rating will be based, again as usual, on the RPI less housing costs. This is because, for those receiving these benefits, help with rent is available through housing benefit or help with mortgage interest through income support itself.
"This index rose by 8.1 per cent. in the year to September 1990, and the relevant benefit rates, with one exception to which I will come later, will go up accordingly. Thus income support for a single person under 25 will go from £28.80 to £31.15; the rate for an older single person from £36.70 to £39.65; and the higher pensioner premium from £17.05 to £18.45. For a family on income support with two children aged 10 and 12, benefit will rise by £7.75 a week to £103.30, plus full mortgage interest if they have been on benefit for more than 16 weeks, or full rent if they are tenants, and eighty per cent. of their community charge.
"I turn next to Statutory Sick Pay and Statutory Maternity Pay, which as the House is aware, are both paid through employers. The link between the two schemes is frankly somewhat artificial resting more on considerations of administrative convenience than of consistency in structure or purpose. I have concluded that the sensible development of policy of both fields would now be better served by treating them separately.
"So far as SSP is concerned, I propose to build on the re-structuring undertaken last year, taking account of the considerations I outlined to the House at that time. Occupational sick pay schemes have grown to such an extent that over 90 per cent. of the work-force now work for employers providing this cover, reflecting what is in my view a proper acceptance by employers of a much greater responsibility to cover short-term sickness amongst their employees. This in turn means that, for the great majority of those in work, the rates of SSP bear little or no relation to the amount they actually receive when sick. In these circumstances it is better for additional resources from the taxpayer to be concentrated more clearly on those least likely to have occupational provision, or in other areas of social security for which employers cannot be expected to provide.
"I therefore propose to up-rate fully, from £39.25 to £43.50, the lower of the two SSP rates, which goes to the lower-paid employees who are generally less likely to be covered by occupational schemes; to extend the coverage of this rate across the whole range of earnings bands within which employers pay lower rates of contributions, which currently covers employees earning less than £175 a week; and to leave the higher rate of SSP unchanged at £52.50. These changes will reduce
1362
expenditure by about £100 million in 1991–92, while fully protecting the lower-paid and with little or no effect for the great majority of others.
"I intend also to adjust the arrangements under which employers are fully reimbursed, by deduction from their remittance of National Insurance contributions, for the whole of their expenditure on SSP plus an amount to cover payments of such contributions on SSP itself. I propose instead to move to 80 per cent. reimbursement. This will reduce public expenditure in this area by about £180 million in 1991–92 in addition to the £100 million to which I have just referred. At the same time however, I propose to make some offsetting reductions in the rates of employers' National Insurance contributions. Full details will be given in the normal Statement about contributions which is made at the time of the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. But I can indicate now that my intention is to reduce each of the lower rates—those which currently apply in respect of employees earning up to £175—by at least one quarter of a per cent. and to reduce the standard rate by 0.05 per cent. These changes will reduce employers' contributions by something over £200 million, and take account also of the compensation employers currently receive for contributions paid on SSP itself. These go a considerable way in helping employers, particularly smaller employers who tend to have lower paid employees, to meet any extra costs which might otherwise arise from the new arrangements. Legislation will be required.
"The arrangements for statutory maternity pay, where occupational cover is very much less extensive, will be left entirely unchanged, except for any minor modifications needed in consequence of the separation from SSP. That separation, however, enables me to go further on the standard rate of SMP than I have proposed for SSP. I intend not only to increase it by the RPI, which would take it from £39.25 to £43.50, but a further £1 a week to £44.50. An additional £1 will also be added to the National Insurance maternity allowance, taking it from £35.70 to £40.60 instead of the £39.60 which an RPI up-rating alone would have indicated. There will thus be a real increase in benefit for some 315,000 mothers-to-be in the course of a year, at a cost of about £5 million.
"Apart from this increase in maternity pay, my proposals on SSP, which I believe strike a sensible new balance in the partnership between the state and employers which has developed in this field, open the way to a number of other important improvements, both small and large.
"In turning to those improvements, I should make one point clearly to the House. This is that support for families does not relate only to families with children, important though that is. It must acknowledge responsibilities towards the old as well as the young, and not least the particular pressures families can face arising from disability,

1363
or the need for special care. In framing my proposals I have sought to take account of all those strands.
"I come first to the needs of disabled people and their carers, where we are already carrying through the major programme described in my up-rating Statement last year. Last April we made real increases in the disability premiums in income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit, including in particular those for children; extended mobility allowance to the deaf-blind; and extended attendance allowance to disabled babies under two. This month we have introduced a carers' premium in the income-related benefits, and extended attendance allowance to meet the special needs of the terminally ill. In December we shall make the increase in severe disablement allowance to which I have already referred. And we are preparing new benefits for introduction in 1992 to help those disabled people who wish to work and further extend help with disability costs.
"Against that background, I cannot of course propose further measures on the same scale. But what I can and will do is to make five more specific improvements particularly directed at the needs of some of the most severely disabled people and their carers.
"The independent living fund, now providing extra help—averaging £74 a week but in some cases several hundred pounds a week—to some 6,000 severely disabled people in the community, will have its resources nearly doubled to £62 million next year. It will thus have risen twelvefold, from an initial £5 million in only three years.
"We shall make an additional grant to Motability of £1 million a year to enhance the assistance it can give with the expensive adaptation of cars which severely disabled people often need.
"I intend too to modify the mobility allowance regulations to help those particularly unfortunate people who suffer the amputation of both legs. The House will be aware of two recent cases—Mrs. Sandra Stones in Durham and Sergeant Andy Mudd in Colchester—where either mobility allowance was withdrawn or doubt cast on continuing entitlement. While cases in doubt may be resolved by review or appeal—as I am glad to say has indeed already happened in the case of Sergeant Mudd—it seems to me that we ought to do everything possible to avoid this sort of uncertainty and the distress it can cause. I therefore propose an amendment to put the payment of mobility allowance in such cases beyond doubt.
"I propose also two further useful improvements for carers. The amount which can be earned without affecting entitlement to invalid care allowance, increased last year from £12 to £20 a week, will in April go up by a further 50 per cent. to £30 a week. And I intend to provide that the carers' premium just introduced in income support,
1364
which as things stand would cease immediately on the death of the person being cared for, can continue to be paid for up to eight weeks thereafter.
"Next, pensioners. As I have said on a number of occasions in the House and elsewhere, in welcoming the rise in pensioners' real average net incomes which has taken place as a result of the spread of occupational and personal pensions and the growth of savings, we must not overlook those who have not yet gained from those trends.
"I therefore propose to make this year a real increase in the basic pensioner premium for those aged 60–74 in income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit, which will go up by £1 a week more for a single pensioner, and £1.50 more for a couple, than in a straightforward up-rating. It will thus rise by £1–95 from £11.80 to £13.75 for a single pensioner and by £2.95 from £17.95 to £20.90 for a couple, contributing to total increases of £4.90 and £7.60 respectively in their income support.
"This will cost nearly £80 million, and will assist some 400,000 pensioners directly through income support, and well over 1.5 million through housing benefit and community charge benefit. Taken together with the premium increases for the older and more disabled pensioners which took place in October 1989, it means that over 18 months there will have been a real increase in every one of the premiums applying to around 6 million less well-off pensioners, at a total cost of about £300 million.
"Thirdly, I am making a major upward adjustment in income support in a field which brings together the interests of both elderly and disabled people and the families to which they belong: the limits relating to residential care and nursing homes.
"The survey of costs we commissioned from Price Waterhouse to give us additional information in this field is being placed in the Library today. In brief, it shows that, while the limits for residential care are reasonably close to median costs across the country, those for nursing homes are significantly too low; but it does not provide evidence of a sufficiently clear pattern of geographical variation, except for Greater London, to justify the introduction of further such variations at this stage.
"What I now propose takes account both of the Price Waterhouse results and of the many other representations to us by voluntary and charitable bodies and organisations of home owners, as well as by many honourable Members on behalf of their constituents.
"For residential care, the basic limit will rise by £5 a week to £160. There will be larger increases of £15 to £185 for the category covering the very dependent and blind elderly, which includes, for example, Alzheimer's Disease cases; and for those covering mentally handicapped, mentally ill and physically disabled people.
"For nursing homes, the increases will be much larger: £45 a week, to £255 a week, for the main category catering for the elderly, and also for the

1365
mentally ill; £35, to £260 a week, for the mentally handicapped; and £35, to £290 a week, for the physically disabled. The increase for terminal illness homes will be somewhat smaller, at £15, to £275 a week, taking account of the fact that this type of home received the largest increases last year, that the distinction between these homes and others is becoming increasingly artificial, and that voluntary hospices—many of which do not seek to make use of income support anyway—are now receiving extra financial help specially geared to their needs under the arrangements introduced this year by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Health.
"Additionally, I propose to introduce a special further nursing home supplement in Greater London to take it from £23 to £33 a week. Thus for an ordinary nursing home in Greater London the overall increase will be £55 a week.
"The total cost of the increases will be some £225 million. Together with those made in April and August this year, income support expenditure on those in homes will have risen by over £400 million a year in quite a short period—over and above the more than £1 billion it had already reached by the end of March this year.
"As the House knows, pending the changes now planned for 1993, the income support limits in this field are, and always have been, designed to help towards not only income maintenance but also housing and care costs. It has never been the intention, nor is it sensible, that in the generality of cases housing benefit itself should be available as an alternative to income support. An anomaly exists in the regulations, which has enabled such claims to be made; and in the light of the large increases in limits which I have announced I intend to consult on amendments to re-establish the policy intention more clearly.
"Last but not least, I intend to make an increase in child benefit, which is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support. It will not, however, surprise the House that, in view of what I said earlier about considering the needs of families more broadly and of the major improvements I have just announced, I am not able simply to up-rate it across the board, which would have a gross cost of some £500 million and a net cost of some £380 million.
"In fulfilling my statutory duty of review, I have therefore looked not only at whether there should be an increase but at what form it should take to make the most effective use of the resources I am able to make available. I have concluded that the right course this year is to make an increase which gives a worthwhile amount to all mothers and which will be particularly welcome to new mothers because it recognises that for the great majority of parents it is the arrival of the first child which has much the largest impact on their finances. This is not only because of the initial costs they incur but because, in a world where the great majority of
1366
women work while they are childless but most feel it necessary or right to give up work, or work less, for some considerable time thereafter it is frequently associated with a sharp reduction in the family income.
"I therefore propose this year an increase which acknowledges that fact by making an additional payment for the first or eldest eligible child. It will be of £1 a week, payable of course normally to the mother, and in addition to the continued payment of £7.25 a week for each child. Since it will go to every family, and will be larger than an RPI increase in one-parent benefit—itself indeed defined as a payment for the first or eldest child—would have been, I do not propose on this occasion to increase that benefit as well.
"The measure will complement what we have already done in recent years to steer some £350 million of real extra help to low-income families through income support and family credit. It will give an extra £1 a week in child benefit to every mother in nearly 7 million families, at a gross cost of over £350 million and a net cost of £260 million.
"By choosing what I believe to be sensible priorities, I have been able to make a number of important improvements in social security, especially for families, without adding overall to what is in any case the very large cost this year of maintaining our up-rating commitments. What I have announced helps families with children, and families-to-be. It helps large numbers of less well off pensioners. It will ease the anxieties of families concerned with the care of elderly or disabled relatives, and of those relatives themselves. And it builds on what we are already doing to give greater help to disabled people. In short, it carries forward the reshaping of our social security system, conceived in the 1940s, to meet the needs of the 1990s."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for giving us that long, complicated Statement. There are certain points in the Statement which we obviously welcome but there are some that need further probing. It would help if the Minister could say how many, if any, benefits have been increased by less than the 10.9 per cent. inflation figure which has been used for the statutory up-ratings, and how many benefits have not been increased. I picked up the higher rate of statutory sick pay and the one-parent benefit as being frozen. It would be helpful if we could be given that information.
I turn first to the last matter in the Statement, which was the increase in child benefit. We did not have to wait for the Statement for that information. It was on the television news last night and it was trailed in the press yesterday and today. It all results from the extraordinary spectacle of the one-woman Star Chamber at No. 10. Last week it was education, this week it is child benefit, and I understand that either today or tomorrow it will be dog registration.

1367
We are obviously glad to welcome any increase in child benefit, but whatever happened to all those arguments about benefits being targeted according to need? What we are seeing is a £1 per week increase for all families on child benefit irrespective of the size of the family. That means that the weekly increase in the income through child benefit of a wife of a millionaire with one child will be the same as that of the poor family. just above the family credit level, with three or four children.
Does anyone believe that we would have had that announcement if the Prime Minister felt secure and the Government were riding high in the polls? It is an increase, however welcome, which has all the hallmarks of a last minute, halfhearted electoral fix. The Minister can be assured that if a social security Bill is produced next Session we shall do our utmost to amend it to ensure that that halfhearted and reluctant conversion will be turned into full-scale enlightenment.
The reason that we shall do that is simple. We are all aware that if child benefit had been indexed for inflation since 1987 it would now be worth £9.50 per week for every child. That is a measure of the cost to families of the freezing of child benefit. We know that 94 percent. of child benefit goes to families paying the standard rate of tax and below. It is by far the most efficient and effective way of helping families with children which are just above the poverty line and those families which are eligible for family credit but do not claim it.
One does not have to be a senior wrangler to work out the increase. If one has one child it is 12 per cent. If one has two children, it is 6 per cent.; with three children it is 4 per cent.; and with four children it is 3 per cent. As the intention of child benefit is to help with the costs of the upkeep of children, that seems to be a curious way to deal with the problem. However, as I have said, we welcome the increase.
I now wish to discuss the points in the Statement on statutory sick pay. The Statement asserts correctly that 90 per cent. of employees are covered by employer schemes. That is why the increases have only been proposed for the lower rates of statutory sick pay. However, as we know, many employer schemes are time-limited in that they allow for a certain number of weeks of sick leave to be covered at full pay and a certain number to be covered at half pay and other such provisions. What will happen to employees on the higher rates in time-limited schemes who are not to receive any increases at all? It would appear that they could be severely disadvantaged.
I now turn to the proposals to deal with elderly people in nursing and residential care. The proposals are welcome, but we all know that there is a crisis in this arm. I use that term advisedly. The situation of many elderly people in nursing homes and residential care is at crisis point. Those people are having to cope with a substantial and increasing shortfall in their levels of income support compared with the cost of their care. That is placing a huge burden on them, their relatives and the organisations which supply the care. There are reports of many organisations getting
1368
into serious financial trouble. The situation is, of course, made much worse by the decision to postpone the implementation of the community care plans. Unless these problems are addressed now there will be a huge shortage of nursing and residential care places when the community care plans are fully implemented. We are told that the shortfall now is well in excess of £500 million and that 100,000 elderly people in care are now dependent on income support.
The Independent Health Care Association estimates that the shortfall is something in excess of £100 a week for a nursing home and £40 a week for a residential home. The Statement appears to propose increases of £5 to £15 a week for residential care against the shortfall which has been reported of £40 per week and increases of £35 to £45 a week against a shortfall of £100 a week for nursing homes. The report from Price Waterhouse has not yet been placed in the Library. It would be helpful if we could be told whether we shall receive the full report or only the findings of the report. Obviously further analysis will have to await a sight of that report. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on the shortfall which appears to exist between the increases proposed in the Statement and the figures that we have received from the Independent Health Care Association.
We welcome the increase in pensions that will occur next spring as a result of the recent inflation figures and the September RPI. It seems certain that the increased pensions will be paid next spring when the headline inflation rate is falling. I emphasise the headline inflation rate as opposed to the underlying inflation rate. There was an ominous hint in the press last week that, if this were the case, the Government might try to find some excuse to delay the increase or somehow to reduce it. I cannot believe that that could be possible. I am sure those comments were wild speculation. However, it will be helpful and indeed reassuring if the Minister will confirm that there is no possibility that the Government will attempt such a manoeuvre.
We know that pensioners will always lag behind the increase in the earnings of the population as a whole if the increase in their pensions is linked to the RPI and not to the increase in average earnings. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm some figures which do not appear in the Statement. Does he agree that breaking the link with earnings has been worth a cumulative sum of some £22 billion to the Exchequer compared with the £26 billion that was handed back in the same period to higher rate taxpayers?
I now turn to disability. All the up-ratings in the disability benefits are welcome. However, as far as I can judge, there is nothing to help those many disabled people who are losing out substantially under the poll tax. A recent survey by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation has revealed that the 54 per cent. of disabled households who responded to the survey were between £200 to £500 a year worse off under the poll tax as compared with rates. We know that many disabled people are having to use their disability benefits or their savings to offset the burden

1369
of the poll tax. As nothing in the Statement deals with this problem, will the Minister give an undertaking that there will be a rapid review of the effect of the poll tax on disabled people? I know that a number of representations have been made to his department.
There appears to be nothing in the Statement either to help the 130,000 claimants who have been on transitional protection since the spring of 1988. In April 1991 they will commence the fourth consecutive year in which they have received no increase at all in benefit. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister or his department have any proposals to deal with that problem. We know that there are still considerable problems with the 20 per cent. of poll tax which has to be paid by those on benefit. Does the department have any plans to deal with that? It was mentioned in passing in the Statement, but as far as I am aware there are no plans to put right the very real anomalies which have now come to light with the operation of the poll tax.
The Statement also refers to the extension of the mobility allowance to the deaf blind. We welcome that measure as we supported it in this House in our amendments to the social security legislation. Can the Minister estimate how many of the 3,000 deaf blind people in this country are likely to benefit from that extension of the mobility allowance? As I have said, we welcome many of the proposals and the increases in the Statement. The proposals for the independent living fund are very welcome, as are the proposals for carers and the improvements in the mobility allowance. It is fair to say that the Government have tried in some areas to begin to deal with some of the underlying problems. However, there are other important areas where we shall continue to harry the Government because there is still much to be done in the field of social security. I am sure that most of that will have to wait for the return of a Labour Government.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble kinsman for repeating the Statement. I wish to congratulate him, and through him his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, on their success in running to stand still without apparently, except for one moment over the past couple of days, any great breathlessness. I am glad to note that the Secretary of State has argued a case to the Treasury for meeting the costs of inflation. Inflation is, of course, the dominant theme of the Statement. Inflation is very expensive indeed from the Government's point of view. One begins to wonder, after this passage of time, how far the Government have ideas about how to bring inflation down. One is tempted to wonder whether 10 Downing Street has lost a monetarist and not yet found a role.
Although these benefits are obviously expensive for the Government, the benefits that claimants will receive are in real terms nugatory because the pound in their pocket is purchasing less than it did before. Here we have to consider an effect of using the formula of percentage increases. A percentage increase in a small sum is a great deal lower than a
1370
percentage increase in a large sum. I have tried very quickly measuring the increase in benefits against a constant purchasing unit. In this case I have picked a journey into town from fare zone 2. I did so as it was ready to hand. The increase in the pension for a married couple will buy two journeys into town from fare zone 2. However, the increase in income support for the under-25s, which is a smaller sum from the beginning, will only buy one journey into town from fare zone 2. We have here an effect by which the use of percentage increases on small sums is widening the gap between those on benefit and the rest of the population. However pleased the Secretary of State is about his success in the public spending round —he is entitled to be pleased—those on benefit will not feel particularly well off.
I did not find in the Statement any information about the total cost of the social security budget next year. I should be interested to know that as soon as possible. My noble kinsman is aware that I am concerned about the subject. I believe that he knows some of my ideas for bringing the cost down but this is not the right occasion to develop them.
There are good things in the Statement. I welcome particularly some of the five measures on disability. I am particularly pleased by what is being done for carers. I believe that the words of my noble friend Lady Seear have been heard, and I am very glad. I am pleased by the increase in the motability allowance. I should be interested in any more detail that my noble kinsmen can give about how that is to be done. I warmly welcome the increase in the independent living fund. I am very glad about the increase in funds available for residential care, which was urgent and desperate. The question that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised as to whether it is enough is one about which we shall have to think further.
In passing I should like to ask when we can expect to hear how much money is to be allocated to the social fund for next year. I have no intention of opening up the general argument about the principles of the social fund, but if the Government are to make a success of the principles on which they wish to run that fund they must up-rate the sums available for the fund in line both with inflation and with the state of the economy. They should also consider the case for having a rapidly increased contingency fund available. They can only combine their principles of meeting need and operating within a budget if a contingency fund is available ready to meet the demands on the social fund that might be created by such a case, for example, as the closure of Cammell Laird. Such a case would demand an increase in an area budget. I hope that that issue is receiving thought and I should be glad to know when we can expect to hear something about it.
In relation to income support nothing has been said about the child care disregard. We have been led to believe that some discussion on that subject is going on in government circles and I have read some remarks by a Minister with which I am in full agreement. We are told that consultations are in progress. Of course I do not believe everything that I

1371
read in the newspapers, but I should be very glad if my noble kinsman could confirm that such consultations are in progress and that we might hope to hear something about them.
I regret very much that the Secretary of State has not taken the opportunity to narrow the gap between the income support limits for younger and older people I shall not bore the House by repeating myself on that subject, but it seems to me that the amount available for the young is becoming more inadequate due to the principle that a percentage increase on a small sum is smaller than a percentage increase on a large sum.
Regarding statutory sick pay, I am extremely sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is not present in the House. I recall vividly the remarks that he made on the statutory instrument on statutory sick pay; we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are in full agreement. The Secretary of State claims in paragraph 15 that he is achieving proper principles for the partnership between government and industry. I am not convinced that that is the case. He is shifting the costs of statutory sick pay on to industry and thereby putting a tax on our industrial costs. When we need exports so desperately I am not certain that that is wise. I follow the reasoning by which the Secretary of State has chosen to increase the lower rate rather than the higher, but if the Secretary of State considers some of the arguments in the NACAB report Hard Labour he may wonder whether he will achieve his target. There are a good many cases in which employers—particularly of part-time labour —are not paying national insurance, the employee is not paying income tax and the job is not known to the Department of Social Security. In those cases the increases will fail to meet their target. The Government are losing revenue; it is an issue to which I hope they will pay attention.
That brings me finally to child benefit. Anyone who denies that half a loaf is better than no bread does not belong on the Opposition Benches; they belong on the barricades. We welcome the increase so far as it goes. We are also very pleased that the Secretary of State has drawn attention to his statutory duty to review the benefit each year. I should like to remind the House that that is a duty which my noble friend Lord Banks is responsible for introducing. I am also particularly pleased to have an announcement on that front since I remember the statement of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal when the Social Security Bill was in Committee last summer that the issue had been settled another place had made up its mind and we should not be discussing it further. We are now further discussing it, the Government are further discussing it, and I am delighted by the recognition that it is an open issue.
I was also very interested by a report in today's Independent which said that it had been told by a number of Conservative Members that the up-rating was being brought in because of the Government's defeat in the Eastbourne by-election. I have no idea whether that is true but I admit that I found it an interesting report.
1372
The increase is only £1. That does not go very far. I suppose that if one is selecting one aspect within child benefit one could have done worse. I remember an incident when I was a boy and too young to know any better—
Lord Belstead: My Lords, will the noble Earl forgive me for intervening? There is just one rule about the taking of Statements and that is that the taking of Statements should not be turned into a debate. The noble Earl is always very interesting and easy to listen to, but I beg him to bear that in mind.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I must offer my apologies to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal and to the House. We have here an increase of £1. The question is: how far will it go? I once made the mistake, when too young to know any better, of offering one lira to an Italian beggar; he spat in my face. I hope that that will not be the reaction of the electorate. It should not be. However, I ask my noble kinsman to consider that he may not receive as much gratitude for the Statement as he thinks he deserves. I ask him also to pay attention to the widening gap between what child benefit would be if it had been regularly up-rated and what it is now—I understand that this morning it was £1 billion and rising. I feel very sorry indeed for the first post-Thatcherite Chancellor. I do not expect my noble kinsman to share that sympathy but I expect him to understand it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the partial welcome that the up-rating has received from both noble Lords opposite, but I understand that we shall never be able to satisfy their demands for further and greater expenditure in all fields. As both noble Lords know perfectly well, my right honourable friend has a statutory duty to review a great many benefits in accordance with the appropriate priorities and what he can afford. That my right honourable friend has done and he has come up with a package that I should have thought would be welcomed on all sides of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked how many benefits had been up-rated by less than the RPI figure of 10.9 per cent. I stress that not all benefits are up-rated by that amount. As I repeated in the Statement, some are up-rated by a lower figure, which is the RPI less housing costs. All benefits covered by a statutory requirement have been fully up-rated in line with the relevant prices index. Those include the retirement pension, widows' pensions and all related long-term pensions. Before I move away from that subject I can give a reassurance to the noble Lord—I am sure that he would like to have it as would all pensioners—that the Government will continue to honour their pledge to pensioners to increase their pensions next April as we have done every year fully in line with the increase in prices that was recorded in the previous 12 months up to September. The Government will continue to honour that pledge.
Starting with child benefit, I am grateful that both noble Lords welcomed the increase that my right honourable friend was able to announce. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, proceeded to get rather confused at that point. He asked what had happened to

1373
targeting. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. He has been pressing for years for increases in child benefit. Now he wants to return to a system where child benefit is purely targeted on the less well off.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. It is the government side of the House that has been arguing about targeting all the way through. I simply asked what had happened to their argument.
Lord Henley: My Lords, from what the noble Lord said about the rich man receiving this benefit as well as the poor man my impression was that the noble Lord had changed his views. The Government have not changed their views at all. We know that the acquisition of the first child is more expensive than are subsequent children. The noble Lord will know perfectly well that clothes can be passed down and so on. It is the first child, when the mother leaves the labour force, that is the most expensive. That is why my right honourable friend, in reviewing the situation and taking account of his legal requirement (as mentioned by my noble kinsman), came up with the solution of increasing child benefit by £1 a week for the first child.
With regard to statutory sick pay and time limits, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised various queries and doubted whether it was fair that we should shift further costs on to industry. The noble Earl must have missed the point that we made in the Statement; namely, that we shall be reducing the employer's contribution. I mentioned the figures in the up-rating. So the total cost of the package is broadly cost neutral. We feel that that is the better way to deal with statutory sick pay.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also queried the time limits for sick pay. He knows perfectly well that statutory sick pay is only paid for 28 weeks. He seemed to be of the view that a great many of the occupational pensions had exclusion clauses. I am advised that the average spell on statutory pay is only three weeks. Some 90 per cent. of cases are over in eight weeks. The other key point is that some 90 per cent. of employees are covered by occupational schemes. We are fully protecting the less well off, as I made quite clear in the Statement.
I turn to income support in residential homes. I quite understand that many noble Lords will feel that we have not gone far enough. But we have gone a very long way. Noble Lords will remember that last year we increased the budget available for this provision by some £100 million. We then increased it by a further £45 million mid-year with a full year cost of some £70 million, which makes a total increase of £170 million for the full year. There is a further £235 million announced today. That makes over £400 million going to income support for residential homes.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, claimed that there was still a shortfall and quoted from a report, the name of which I did not quite catch. We always have to balance the interests of both those in the homes and the taxpayer. The Government's policy has never been
1374
and never could be to cover all the fees, however high they are. The package that we announced is a fair and reasonable way in which to meet the average costs of most people in residential homes. As I said, we took advice from Price Waterhouse. That is why we saw the need to increase the fees for nursing homes far more than those for residential care homes, where there did not seem to be quite such a gap between what we were paying and what was being asked for in the homes. The noble Lord asked about the Price Waterhouse report. I can assure him that the full report will be found in the Library. He is welcome to read it.
With regard to pensions, which I touched on at the beginning of my reply, predictably as always noble Lords demanded the restoration of the link with earnings. I am the first to accept that pensions would be higher if we had continued with the old principle of up-rating by either prices or earnings, whichever was the higher. But that is not the point. We have seen pensioners' average total incomes increasing by over 31 per cent. in real terms during our first eight years in office. By contrast, between 1974 and 1979, when the party of the noble Lord was in power and attempted to increase pensions by whichever was higher, prices or earnings, due to the effect that that and its policies had on the economy, we saw pensioners' average total net income increasing by a mere 3 per cent. We feel that we have the right balance. We shall continue to uprate pensions in line with the RPI but we shall pursue policies that will see a growth in pensioners' average income from all other sources.
On the subject of mobility allowance, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked for an estimate of how many of the 3,000 deaf-blind people would gain from the mobility allowance. As a result of the extension to deaf-blind people all will gain. As the mobility allowance is not taken into account in assessing other benefits, all those deaf-blind people who have been awarded the allowance will gain £26.25 a week in the current year. That will increase to £29.10 a week from April next year.
My noble kinsman Lord Russell asked how we would make changes in the mobility allowance to meet the group that I specified, i.e., double amputees. I mentioned the Sandra Stones case and that of Sergeant Mudd. At this stage I cannot answer the noble Earl's query. We certainly aim to deal with that problem. At the moment there is some doubt about how to extend the provision in the wording of the mobility allowance, which is only granted to those who are virtually unable to walk. We shall be coming forward with proposals in due course.
I accept the point made by the noble Earl that inflation is expensive. The Government are committed to bringing down inflation. We have made that very clear. I can assure him that our battle to bring down inflation will continue. However, while there is inflation we shall continue to upgrade those benefits which we have a statutory duty to upgrade and will continue to protect the less well off in society.
The noble Lord asked for the total cost of the entire social security budget. I cannot answer that question.

1375
It will have to wait for the Autumn Statement. I can tell him that the total cost of this package is £4.852 billion, so it is just under £5 billion.
The noble Lord also asked about the social fund. We have no changes to announce in the social fund. That is why it was not mentioned. The budget will be announced later, but as the noble Lord was the first to say, this, is neither the time nor the place to discuss the merits of the social fund. One of the purposes of the social fund—it is one of its most attractive features —is its adaptability and flexibility so that it can meet needs that arise in particular localities. The noble Lord mentioned Cammell Laird. The noble Lord will remember that after floods in Wales last year we were able to make extra money available to the local offices in that area.
I do not know whether I have answered every question that noble Lords asked. However, I repeat what I said at the beginning. No Secretary of State will ever be able to satisfy all demands, especially those from noble Lords in opposition who do not have the responsibility of administering the large budget. I believe that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has come forward with a very effective package which satisfies. It seeks a balance between the interest; of the taxpayer on the one hand and those who are less well off in society who are the recipients of benefit. I think that the Statement is to be welcomed. I am grateful for the partial welcome that it received from the two noble Lords.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend most sincerely for discharging the very considerable task of repeating this massive and detailed Statement. It is one of the most important Government Statements of the year.
I should like to ask him a number of questions. However, perhaps I may first be allowed to make this comment. Listening to the Statement, it appears that the Government have exercised a great deal of care and taken a great deal of trouble over what may be called targeting: attempting to concentrate additional benefits in the areas of greatest need. I shall not weary the Ho use by repeating those areas. However, the mobility allowance and the provision in respect of nursing homes are good examples of careful attention to the desirability of concentrating additional benefits where they are most needed.
The considerable length of the Statement owes much to the fact that a great deal of trouble and care obviously was taken by my noble friend's right honourable friend and his department in working out the areas of greatest need and what could be done about them. I should like to ask which of these changes will require legislation? Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Henley, formally—I observe that the Leader of the House is present—whether it is intended to arrange a debate, no doubt in the new Session? It is a subject that is of greater importance to more of our fellow citizens than any other subject with which the Government deal. I urge a debate very strongly. It is very important both to the standing of
1376
the House and to the development of these matters that there should be a full day's debate on these matters. I hope that my noble friend will convey that suggestion to his right honourable friend over the narrow gap that separates them.
On a small point, I was sorry—if I understand the position aright—that the percentage increase for war widows will be the same for pre-1973 and post-1973 war widows. If that is right, that widens the gap in money terms between the pre-1973 and post-1973 war widows. After some urging, the Government took upon themselves to make some improvement for the pre-1973 war widows. But of course a straight percentage increase for both would widen the gap. I hope that that may be considered carefully when the time comes for changes.
I feel a good deal of sympathy with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the desirability of backing the social fund with a contingency fund. I have always had some doubts about the limitations of the social fund, in particular in view of the possibility of disastrous situations which may run it down. The existence of something similar to a contingency fund would be helpful in dealing with emergencies.
I was very interested in the announcement with regard to child benefit. It is not that one was surprised because, as the noble Lord will be well aware, there was a very serious leakage of this information. I suggest that that is very unfortunate. I believe that Parliament should be the first body to be informed of such important changes. It suggests a certain laxity in some government circles if the matter leaked out as fully as it did, including a full front-page article in The Times this morning, hours ahead of the Statement to follow. I hope that those responsible will consider the position to ensure that it does not happen again.
On the merits of the matter, it is the fact that the larger one's family the smaller the percentage increase given. It is noticeable, and certainly those noble Lords who were concerned with social security administration in the past will have noticed it, that the system is the exact opposite of the old system of family allowances. Indeed at one time there was no family allowance in respect of the first child. It began with the second child. That was based on the fact that the larger one's family the greater the expense of maintaining it. I fully take my noble friend's point that it is the first child who in general takes the mother away from work. However, perhaps he will recall that if one has a larger family the period during which the younger children are cared for extends the mother's period away from work for a considerable time.
I should like to express some hesitation in endorsing the proposal that only the first child should benefit. The case has often been argued in this House that child benefit, being a benefit that goes to people regardless of income, should not necessarily be very often or very much increased. But if it is to be increased, as the Government are deciding to do, I wonder whether giving the smallest percentage increase to the largest family is the right way to do that. Great experience is available in the noble Lord's department of the working of the family allowance

1377
system. That proceeded on exactly the opposite basis to this system. I express some doubt. It is one of the matters that could best be ventilated in a full debate.
Having said that, I congratulate the Government on a major improvement, in particular that of the non-statutory benefits, and for the care and thought which appear to have been given to dealing with the hardest cases. Some noble Lords will always feel that there are examples which could have benefited more. In human terms naturally we all have some prejudices or ideas as to which are the most important areas. However, I find it enormously encouraging that we have a Secretary of State for Social Security, and colleagues, who are prepared to take so much trouble and care to examine where the limited amount of help available can best be given.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's remarks, in particular about targeting. We must concentrate resources on those whose need is greatest. We must recognise that the resources available to this Government, or for that matter any government, are not infinite. They are certainly finite.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with some points that my noble friend made. He asked which changes require legislation. The changes that my right honourable friend announced on statutory sick pay will require legislation. I cannot comment on when that legislation will be. My understanding is that the changes must be in place by April of next year.
The noble Lord raised the matter of a debate on a generality of social security matters. That is a matter for the usual channels. I note what he says, as I am sure does my noble friend the Leader of the House.
My noble friend asked about war widows and commented on what he claims is the growing gap between pre- and post-1973 war widows. All war widows receive the same war widow's pension from my department. There was a discrepancy because after 1973 an occupational scheme was introduced. It allowed those widows whose husbands had served post-1973 to receive more because they benefited from the occupational pension. There was no flat rate for the post-1973 widows.
By introducing the £40 we tried to solve the perceived unfairness in there being no occupational pension for the pre- and post-1973 widows. Post-1973 widows receive varying amounts according to the length of their husband's service and rank. There is no flat rate and therefore there will always be a gap between many post-1973s just as there is between pre-and post-1973s.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend deal with the point that if the post-1973 widows had a higher pension than the pre-1973 widows a flat percentage increase will give them a bigger increase than the pre-1973 widows and therefore the gap will be widened?
Lord Henley: My Lords, all the post-1973 widows will be in receipt of different pensions depending on the length of service. Obviously the gap will widen. We have increased the special payment by 10.9 per cent. in
1378
order to give the pre-1973 widows the increased value of that special payment. I do not see that as allowing the gap to widen.
As regards child benefit I cannot comment upon the press leakage; that is a matter for the press. My noble friend appeared to be worried about the fact that there is a smaller percentage increase for the larger families. I accept that a mother of a large family is potentially out of work for a longer period of time than the mother of a small family. However, the extra £1 that we have announced for the eldest child is also for the second child when he or she becomes the eldest after the first child achieves adult status. Therefore, the benefit continues for the extra years during which the mother is potentially removed from the workforce. I hope that answer will satisfy my noble friend.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I shall not delay the House but merely ask for one figure. I take into account the welcome increase in child benefit for the first child. It will be interesting to know how much less in real terms families as a whole will be able to spend on their children. I reckon that the figure is between £200 million and £300 million. I believe that in real terms we are now allowing families to spend far less on their children than last year. Can the Minister confirm that figure?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have tried to make clear not only that there is an increase in benefit for the first child but that there has been a growth in other support benefits for families. For example, in April 1989 there was an extra 50 pence above the rate of inflation for the family premium in income-related benefits. From April 1990 there was an extra £1 per week above the rate of inflation in the pocket of a mother of a lower paid working family receiving family credit. I cannot comment on the specific figure mentioned by the noble Lord but I believe that the Government's position and their case is good. We have continued to support the family.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I too wish to thank the Minister for repeating the long and important Statement and wish to put forward one or two points. Employers will now receive only 80 per cent. of their SSP costs as against an undisclosed future benefit. Has the scheme been discussed with any employers' associations, particularly small employers' associations? Obviously the disregard in the care allowance rising to £30 is to be welcomed as is the pensions premium increase. However, I notice that the increases for residential care at only £5 and for terminal homes at only £15 are far less than the RPI. Will the Minister comment on that, particularly the latter case, and tell me why he believes it to be fair?
Rather coyly, the Statement reserves the main issue of child benefit to the end. The most crucial phrase in paragraph 35 is:
"I have concluded that the right course this year is to make an increase".
That appears to smell a little of the Eastbourne factor; it is essentially an ad hoc measure. It leads one to ask what will happen next year. Furthermore, the £1 is at the expense of one parent benefit. The Minister has referred to

1379
the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about other children. Children graduate up to eldest child status and then receive £1. However, if in the mean time the Government do not take other measures the basic level will wither on the vine. I wish to remind the Minister of the principle of the Fowler Review. It was to separate general child support from extra help for low income families. Are the Government moving away from that principle? All the taxing ideas are of little help. One can tax the higher taxpayers; one can means test which is expensive set against current administration costs; or one can revert to tax allowances which are of no help to non-taxpayers. When the SDP was in business as a political party we had many tax experts. We studied all those options but none worked out.
When all is said and done will the Government agree that it is better to return to the original principle of child benefit as a universal benefit? Obviously one cannot go back to 1987 because that would be too expensive. However, if this year the Government began at, say, 10 per cent., and can hope for a declining RPI in the following years, they would be back in business with a universal child benefit. Is that not a better road to go down?
Lord Henley: My Lords, statutory sick pay has not yet been discussed with the employers' organisations. The noble Lord expressed the view that increases for residential homes are not enough and are not in line with inflation. The Statement makes clear that following the Price Waterhouse Report the Government identified the gap as being greatest in the nursing homes and that is why their increases were so large. The need was not so great in the residential homes. Nevertheless, we are putting an extra £225 million into income support for residential and nursing homes together with last year's increase of £120 million. As we made clear in the Statement, that is an extra £400 million over and above £1 billion that is spent on income support for nursing and residential homes.
I was interested in the view of the former SDP about child benefit and I am sure that we shall all take note. Obviously I cannot comment on up-rating in future years. The Secretary of State will continue to review the level of child benefit in line with his statutory obligation to do so.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I have in the past chided the Government for their cavalier attitude to child benefit . However, I now congratulate my noble friend on his statement that the benefit will be increased this year. I also offer congratulations on the Secretary of State's assurance that child benefit is and will remain a strong element in family provision. However, I wish to comment on the universality of the increase which was not necessarily expected but which is most desirable. It is very desirable that child benefit should operate for families of all incomes. Can my noble friend assure the House that the Government are still appraised of the fact that child benefit reflects the fact that al all levels of income, the needs of the mothers with children are greater than those without and that adjustments at all levels of income are in order and should be made?
Lord Henley: My Lords, very briefly, I thank my noble friend for his support. Of course we recognise that the needs of a mother with children are greater than a mother without children. That is why my right honourable friend saw fit to up-rate child benefit this year by £1 for the eldest child.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
5.41 p.m.
Consideration of amendments and Motion to be moved on consideration of Commons amendments resumed.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
14 Clause 9, page 9, line 5, at end insert:
`or any category (determined by reference to such criteria as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate) of such proceedings'.
15 Page 9, leave out lines 9 to 12.
16 Page 9, line 20, at end insert:
`(5A) Where, in any proceedings in a county court—

(a) a person is exercising a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation;

(b) he would not be entitled to do so were it not for an order under this section; and

(c) the judge has reason to believe that (in those or any other proceedings in which he has exercised a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation) that person has intentionally misled the court, or otherwise demonstrated that he is unsuitable to exercise that right,

the judge may order that person's disqualification from exercising any right of audience or any right to conduct litigation in proceedings in any county court.
(5B) Where a judge makes an order under subsection (5A) he shall give his reasons for so doing.
(5C) Any person against whom such an order is made may appeal to the Court of Appeal.
(5D) Any such order may be revoked at any time by any judge of a county court.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 8.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 en bloc —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to say how much I welcome Amendment No. 16 because I was one of the first to draw attention to the dangers which could arise especially with oppressive debt collectors. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has dealt with that in such a way that that difficulty is removed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
17 Clause 11, page 11, line 10, after `for' insert 'the debtor's own'.
18Page 11, line 14, after 'for' insert 'the debtor's own'.
19 Page 11, leave out line 18, and insert 'relates to the non-payment of charges incurred by the debtor after the making of the order or is unconnected with non-payment by him of any charges.'.
20 Page I I, line 18, at end insert:
`() In this section "mains gas" means a supply of gas by a public gas supplier within the meaning of Part I of the Gas Act 1986.'.
21 Page 11, line 18, at end insert:
'() Rules of court may make provision with respect to the period for which any order restricting enforcement is to have effect and for the circumstances in which any such order may be revoked.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17 to 21 en bloc. They all concern administration orders, and the new Section 112A of the County Courts Act 1984 inserted by Clause 11.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 clarify that the protection for supplies of domestic fuel and water provided by the new Section 112A(4) applies only to supplies for the debtor's own domestic purposes.
Amendment No. 19 also concerns the protection and termination of supply. As currently drafted, the new Section 112A(4) prevents a supplier of domestic gas, electricity or water from disconnecting supplies without leave of the court while an administration order or order restricting enforcement is in force, unless the reason for disconnection is unconnected with non-payment by the debtor. That permits utility suppliers to cut off supplies for, for example, routine or emergency maintenance, without applying to the court for leave.
During discussion of the clause in another place, and during discussions between the electricity and gas industries and my department, another situation has been identified in which it would be right for the supplier to be able to terminate supply without an order of the court. That is where the debtor defaults in payment of charges incurred after the order was made, and the supplier has followed all the procedures laid down by the statutes, regulations and codes of practice affecting him and has reached the conclusion, in accordance with those procedures, that there is no alternative but to terminate supply.
Amendment No. 20 is a purely drafting clarification of the definition of mains gas for the purposes of the new Section 1 12A of the County Courts Act 1984.
Amendment No. 21 permits rules of court to regulate the termination and revocation of orders restricting enforcement under the new Section 112A.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17 to 21 en bloc.
—(The Lord Chancellor. )
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the only comment I wish to make is in regard to Amendment No. 19 which the noble and learned Lord has so lucidly explained. We on these Benches are not very happy with that provision which permits creditors to cease supplying utilities—that is, gas, electricity or water—to debtors for whom administration orders have been made where they fail to pay charges incurred after the order. That means that that can be done without leave of the court.
One would have thought that it would be much more humane to say that the utility companies should install prepayment meters in those circumstances. However, to cause that hardship to people who have administration orders in regard to charges for
1382
essential utilities which may occur after that date, and to allow the utilities to be cut off without applying to the court, is a harsh way of dealing with the matter.
Again, we have the Commons amendment before us and I do not intend to ask for the opinion of the House by way of calling for a Division. However, I hope that it may be possible to advise the utility companies that that cause should not be adopted unless in a case which is completely undeserving and that the idea of installing prepayment meters would be a much more humane way of dealing with the matter.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in this amendment I am concerned with preventing monopoly suppliers —utility suppliers—from exploiting that position in order to obtain preferential payment of a debt to the disadvantage of other creditors scheduled to the administration order or to an order restricting enforcement.
For that reason, I am concerned only with the charges incurred when that order was made. It is right that as regards the debts incurred thereafter the debtor and creditor should follow the normal procedures without further reference to the court which made the administration order or order restricting enforcement.
Of course, there are procedures for restricting the cutting off of supplies. I believe that very often a prepayment meter would be installed. However, there may be circumstances in which it may be more in the interests of the debtor that credit should be allowed. That is the purpose of the clause and I believe that it is reasonably humane.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
22 Clause 13, page 12, line 35, after 'seize' insert '—(a)'.
23 Page 12, line 36, leave out '(a)' and insert '(i)'.
24 Page 12, line 39, leave out `(b)' and insert '(ii)'.
25 Page 12, line 41, at end insert:'and
(b) any money, banknotes, bills of exchange, promissory notes, bonds, specialties or securities for money belonging to that person.'.
26 Page 13, line 7, at end insert:
'(3) Where a person takes steps to enforce a judgment or order of the High Court or a county court for the payment of any sum due, the costs of any previous attempt to enforce that judgment shall be recoverable to the same extent as if they had been incurred in the taking of those steps.
(4) Subsection (3) shall not apply in respect of any costs which the court considers were unreasonably incurred (whether because the earlier attempt was unreasonable in all the circumstances of the case or for any other reason).'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22 to 26 en bloc. Those amendments all concern Clause 13 and goods which may be seized in execution.
Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 allow sheriffs executing writs of execution in the High Court to seize, in addition to the articles set out in Clause 13(1), money or things akin to money.
Amendment No. 26 allows successful plaintiffs, when enforcing judgment, to recover the costs of earlier reasonable but unsuccessful attempts to

1383
enforce the same judgment, in the same way as they are able to recover the costs of the enforcement which is eventually successful. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22 to 26 en bloc. —(The Lord Chancellor. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
27 Clause 14, page 13, leave out line 8 and insert:
'14. — (1) Section 75 of the County Courts Act 1984 (county court rules) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (d)—
"(d) prescribing cases in which—

(i) any jurisdiction of a county court is to be exercised by a district judge of a county court or by some other officer of the court;

(ii) any functions of a judge of a county court are to be discharged by a district judge of a county court or some other officer of the court;

(iii) any functions of a district judge of a county court are to be discharged by some other officer of the court;

(iv) any such jurisdiction may be so exercised or any such functions may be so discharged; or"

(3) The'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27. I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 8.
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 15, page 13, line 42, leave out 'those' and insert 'the'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28. I have been asked to deal with Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 separately. Amendment No. 28 is a purely drafting amendment. I shall come to the substance of the matter when dealing with Amendment No. 29.
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 Page 13, line 44, at end insert:
`(bb) whether, in the case of a body whose members are or will be providing advocacy services, the rules of conduct make satisfactory provision in relation to the court or proceedings in question requiring any such member not to withhold those services—

(i) on the ground that the nature of the case is objectionable to him or to any section of the public;

(ii) on the ground that the conduct, opinions or beliefs of the prospective client are unacceptable to him or to any section of the public;

(iii) on any ground relating to the source of any financial support which may properly be given to the prospective client for the proceedings in question (for example, on the ground that such support will be available under the Legal Aid Act 1988); and'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. I think it would be helpful to the
1384
House if I took the opportunity to explain in some detail the effect of the amendments which were moved in another place on my behalf by my right honourable friend the Attorney-General; and which, if your Lordships approve them, will replace the provisions introduced into the Bill after the debate in this House on 20th February when your Lordships carried into the Bill an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon.
The Government reached the view in the light of your Lordships' decision that it would be right that a statement relating to the matter of the cab rank rule should be included within the general principle.
After the debate on 20th February I remained concerned that Clause 15 of the Bill should contain a general principle; that is, a principle unqualified by exceptions or derogations. As it left this House, Clause 15(3)(d) applied only to:
"rights of audience in any of the superior courts other than those exercisable by solicitors (in their capacity as solicitors) immediately before the 17 December 1989"
and was stated, on the face of the Bill, to be subject to "any appropriate exceptions". I was keen to achieve, if possible, a formulation which could apply to all advocates in all courts—as this is a matter relating to justice—and which would be a real statement of principle not compromised by unclear and general references to appropriate exceptions without some guidance as to what they might be.
As a result of our putting a good deal of work and time, with, I should say, exceptional help from parliamentary counsel, into obtaining what seems to be a suitable formulation to achieve this, what appears in the Commons amendments to Clause 15 should be a principle of universal application which will apply in all courts and to all advocates, solicitor or barrister, employed in partnership or in independent practice. Having studied carefully the historical origins of the rule (which go back to the turn of the 14th century), I concluded that the cab rank rule is more accurately described as a principle of non-discrimination. It may be stated as requiring that an advocate holding himself out as generally available must not decline to act on the ground that the nature of the case is objectionable, or that the conduct, opinions or beliefs of the prospective client are unacceptable to him or to any section of the public. Equally, he must not decline to act on any grounds relating to the source of any financial support which may properly be given to the prospective client for the proceedings in question. That principle, which exists both to protect the client against having to prove his case to his own representative, and to protect the advocate from association with the case he is pleading, should in the Government's view henceforth apply to all those whose profession consists in the provision of advocacy services.
Any professional body seeking new advocacy rights for its members will be required to provide detailed rules which conform with the general principle including of course subsection (5). It will be for the

1385
mechanism established under the Bill to decide what those rules should be for any particular body, and then for the body to enforce the rules so decided upon.
I must say a little about the subject matter of Amendment No. 29A to this amendment, proposed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. The substance of that matter is dealt with in subsection (5). There is no doubt in my mind that an advocate has always been able to stipulate a proper fee for his services: one need look no further for authority for that proposition than the statement of Lord Reid in the case of Rondel v. Worsley which was quoted by, among others, my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner on 20th February.
"There is no doubt about the position and duties of a barrister or advocate appearing in court on behalf of a client. It has long been recognised that no counsel is entitled to refuse to act in a sphere in which he practises, and on being tendered a proper fee, for any person however unpopular or even offensive he or his opinions may be, and it is essential that that duty must continue: justice cannot be done and certainly cannot be seen to be done otherwise"
It is the case, as we all know, that in many instances solicitors and barristers now receive their fees not from the client they represent, but rather from the Government via the Legal Aid Fund. Such clients (and this is of course why the fund exists) are typically those who would find it difficult to meet the cost of litigation themselves. Because of this, it has been suggested that advocates should be placed by the statute under an absolute duty to act for such clients, to ensure that they do not go unrepresented.
I cannot accept that view. The Government believe that the best mechanism for determining the correct level of payment for any practitioner is the way in which the market operates in the provision of those services. We all know that the legal profession competes for private clients; and there is no reason why that principle should be changed in respect of publicly-funded work. So under the approach which Parliament approved in the Legal Aid Act 1988, it must be for each individual advocate to decide whether the rates on offer under the legal aid regulations for the time being in force are appropriate for him to undertake such cases. Only by that means can we ensure that the money paid out under the scheme represents the best possible value to the taxpayer.
There is, moreover, another reason why I could not agree to impose a statutory duty upon advocates to undertake legal aid cases. To illustrate it I can do no better than to quote the comments of David Latham QC, the draftsman of the latest Bar code of conduct, who was quoted in the Independent newspaper on 12th February as saying in relation to the formulation of the code:
"There is a presumption that the barrister must take work. Any refusal will have to be justified".
He goes on to make other comments, with which I need not trouble the House in view of the way the matter has developed.
Mr. Latham continued,
1386
"The problem as we saw it was that if we departed from the principle that a barrister is entitled to refuse work if it is not properly paid, that would permit the Government to hold a pistol to our heads."
I do not think that I or my successors should be handed a pistol, whether by the Bar or by anyone else for use in the periodic consultations I conduct over the rates payable under the legal aid regulations.
I also mention a point raised by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon in the House when discussing the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill on 2nd April. He referred to an encounter with a solicitor from the Midlands who was hoping to set up an advocacy department but had said in relation to it:
"There is no way we will do that, if it involves having to undertake legal aid work."
Under the terms of these amendments, that Midland solicitor will not, of course, be able to refuse to accept clients merely because their source of financial support is the Legal Aid Fund, since a legal aid fee can be a proper fee, even if it is lower than a private one. Indeed the precise effect of the third limb of Amendment No. 29 is to require the advisory committee, the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges to ensure that no professional body whose members offer advocacy services has rules which would allow a refusal on that ground. What such rules of conduct must allow, however, is that an advocate may, if there are reasonable grounds for him so to do, decline to act where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the nature of his practice or his experience and standing, he is not being offered a proper fee, whether by the client directly or by the Government on his behalf.
There has been some discussion of how the existence of such reasonable grounds will be tested. There is a limit to what I can say now without pre-empting the outcome of the discussions which will take place under the new framework. Detailed rules of conduct providing for the application of objective tests of this issue appropriate to particular circumstances will be required to give effect to this part of the general principle. Here, of course, we are particularly concerned with the application of this test to advocacy services supplied to legally aided clients. Such rules of conduct will be matters for the new machinery to consider together with the way in which they are enforced. The application of these rules of conduct by individual advocates in deciding whether to take on particular cases will then be a matter for individual professional bodies to enforce.
I have taken this opportunity to explain in some detail why I am asking your Lordships to agree to Commons Amendment No. 31, but I do not think that any of what I have said is any longer the subject of significant debate in the profession. The Government consulted closely with both the Law Society and the Bar Council in framing the amendments, and also with the consumer organisations who were very concerned with these matters at the time. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking them for the time they gave and their patience in trying to reach a

1387
conclusion on this important matter which has resulted in the Commons amendments. I commend the amendments to the House.
For the purpose of dealing with these matters properly I shall move only Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 29
29A Sub-paragraph (iii), line 4, after ("support") insert ("(which
shall constitute the offer of a proper fee)").
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 29A. At the outset I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his courtesy in correspondence and discussion on this subject. It is not easily resolved by any formal amendment on the face of the Bill either in the public interest or in the interest of upholding the traditions of service and parity of treatment in both branches of the legal profession.
Notwithstanding certain observations made by Mr. Attorney at Report stage of the Bill in another place, to which I shall refer shortly, it is understood that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has always accepted as a matter of broad principle that he is anxious on rights of advocacy to ensure parity of treatment between the two branches of the profession on the obligation to undertake legally aided work. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has always accepted and recognised the importance and value of self-regulation by the authorised bodies.
My understanding from what has been said today by my noble and learned friend is that the difference between us does not lie so much on matters of principle but in the means of implementation which are proposed in Amendments Nos. 29 and 32, which as yet (lave not been considered by your Lordships. In my judgment, for what it is worth, they are neither appropriate nor acceptable. If the means of implementation are to be the machinery of self-regulation to ensure parity of treatment as regards obligations to accept legally aided work, so be it. On such an assurance there is perhaps no need for Amendment No. 29A, to which I speak; but without such assurance this amendment is apposite as a safeguard against the use of Amendment No. 32 as a resort or device to seek to refuse legally aided work on the ground that the fees offered are not acceptable.
The fees offered under legal aid lie within the province of government. The acceptability lies within the province of the authorised bodies. As a matter of the mechanics of self-regulation, if the authorised bodies accept the fees offered as proper, it must not be open to members of that body to refuse to accept legally aided work on the grounds offered by Amendment No. 32. That would be an abuse. At the moment, the position is wide open.
When the Bill left your Lordships' House it was understood that Clause 15(3) (d) made appropriate provision. However, that was removed during the
1388
Committee stage; a decision reflected in Commons Amendment No. 31. What is now paragraph (iii) in Amendment No. 29 was substituted for Clause 15(3) (d). However, again the effect of these provisions has not yet been considered by your Lordships' House.
At the Committee stage in another place Clause 15(3) (d) was removed and paragraph (iii) substituted, but on Report Mr. Attorney acknowledged that concern had been expressed as to the interpretation on whether paragraph (iii) of Amendment 29, as it now is, could allow the authorised body to have rules which permit an individual advocate to refuse to act on grounds relating to the amount of remuneration offered—what I have sought to stylise as abuse under Amendment No. 32.
Mr. Attorney put the Government's position briefly in this way. He said that there could be no statutory obligation to undertake legally aided cases no matter what level of remuneration was payable. He said that the essence of the provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1988, dealing with remuneration, was to empower the Lord Chancellor to set rates which are just enough to attract lawyers to do the work. He said that a rule framed to impose an obligation on the cab rank principle not to refuse legally aided work would not be acceptable. To that end, Amendment No. 32 was introduced which enables the advocate to refuse the legally aided case.
This approach, which applies to Clause 15 by Amendment No. 29 to the rules of all bodies whose members are or will be providing advocacy services, assuredly includes both branches of the profession. However, questions arise and, indeed, arose in another place. How does this affect the principle that if a barrister is offered a brief within his field of practice he should take it irrespective of whether or not it is legally aided? How will this approach impinge broadly on legal aid work in the public interest? Will an advocate be able to decline legal aid work simply because the legal aid rates are below and lower than his private rates? Are legal aid rates, whether fixed or settled by taxation, enough to attract lawyers to do the work? Such questions were asked in another place (at col. 596 of Hansard) but as yet do not appear to have received any satisfactory or wholly comprehensive answers.
However, since Mr. Attorney dealt with this matter and, I suggest, failed to give any comprehensive or satisfactory answers, it is known that only a small percentage of solicitors intend to exercise extended rights of advocacy. The number of solicitors willing to accept legal aid work is, I understand, on the decline. The financial constraints are such as to reduce the rates still further. Moreover, the Bar has changed its rules to ensure that the adequacy of legal aid fees is now a matter for the professional body as a measure of safeguard for our traditions.
It is in the public interest that legal aid should be sufficiently funded and that both branches of the legal profession should be obliged to undertake legal aid work within their fields of practice, subject to the approval of fees by the professional bodies, and that the adequacy of the fees should be a matter between

1389
government and the authorised body. Never in any circumstances, if fees are acceptable to the authorised body, should they be a matter upon which the individual member of the body could refuse to do the work. There must be a level playing field.
I tabled Amendment No. 31—to which I shall speak briefly as it is grouped—to afford an opportunity for further discussion on how to avoid abuse under Amendment No. 32 by opting out of legally aided work on the ground of an inadequate fee. It affords an opportunity to discuss how, as a matter of mechanics, the principle of self-regulation shall be directed generally, in broad terms of parity of treatment, to ensure that Amendment No. 32 is not so abused.
My hope is that in the light of your Lordships' contributions, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be able to give satisfactory assurances on how, in practice, this may be achieved without the need to write it into the face of the Bill. It is a matter of public interest which also concerns the honour and traditions of the legal profession. I speak for no one but myself. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 29A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 29, be
agreed to.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway. )
Lord Renton: My Lords, I welcome the statement made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when moving Amendment No. 29. I broadly agree with it. As to the points made with great sincerity by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I do not see the difficulties that he has attempted to describe arising from what was said in another place at Report stage. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General answered various questions.
For the sake of the record, I shall remind your Lordships what those answers were. In doing so, I shall be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can confirm the answers which were given. The Attorney-General said:
"What is claimed to be a reasonable ground can be the subject of an objective test, and it will fall to those who comprise the machinery to determine whether or not it is satisfied in a given case". [Official Report, Commons, 25/7/90; col. 595.]
My noble friend referred to what was asked of the Attorney-General and the reply is quite clear. He said:
"It does not follow that because legal aid rates may be lower than some private rates, legal aid fees are not to be regarded as proper fees. All the circumstances must be considered. I have identified some that will be of general application, but all the circumstances of the case would have to be looked at and the objective test of reasonableness would then have to be determined. That would he for the new machinery". [col. 596.]
I hope that that clarifies the matter for my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, and that it assures him that, whatever else may be said about his amendment, those remarks make it unnecessary. I believe that the wording of his amendment would also
1390
cause some conflict and doubt with what appears before and after if we accept all the Commons amendments.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already made clear that detailed rules of conduct will deal with these issues including the way in which the objective test of reasonableness is to apply. He said that it will be for the new machinery to consider those rules of conduct. Those who operate the new machinery will be reporting to the Lord Chancellor. If they find that the rules of conduct do not comply with the test of reasonableness, and so on, then rights of audience will not be granted.
While we are considering this matter, it is right that we should assure ourselves that what is provided for the cab-rank rule in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill will be broadly the principle that will apply south of the Border. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that professional standards should be as high south of the Border as it is intended that they should be north of it. I am paraphrasing the Scottish Bill accurately. It requires the Lord President, who will operate the machinery there, to have regard to the desirability of there being common principles applying to rights of audience by all practitioners before the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary.
I am not certain, because I have not followed the Scottish amendments right through in another place, but it appears that the provision applies to the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary only. However, here, thanks to the enlargement proposed by the Government and accepted in another place, that rule will apply to all solicitors, barristers and people applying for rights of audience in all courts. I ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to give an assurance that in England and Wales common principles will be expected to apply to all those who are to have rights of audience.
I can summarise the position by saying that I feel that the Government, with the help of outside bodies and as the result of very diligent consideration since the Bill left your Lordships' House, have now got it right in regard to the cab-rank rule. Therefore, I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway will feel reassured and that Amendment No. 29 and the other Government amendments that go with it, will be acceptable to your Lordships.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I have misgivings about these amendments. I cannot help feeling that what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said is the wish being father to the thought. There are a number of questions that I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in order to set my misgivings apart. I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has said.
When the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, was accepted by this House it was made very clear that the authorised body was to give practitioners the right of audience in the superior courts. I appreciate the Lord Chancellor's efforts to make it universally applicable. That provision must

1391
embody the principle of the cab-rank in the rules of conduct and put on the advocate a positive duty to abide by that principle so long as the requirement was reasonable, the fee proper, and the case fell within the field of practice of the advocate. Above all, the duty was covered in relation to the legally-aided client. Now, as regards advocates practising in the superior courts, that fee arrived at under the Legal Aid Act is deemed by its very nature to be a reasonable fee. It is only the professional body that can hold that the fee is unreasonable. In other words, the decision is not the decision of the individual advocate. If the fee is considered to be unreasonable, that is a matter for the professional body to take up with the authorities. It is the professional body which guarantees the independence of the advocate.
I was a little sad to hear the noble and learned Lord say today that the market will operate with regard to legal aid fees. I found that to be a long way from the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, which was accepted by this House so long ago. That amendment has gone and Amendment No. 29 is substituted. In that amendment, no principle is referred to and no duty laid on the advocate is referred to. The amendment provides instead that the body must in its rules make satisfactory provision requiring members not to discriminate. That is a negative obligation as opposed to the positive duty at present in the Bill. There is also an escape clause based on the insufficiency of the fee.
Does this cover the obligation? An advocate who says that he will not appear for a member of the Peerage, for someone who is rich, for someone who has been to a public school, or that he will not appear for other such reasons, does not appear to fall within the words of Amendment No. 29. On the serious matter of the escape clause, Amendment No. 32 now provides:
"Rules of conduct which allow a member of the body in question to withhold his services if there are reasonable grounds for him to consider that, having regard to—

(a) the circumstances of the case;

(b) the nature of his practice; or

(c) his experience and standing,

he is not being offered a proper fee, are not on that account to be taken as being incompatible with the general principle".
On the face of it, that appears to drive a coach and horses through the great principle set out by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in a remarkable speech, one which we shall always remember, on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. He said that anyone who wishes to exercise the privileges of an advocate must at the same time accept the burdens. The greatest burden an advocate has to accept—and by far the most constitutionally important burden—is the cab rank rule. It is now said that in the circumstances set out in Amendment No. 32 it is not to be considered incompatible if an advocate says that he refuses the legal aid case because there are reasonable grounds for him to say that he is not being paid a proper fee.
The noble and learned Lord argued that, if an advocate says on not unreasonable grounds that a fee
1392
is insufficient, the matter will be dealt with by the body itself. It seems to me in my innocence that all the body will do is lay down its rules following the language of the statute exactly. Where an advocate says, "In my firm the partners have five or six figure salaries to recognise the responsibilities which they carry. We cannot work in this firm under a charge of £500 an hour and so one of our partners cannot possibly go into court for £50 an hour under a legal aid brier, the rules will follow precisely the language of the statute and the body will uphold that attitude. If that is the position, it does not seem to me that the committee can possibly come into the matter on an individual fee. Once it has agreed the rules—it will not be possible for it to disagree the rules if that language is followed—any individual will be able to say that a fee is insufficient.
The result will be that legal aid cases will only be taken by those at the bottom of the pile of advocates. Throughout one's experience as an advocate one has fought all the way through for the principle that the poorest in society, and those involved in the most objectionable and most unpleasant case on the face of it, should have the services of high quality advocates. Such people should not be reduced to having only the lowest form of advocacy. I ask those questions of the noble and learned Lord because I have the gravest misgivings about where these amendments will take US.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I should like to start by paying tribute to the words expressed in support of the principle both by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and my noble friend, as I think of him for these purposes, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. All those who have taken part in the debate on this issue share that common aspiration. Where I hope I am correct in differing slightly from them today is not as to the principle but as to the fears which they have expressed over the effect of the Commons amendments.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor obviously considered with very great care the amendment passed by this House. It was passed against the initial views of the Government but not, I suspect, against many of the sentiments which my noble and learned friend actually holds. As a result of that consideration, my noble and learned friend has said today that parliamentary draftsmen were given immensely hard work. As the author of the amendment, perhaps I may apologise for that exceptional burden placed upon them.
It was the intent of the clause—and I believe it may have been the intent of this House in passing the clause —that it should convey very simple principles. Perhaps I may repeat the principles which, as I understand it, this House intended to enact. The first was that advocates should act for all-comers, as we put it, regardless of the popularity of their cause, either generally or to the individual advocate. We call that in modern parlance the cab rank rule. My noble and learned friend today called it the non-discrimination rule. There is nothing between us on

1393
the principle. It is the principle for which Thomas Erskine, my noble and learned friend's illustrious predecessor from north of the Border, stood, and as I understand it, it is the principle which my noble and learned friend has sought to accept in the amendment he puts forward. Thus—perhaps my noble and learned friend will be kind enough to confirm this—some of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, about whether an advocate would act for a member of the Peerage or for someone who had been to a public school would, in the light of the terminology of the Act, become misconceived. As I understand it, the Commons amendment seeks to enshrine the non-discrimination provision.
The second principle that we sought to enact was that in general advocates would undertake legal aid work. We sought to enact it not as an absolute obligation but as an obligation that was to be subject to exceptions, those exceptions to be formulated by the machinery after considering draft rules of conduct and submissions from the various branches of the profession and (let us not forget them) from representatives of the public.
As I understand it, the reason my noble and learned friend has approached it in a different way is not because he has disagreed with the principle this House sought to carry but rather he has thought he ought to put that principle in the Act in somewhat more precise language. Therefore, as I understand it, my noble and learned friend does not intend to derogate at all from the view that in general there should be a responsibility upon advocates to accept legal aid work unless good cause is shown.
Having said that—because that was the intent of the original amendment which my noble and learned friend has sought to make more specific—perhaps I may say that I was very heartened to hear my noble and learned friend indicate that fears which had been expressed that whole firms would be able to opt out of legal aid advocacy work were misconceived. Those fears were expressed because it has undoubtedly been true that, in regard to that legal aid work which is currently done by solicitors, many firms of solicitors have opted out. Many of the large City firms of solicitors will not touch it. I gave an illustration on the Scottish Bill of a reputable solicitor from the Midlands who indicated that if his firm had to do legal aid work it would not touch advocacy. Therefore I was heartened to hear my noble and learned friend say that that approach would not be one which the profession would be entitled to adopt.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, expressed the fear that all the advisory machinery would have to do would be to rubber stamp the legislation, leaving it to individual advocates to decide how to apply the principle. As I understand the situation from what my noble and learned friend said this afternoon, it is intended that the test of reasonableness should be an objective one. As I also understand it—perhaps my noble and learned friend will be good enough to confirm this—the intent is that the machinery shall scrutinise the rules of conduct of the various branches
1394
of the profession or of those other bodies which apply to give advocacy services, and see whether those rules of conduct contain appropriate provisions with regard to the undertaking of legal aid work. If the rules of conduct do not and would leave this as a very leaky vessel indeed, then the machinery would be obliged to seek to enforce the principle which, in a different way, this amendment has sought to enforce.
Perhaps I may add one word to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Renton, who said that he hoped and understood that common principles would apply across the profession. That is the intent in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said as much, I think, when he took part in the debate when we first discussed this amendment at an earlier stage. I am paraphrasing him and he will correct me if I am wrong, but he said he thought that those who sought to have a privilege should adopt the burdens that went with that privilege. I note that the noble Lord assents to that and I am very grateful to him, because that is in accordance with the highest standards he has always practised.
If that approach is adopted—namely, that in general there is the obligation to do legal aid work and that we take a standpoint of common principles for advocates as a whole—I believe that the fears expressed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, are misconceived. We felt the original amendment would have had this effect, but on the basis that it is the intention of the Government to secure the principle of the original amendment but to put it in more precise and better language, I would be content to accept the amendment.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I had not anticipated, when your Lordships were considering this matter at an earlier stage, that I should be standing in your Lordships' House, as I am now, to tell your Lordships that I am as a solicitor in the City of London currently conducting a case under a legal aid certificate. Such is my generosity towards the Legal Aid Fund that I may not even claim the legal aid fees in this case.
This has been a vexed and difficult matter for both sides of the legal profession. The noble and learned Lord, in producing this amendment, has produced an amendment which I believe is widely welcomed by both sides of the profession. It is very heartening to hear the views of the noble Lords, Lord Alexander and Lord Renton, speaking in support of the noble and learned Lord's amendment. Therefore I am very happy to do so personally and also to express the view of the Law Society, because I believe that the noble and learned Lord has truly found something that is fair to both sides of the profession and above all is fair to the litigant. For that reason, I support the amendment.
The only other matter I must mention is in the nature of a personal apology because I may not be able to stay with your Lordships until the end of the debate. However, if your Lordships are still sitting very late in the evening I shall return to try to be of some assistance.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the classic statement of the so-called cab rank rule was made by Erskine in the Tom Paine trial. It was quoted in earlier proceedings on this Bill. I think my noble and learned friend performed a felicitous service in giving that a new soubriquet: the non-discrimination rule. The cab rank rule is perhaps too banal a term for a principle of such high constitutional importance. That high constitutional importance was emphasised by my noble and learned friend in his evidence to the Royal Commission on Scottish Legal Services.
It was rationalised in a number of notable speeches in your Lordships' House, and I hope it is not invidious for me to mention particularly that of my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver, who put it on the bas s that the Bar had been exercising privileges in having a monopoly of access in orders to the High Court. It was because of that that the emphasis earlier was on High Court proceedings. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, said was that such a privilege imports a duty; and it was the duty to carry out the non-discrimination principle that ran through all the discussion on the so-called cab rank or non-discrimination rule.
Again, I hope it will not be invidious if I mention that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, by his practice has exemplified how that principle should be accomplished in the courts, in a way that carried the admiration of anybody who was concerned with justice in the courts. The other person I mention has already been adverted to; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He departed slightly, if not considerably, from the apprehension of where the Law Society and solicitors might find themselves if the non-discrimination rule or the cab rank rule was applied to them. The noble Lord said roundly, "We shall have new privileges. We must accept the concomitant responsibilities". That struck your Lordships as a most noble pronouncement and a most hopeful one for the future of the scheme.
Legal aid has brought a most significant new dimension to the cab rank rule. The Bar—indeed, the legal profession generally—has always felt it its duty to see that poor people are represented. Until 1948 that was done by the proceedings in forma pauperis. It is now of immense importance that the legal aid scheme should succeed. It should be the duty of all who enter into the process of justice to see that it does succeed. It seems to me that what the Bar Council has done is of great value in that respect and I hope that all other professional bodies will follow suit. I personally much prefer what is in Clause 22 —the equivalent clause—of the Scottish Bill. However, it seems to me that, provided that the Law Society and other professional bodies follow the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pronounced, the legal aid scheme is safe in the new dispensation. It is the duty of anyone who has anything to do with the law to ensure that the cab rank rule —the non-discrimination rule —is firmly and comprehensively extended to cover all legal aid proceedings.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I shall confine my remarks to one amendment which is grouped with this series of
1396
amendments; namely, Commons Amendment No. 31. I shall speak also to the Motion of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31.
Commons Amendment No. 31 seeks to delete a clause in the Bill. My noble friend seeks to maintain that clause in the Bill. The clause in question reads:
"whether, as regards rights of audience in any of the superior courts other than those exercisable by solicitors (in their capacity as solicitors) immediately before the 7th December 1989, that body's rules of conduct include provisions embodying in appropriate terms, and with any appropriate exceptions, the principle that, except in circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to require him to do so, an advocate practising in any of those courts is under a duty to act for any client (whether legally aided or not) in cases within his field of practice".
I think that the Commons have got it right and that my noble friend has got it wrong.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the discussion that has taken place on this amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway because it has enabled us to look at the matter covered by the group of amendments that I introduced with Amendment No. 29.
I should like to address myself first to the way in which the point was put by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. This amendment is not the whole story. It relates to a provision which requires that qualifications should include the person being
"a member of a professional or other body which—
"(i) has rules of conduct (however described) governing the conduct of its members"—
those are the rules with which we shall be concerned in the later amendment—
"(ii) has an effective mechanism for enforcing those rules of conduct; and
"(iii) is likely to enforce them".
In other words, it will not be open to the Lord Chancellor and the other designated judges to approve rights of audience, for example, with regard to a professional body, unless there is evidence that the body has an effective means of enforcing the rules and that it is likely to enforce them. Where a rule of conduct is applicable, it will not ultimately be for the member to decide whether he obeys the rule of conduct. The rule of conduct will be enforced.
The amendment with which we are concerned, like the amendment that my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon moved when the Bill was before the House on Report, relates to the content of the rules of conduct. Perhaps I may follow my noble friend Lord Alexander in saying that, once the House had determined that his amendment should be agreed, I felt that, if at all possible, I wished to give effect to it. I wished to give effect to it more generally for reasons that I have explained; namely, that, if it is a principle of justice, it should apply in all courts, not just in the superior courts. I believe that that point is generally accepted. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, certainly accepted that. That was the first change that I was anxious to make.

1397
Because it was a matter of general principle, the second change that I was anxious to make was to have it stated as a general principle; that is to say, without exceptions of any kind. The difficulty is that one must examine closely what the principle is because, in a sense, it is easier to get away with allowing exceptions —leaving it to the machinery—than it is to state what the essence of the rule is. We have tried here to state what the essence of the rule is. With regard to the legal aid point, I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, to the fact that we are trying to describe matters in respect of requiring a member not to withhold those services. That is the duty. The rule must place a duty on the member not to withhold his services on any of those grounds. We have tried to encompass in general terms the various grounds that were likely to occur in practice. We did not think particularly about a person attending a public school, but it would be covered by the phrase:
"the conduct, opinions or beliefs of the prospective client".
The whole appearance, as it were, of a client is intended to be included in that.
The second matter to which I want to draw attention is the third heading which states:
"on any ground relating to the source of any financial support which may properly be given to the prospective client for the proceedings in question (for example, on the ground that such support will be available under the Legal Aid Act 1988)".
It is the existence of that provision which led me to say what my noble friend asked me to say when I referred to the solicitor in the Midlands to whom he referred in his speech on the Scottish Bill. That is the general provision.
On the question of fees, we have sought to provide a basis on which the rules of conduct can be examined to see whether they are compatible with the general principle. That is quite a difficult question. The principle as stated in the passages to which I referred is stated on the premise that a proper fee will be tendered. There must therefore be something in the statement of principle that deals with that point.
New subsection (5) refers to:
"Rules of conduct which allow a member of the body in question to withhold his services if there are reasonable grounds for him to consider".
That is why I say that it is an objective test. It is not just a matter of what his opinion is. He must be able to show that there are reasonable grounds for his opinion regarding those three aspects of the matter.
Before the advisory committee and the designated judges approve any rules, they will have to consider carefully whether the rules of conduct conform to that test; in other words, that the rules of conduct are consistent with the test set out throughout the amendment. It will be for the designated judges ultimately to consider whether the approved rules of conduct make proper provision for testing whether an individual has reasonable grounds for considering that those are circumstances that apply in his case, and then, if and when the rules of conduct are approved, it will be for the professional body with the
1398
responsibility for enforcing the rules to see that those rules, as approved, are enforced. That is what the Attorney-General said in answer to questions on that matter put to him in the other place. That is fairly plain. What we have done is to analyse the substance of the principle which underlay my noble friend's amendment and put it into the Bill as an unqualified principle alongside the other principle.
Something has been said about the Scottish Bill and its provisions. I am always of course highly appreciative of the standards north of the Border. I should not like to see any difference in professional standards on either side of the Tweed. The principles to be followed are not stated in the Scottish Bill, whereas, in this Bill, in response, it would be fair to say, to observations made in the debate on the Green Paper, I felt it wise, if possible, to state general principles. Those general principles will apply the conduct of litigation, to everyone who is to conduct litigation and to everyone who is to have advocacy rights under the Bill. They are the principles. I do not have to rely upon a statement that the principles shall be common principles. Here are the statements of principle set down in detail. It is an amount of detail, thanks to my noble friend's amendment, to be applied in settling what the rules of conduct are to be which governs those two aspects of the provision of legal services. I believe that that is the correct balance.
One of the factors to be taken into account is that, in setting the level of legal aid remuneration, the Lord Chancellor is required to have regard to the number of people properly qualified to do the work at the proper level. That involves a degree of freedom for the profession to decide whether what is offered is acceptable in the way that has been developed. In the Bar's most recent code of conduct we have seen how that has been done.
It will be essential for any professional body which wishes to secure rights of audience for its members in any of the courts to produce rules of conduct which conform with those principles and to make satisfactory provision in the eyes of the designated judges to achieve those provisions. It will then be for the professional body to enforce them, remembering that the designated judges will not grant rights of audience to any professional or other body unless they are satisfied that the provisions will be enforced.
For those reasons, we have carried out fully and in detail the principle contained in my noble friend's amendment. There is no need for him to apologise. I just wanted to place on record the work done by parliamentary counsel. It was important and highly difficult work, as the amount of time various people had to spend on it showed; but I hope that in the end it has proved to be valuable work, and that it will be valued as a clear statement of principle. After all, to many people the meaning of the phrase "cab rank rule" is not immediately apparent. We have tried to analyse it in such a way as to make it apparent to all through the clear, unequivocal and unqualified provisions, as I believe they will be, of the amended clause, if your Lordships approve the Commons amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the care and trouble he has taken in dealing with the amendment. I am grateful also to all noble Lords who have contributed to this interesting debate which I hope your Lordships will feel has served a useful purpose. There is a considerable degree of justified apprehension about abuse of Amendment No. 32; but having listened with care to the closing speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, which will serve as formal guidance on record not merely for the rule-makers but for the advisory body, I hope that your Lordships will think that it would not be appropriate to take the opinion of your Lordships' House I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, No. 29A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 29, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I have only one small point to raise. It is only for clarification on Amendment No. 29. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will, in his usual lucid way, make easier the task of those bodies which will draw up rules applicable to Amendment No. 29. A person is not to withhold his services, according to paragraph (ii),
"on the ground that the conduct"—
"conduct" is the word that I wish to emphasise… of the prospective client [is] unacceptable to him or to any section of the public".
A commonsense interpretation of the word "conduct" would mean conduct in relation to the particular case in respect of which the person concerned is a prospective client. I envisage a gentleman in the waiting room who is a prospective client until I see him and whose conduct is such that he destroys my waiting room and makes a great noise in my firm. I am then expected to see him as a prospective client. He tells me that he has studied the wording of the Bill and I am not allowed to refuse him as a prospective client by virtue of his conduct. That shatters me.
I am aware, as I said, that the commonsense interpretation of the word should be that it is conduct in relation to the case with which I should be required to deal for him, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will make that position abundantly clear so that there is no misunderstanding.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, makes; I sincerely hope that it is not based upon experience. I wonder whether the point that he raises might narrow too much the definition contained in the clause. The clause, as I understand it, refers to alleged conduct in relation to the case and not merely to actual conduct and is intended to cover broad aspects of a person's behaviour or characteristics such as those raised by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, it concerns me as to how the words "conduct, opinions or beliefs" will cover the advocate who says, "I will not act for someone who is poor". He may say that he will not act for someone who does not live in his city, and other such things. Those situations do not seem to be
1400
covered by this provision at all. Seriously speaking, those are the kind of remarks that lawyers may make. For example, they may say that they will not act for people under the age of 21.
7 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I wonder whether we should have added to this provision words referring to a client's status or condition as well as to the,
"conduct, opinions or beliefs of the prospective client".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we spent a large amount of time on this matter on a previous occasion. It is extremely difficult to make an absolutely watertight statement on it. However, if we consider the matter as it is recorded in reported cases and in the classical statements of it, the principal heads are those mentioned in this provision.
Your Lordships will recall that the rules of conduct are to be approved by the designated judges. The hands of the designated judges are not tied except that they must ensure that the rules of conduct make satisfactory provision that these grounds for withholding services are not lawful under the machinery. We discussed this a long time ago. When I spoke about the rules in February, I said that the considerable detail in them is for the machinery to consider. I was not against the rules, but I appreciated that they were very detailed. The more we have discussed this matter, the more satisfied I feel that that was at least a stateable ground for the position that. I took up.
However, this measure prevents the mechanism from approving a rule in which a prospective client's conduct could be regarded as a basis for not accepting a brief. It would not prevent the mechanism from outlawing other conduct. Therefore if there was any apprehension in a particular professional body to object to particular classes of person independent of their "conduct, opinions or beliefs", it would be possible for the mechanism of the designated judges to take account of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, kindly gave me notice some time ago of the point that he wished to make this evening. I have had the opportunity of consulting parliamentary counsel on that matter. It appears to me that the conduct in question is the conduct in respect of the client at the stage when he is still a prospective client. It is not a matter of his conduct during the case. If a client were to refuse to accept a solicitor's advice, that might be a ground for not continuing with the brief in some circumstances. However, generally speaking, a client's conduct should not be a ground for refusing to take a brief. It is his conduct as a prospective client that the lawyer who is offered the brief considers at the time when the client is still a prospective client. Therefore I do not see why a person who has broken up a lawyer's waiting-room should necessarily be refused advocacy services for all time. If such an event were to occur in the premises of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the person concerned might be greatly in need of a good advocate and should be entitled to seek such services.

1401
Although I understand the point that is being made here, I must say with great respect that I do not think it is a sound one. The word "conduct" refers to the client's conduct at a stage when he is still a prospective client.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord would not expect me to defend a man who had destroyed my waiting-room.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I know how strongly the noble Lord is bound to the cab rank rule. There may be some good ground of defence available to a person who broke up the waiting-room. The man may have been unduly provoked or he may, for example, have had some mental or physical defect which caused the trouble. The mechanism is entitled to consider whether satisfactory provision has been made in relation to these matters. I believe that the experience of the designated judges taken together will be sufficient to cope with problems of the kind that the noble Lord has mentioned.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend finally sits down, I hope I may ask him about a case which I have seen reported. It concerned a firm of solicitors with strong feminist affiliations. Among the clients of that firm was the oddly named Women Against Rape organisation. By reason of the existing clientele of that firm, it was reported that the firm had declared it would not accept instructions from people accused of rape. Would such a situation be covered by the provision?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we knew of that case when we formulated these grounds. My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon was, of course, correct to point out that we are talking about alleged conduct and not necessarily conduct that is proven. The firm of solicitors in the case referred to was basically saying that the alleged conduct was unacceptable to a section of the public. That kind of objection would be covered in relation to advocacy services which is what this provision deals with.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
30 Page 13, line 45, leave out 'that body's' and insert 'the'
31 Page 13, line 47, leave out from 'justice' to end of line 10 on page 14.
32 Page 14, line 12, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
'(5) Rules of conduct which allow a member of the body in question to withhold his services if there are reasonable grounds for him to consider that, having regard to—

(a) the circumstances of the case;

(b) the nature of his practice; or

(c) his experience and standing,

he is not being offered a proper fee, are not on that account to be taken as being incompatible with the general principle.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 en bloc. I have spoken to these amendments already.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 en bloc. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
33 Clause 17, page 14, line 33, leave out '14' and insert '16'.
34 Page 14, line 37, leave out '14' and insert '16'.
35 Page 14, line 38, after '(a)', insert:

'one shall be a judge who is or has been a Circuit judge; (aa)'.

36 Page 14, line 43, leave out 'organisations' and insert

'institutions concerned with the teaching of law and such persons'

37 Page 14, line 46, leave out '8' and insert '9'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33 to 37 en bloc. In moving these amendments I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 98, 99, 118, 119, 189 to 191, 194 to 197 and 203.
These amendments relate to the advisory committee. They add to the category of reserved places on the committee. The total membership is increased to 17 and the lay majority preserved. The person added is a judge who is or has been a circuit judge.
Noble Lords will recall that there has been much discussion about this matter. I ultimately concluded, in the light of all that I had heard, that a person who had been a circuit judge as well as a person who was a circuit judge should be qualified to serve on the committee. Your Lordships will remember that my noble and learned friend Lord Roskill, who spoke in a previous debate, mentioned Mr. Justice Hazan who had been very helpful to him in a fraud inquiry. It would have been extraordinary if such a useful member of that committee, having been appointed to the High Court, should suddenly cease to be a member of the committee. My decision also gives me the option of considering for this appointment members of the High Court Bench who have been circuit judges. I hope that your Lordships will accept these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33 to 37 en bloc. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
38 Clause 20, page 16, line 21, after '(a)' insert 'a person who is or was'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38. I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 40 to 46, 192 and 193 which relate to the clauses and schedule dealing with the legal services ombudsman. A good deal of detail is involved.
Amendments Nos. 38 and 40 make it possible for the ombudsman to deal with a complaint in respect of a practitioner who has left practice since the matter for complaint arose. Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 and 46 concern the capacity of the ombudsman to do his job properly and to secure an effective remedy for clients. That is a point which arose when we considered the ombudsman's powers and how useful it would be to the client for the ombudsman to have such jurisdiction with regard to former practitioners.

1403
Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 strengthen the ombudsman's powers to require that non-compliance with a recommendation is publicised. During the debate on that power in another place the question arose as to what would happen if a practitioner or professional body refused to publicise the reasons as directed. The amendments were brought forward as a result of that discussion and will enable the ombudsman to publicise the facts where the practitioner or professional body clearly will not do so, and then to recover the reasonable costs. The ombudsman will, of course, be subject to judicial review if his actions in enforcing the publicity sanction were considered to be unreasonable.
Amendment No. 192 is a technical amendment which will enable the ombudsman to compensate a member of staff for loss of office, should that be necessary.
Amendment No. 193 allows the Lord Chancellor to appoint an acting legal services ombudsman should the need arise. That could be appropriate, for example, because of prolonged illness or sudden death —I hope that neither of those will apply to the person I have suggested should be nominated—or because the ombudsman thinks that it would be inappropriate for him to act in a particular case, which is much more likely, perhaps because of personal acquaintance with the client or practitioner involved, or for any other reason. The acting ombudsman will have the same powers as the ombudsman but will only act in accordance with his or her terms of appointment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
39 Clause 20, page 16, line 22, after 'conveyancer' insert 'registered foreign lawyer'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39.
In moving Amendment No. 39, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 128, 165, 167, 168, 170, 172 and 215 which deal with international practice. They provide a framework within which multinational partnerships consisting of English and Welsh solicitors and foreign solicitors and incorporated bodies managed and controlled by such solicitors and foreign lawyers acting together can be subjected to the minimum regulation necessary to provide protection for the clients of such partnerships.
Your Lordships will remember that it was agreed in principle that that would be permissible. The detailed provisions were to be considered with the Law Society. A great deal of detail is involved. I hope that your Lordships will feel that this is an appropriate way in which to fill out the detail. I therefore invite your Lordships to agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the whole House will welcome these provisions, which are so sensible and useful, especially in view of the advent of 1992. However, there is some worry that, having made these rules, there will not be sufficient reciprocity with other countries. I know that the noble and learned Lord has a considerable amount of influence in those countries and with their professional bodies. May we rely on him to see that as much reciprocity is granted to our own lawyers?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have been looking for some guidance as to what is a registered foreign lawyer. It is not set out in the general definitions clause at the end of the Bill; nor is it in Clause 20(11). Can my noble and learned friend enlighten us?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is a foreign lawyer who is registered in the new register of foreign lawyers that will be kept by the Law Society as a means of control for the protection of people in this country in that respect.
So far as concerns the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I do my best to persuade people in other countries to follow our good example.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke to Amendments Nos. 232, 263 and 277 in connection with Amendment No. 39. If this is the appropriate time, I should like to refer to those latter three amendments, which cover the qualification of Commonwealth solicitors. I am somewhat baffled by the cross-references in the three amendments, and I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether the amendments give effect to the new rules for qualification of Commonwealth solicitors on which I tabled an amendment at Report stage on 1st March and to which the noble and learned Lord agreed in principle subject to further consideration of the language proposed in that amendment. I should be very happy to hear that that was the case.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendments have a bearing on that question. I believe that we have been able to resolve the problem to which the noble Lord referred to his satisfaction.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
40 Clause 20, page 16, line 23, leave out 'who is' and insert 'and'.
41 Clause 21, page 18, line 12, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.
42 Page 18, line 12, after 'made', insert:

'(bb) any other person with respect to whom the Ombudsman makes a recommendation under subsection (2);'.

43 Page 18, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 20 and insert:

'(i) the person with respect to whom the complaint was made; or

(ii) any person who, at the material time, was connected with him;

(c) that—

(i) the person with respect to whom the complaint was made; or

(ii) any person who, at the material time, was connected with him,'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the Amendments Nos. 40 to 43. The amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 38, and I should like to move them en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40 to 43 en bloc. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
44 Clause 21, page 18, line 40, after 'section' insert 'and any publicity given under subsection (9)'.
45 Page 19, line 8, at end insert:
'(9) Where a person is required by subsection (8) to publicise any failure, the Ombudsman may take such steps as he considers reasonable to publicise that failure if—

(a) the period mentioned in subsection (7) has expired and that person has not complied with subsection (8); or

(b) the Ombudsman has reasonable cause for believing that that person will not comply with subsection (8) before the end of that period.

(10) Any reasonable expenses incurred by the Ombudsman under subsection (9) may be recovered by him (as a civil debt) from the person whose failure he has publicised.'.
46 Page 19, line 8, at end insert:
'() For the purposes of this section, the person with respect to whom a complaint is made ("the first person") and another person ("the second person") are connected if—

(a) the second person—

(i) employs the first person; and

(ii) is an authorised advocate, authorised litigator, duly certificated notary public, licensed conveyancer or partnership;

(b) they are both partners in the same partnership; or

(c) the second person is a recognised body which employs the first person or of which the first person is an officer.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 which were spoken to with Amendment No. 38.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 to 46—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
47 Clause 25, page 20, line 35, leave out paragraph (e) and insert:
'(e) where—

(i) he is employed (whether wholly or in part), or is otherwise engaged, to assist in the conduct of litigation and is doing so under instructions given (either generally or in relation to the proceedings) by a qualified litigator; and

(ii) the proceedings are being heard in chambers in the High Court or a county court and are not reserved family proceedings.'.

48 Page 21, line 31, at end insert:
'"family proceedings" has the same meaning as in the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and also includes any other proceedings which are family proceedings for the purposes of the Children Act 1989;'.
49 Page 21, line 35, at end insert:
"qualified litigator" means—

(i) any practising solicitor ("practising" having the same meaning as in section 17(8) (b));

(ii) any recognised body; and

1406

(iii)any person who is exempt from the requirement to hold a practising certificate by virtue of section 88 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (saving for solicitors to public departments and the City of London);'.

50 Page 21, line 37, at end insert:
'"reserved family proceedings" means such category of family proceedings as the Lord Chancellor may, after consulting the President of the Law Society and with the concurrence of the President of the Family Division, by order prescribe;'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 50.
The amendments deal with the question of solicitors' clerks, which was the subject of some discussion while the Bill was in your Lordships' House. I undertook to try to solve the problem. It turned out to be somewhat more intractable than I had thought but I believe that there is now a satisfactory solution. It has also been possible to make provision for the people who may provide clerks' services in London and who are not employed by solicitors in London but who act under instructions. We have tried to take account of those in a way which I believe is satisfactory.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 50.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord what are the implications of this amendment, because they concern me. Am I right in thinking that the result of Amendment No. 47 will be that part-time unqualified clerks of any sort or description, so long as they are acting under instructions, will have the conduct of bail applications before Crown Court judges? When that amendment is combined with Clause 88, the unqualified clerk is specifically allowed to have the conduct of bail applications for the Crown Prosecution Service. The result will be that these matters, which affect the liberty of the subject and the safety of the public, will be conducted on both sides by unqualified clerks—unqualified laymen.
I wonder whether I am right in the view that these proceedings, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will appreciate, often result in people who are later acquitted or not given a custodial sentence, being kept in custody, so swelling the prison population. We must bear in mind that at this very moment the Woolf Inquiry is investigating why so many people are sent to prison on bail who should not be so sent. I wonder whether the result of this amendment is merely to make the position worse than it has been hitherto.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend replies, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said. I am particularly concerned by the words "or in part". That could mean a very tenuous and very slight degree of employment. The idea that somebody can be brought in, perhaps ad hoc, just for getting a right of audience in a particular case seems a rather strange proposition. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend can explain and justify it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I may be wrong, and if so I may be rapped over the knuckles, but I read these amendments as relating to civil proceedings, giving what we used to call a managing clerk—or an executive, as he is now called—in a solicitor's office, whether employed full or part time, exactly the same facilities in the county court in chambers as he has always had in the High Court. I should have thought that it is almost an a fortiori argument that if he had that in the High Court he ought to have it in the county court.
However, whether I am right or wrong perhaps I may make a further point which I promised the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I would bring forward. When the Bill was before the House he was responsible for the amendment which sought this provision, and I had the privilege of supporting him. He wanted me to tell the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor how glad he was to see this amendment. Perhaps I may add one or two sentences further. It will not be more than that. We are trying to put through a Bill which deals not only with the efficiency that the legal profession is supposed to exercise but also with the economies it ought to effect for members of the public. If we try to stop experienced executives from conducting work in county court chambers as they do in the High Court, it will be a sorry day from the point of view of trying to effect economies.
I know that some circuit judges at the moment, on a plea from some rather unkind counsel, have been moved to say that they will not hear managing clerks or executives in chambers in their county courts. If this amendment is carried, as I hope it will be, I trust that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will see to it that the provisions are brought into effect as soon is possible.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment relate; to proceedings being heard in chambers in the High Court or a county court. Certainly I should regard that as applicable to civil proceedings. I cannot see that bail applications in the Crown Court would be covered under this heading.
It is important to remember the responsibility of the solicitor under whose instructions the person is acting. The general rule in the High Court appears not to have been completely general in the sense that there were certain family proceedings in which solicitors' clerks were not generally allowed to appear. That is why we had to make provision for the reserved family proceedings, which complicate matters slightly.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, we are simply extending to the county court the provision which has been recognised for a long time as a result of a decision in the High Court making it a matter of right that the solicitor's clerk should be heard. That is the point in question and that is the purpose of this amendment.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I am sorry to have to say that in Clause 25 the wording says that a person shall have,
"a right of audience before a court … in relation to any proceedings".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord must read the amendment. It is related only to situations in which the proceedings are being heard in chambers in the High Court or a county court. So the amendment is qualified in that respect. In the rest of the clause generally we are talking about other matters, but this particular passage is restricted. We are talking only about chambers proceedings in the High Court or the county court and not generally.
Your Lordships may remember that we tried to set out a section listing the rights of audience and the way in which that matter would be dealt with. There was a little clause at the very end recognising as an exception the rights of solicitors' clerks in High Court chambers to be heard on the basis of the decision of 1903, or whenever. That is what founded the discussion with the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Mishcon. The question was whether that should be extended to the county court. That is what this measure is about. It is completely restricted by subparagraph (e) (ii) to proceedings that are there referred to. The generality of the clause deals with much wider matters.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
51 Page 21, line 44, after 'solicitor)' insert 'section 22 of that Act (unqualified person not to prepare certain documents etc)'.
52 Page 21, line 46, leave out from 'audience' to end of line 47.
53 Clause 26, page 23, line 2, after 'solicitor)' insert 'section 22 of that Act (unqualified person not to prepare certain documents etc)'.
54 Page 23, line 4, leave out from 'litigation' to end of line 5.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 54 inclusive. At the same time I shall speak to Commons Amendments Nos. 108 and 252. The new provision setting out the qualification requirements for appointment to the post of official solicitor requires possession of a 10-year general qualification. Since that relates to the rights of audience it will therefore be possible for a person to be appointed to the office who does not have full rights to conduct litigation or prepare papers for probate. These amendments will ensure that an official solicitor, by virtue of appointment to that office, will have the necessary rights and requirements to perform all his or her functions.
These changes have caused us to look again at the provisions in the Solicitors Act 1974 dealing with prohibitions. As a result, Section 22 of the Act, which prohibits an unqualified person from preparing certain documents, has been added in Clauses 25(10) and 26(6) to those provisions which shall not apply in relation to acts done in exercise of a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation. These amendments will additionally remove from Clauses 25(10) and 26(6) the words,
"duly granted in accordance with the provisions of this Act",
as they are unnecessarily restrictive. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 54.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
55 Clause 29, page 24, line 31, leave out from '25' to end of line 39 and insert:

'(a) barristers shall be deemed to have been granted by the General Council of the Bar the rights of audience exercisable by barristers (in their capacity as such) immediately before 7th December 1989; and

(b) the General Council of the Bar shall be deemed to have in force qualification regulations and rules of conduct which have been properly approved for the purposes of section 25.'.

56 Page 24, line 43, at end insert 'and'.
57 Page 24, line 44, leave out from 'audience' to end of line 47 and insert:

'(2A) If any particular provision of those regulations or rules would not have been approved for the purposes of section 25 had it been submitted for approval under Part I of Schedule 4 it (but no other such provision) shall not be deemed to have been approved.'.

58 Page 25, line 2, leave out 'by virtue of subsection (2)' and insert 'subsection (3A) shall apply in relation to that question if the Lord Chancellor so directs.

(3A) Where a direction is given under subsection (3)—'.

59 Page 25, line 6, leave out 'that provision' and insert 'the provision in question'.
60 Page 25, line 8, leave out 'be deemed not' and insert 'not be deemed'.
61 Page 25, line 13, at end insert 'subsection (4A) shall apply in relation to that question if the Lord Chancellor so directs.

(4A) Where a direction is given under subsection (4)—'.

62 Page 25, line 17, leave out 'that provision' and insert 'the provision in question'.
63 Page 25, line 21, at end insert:

'(4B) Where, by virtue of subsection (3A) (c), any provision is not deemed to have been approved—

(a) it shall cease to have effect, so far as it relates to any right of audience deemed to have been granted by the General Council of the Bar; and

(b) the regulations and rules which are deemed, by virtue of subsection (1) (b), to have been properly approved shall be taken not to include that provision.'.

64 Page 25, line 25, leave out 'deemed not' and insert 'not deemed'.
65 Clause 30, page 25, line 28, leave out from '25' to end of line 36 and insert:

'(a) solicitors shall be deemed to have been granted by the Law Society the rights of audience exercisable by solicitors (in their capacity as such) immediately before 7th December 1989; and

(b) the Law Society shall be deemed to have in force qualification regulations and rules of conduct which have been properly approved for the purposes of section 25.'.

66 Page 25, line 40, at end insert 'and'.
67 Page 25, line 41, leave out from 'audience' to end of line 44 and insert:
'(2A) If any particular provision of those regulations or rules would not have been approved for the purposes of section 25 had it been submitted for approval under Part I of Schedule 4 it (but no other such provision) shall not be deemed to have been approved.'.
68 Page 26, line 2, leave out 'by virtue of subsection (2)' and insert 'subsection (3A) shall apply in relation to that question if the Lord Chancellor so directs.

(3A) Where a direction is given under subsection (3)—'.

69 Page 26, line 6, leave out 'that provision' and insert 'the provision in question'.
70 Page 26, line 8, leave out 'be deemed not' and insert 'not be deemed'.
71 Page 26, line 13, at end insert 'subsection (4A) shall apply in relation to that question if the Lord Chancellor so directs.
1410

(4A) Where a direction is given under subsection(4)—'.

72 Page 26, line 17, leave out 'that provision' and insert 'the provision in question'.
73 Page 26, line 21, at end insert:

'(4B) Where, by virtue of subsection (3A) (c), any provision is not deemed to have been approved—

(a) it shall cease to have effect, so far as it relates to any right of audience deemed to have been granted by the Law Society; and

(b) the regulations and rules which are deemed, by virtue of subsection (1) (b) to have been properly approved shall be taken not to include that provision.'.

74 Page 26, line 25, leave out 'deemed not' and insert 'not deemed'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 55 to 74 inclusive. I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 76 to 85. These are amendments which are intended to deal with a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, among others, about the previous clause and whether it did what we agreed in policy it ought to do. The amendments clarify the fact that neither the Bar nor the Law Society can lose the right to grant such rights as the result of qualification regulations or rules of conduct being challenged or losing their deemed approval if the rights were enjoyed by barristers and solicitors at the relevant date. We have had much discussion about these issues. I believe that the amendments now secure what we all had in mind as their purpose.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 55 to 74—(The Lord Chancellor.)
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I have a query on Amendment No. 74. The amendments provide that where deemed approval is withdrawn the provision in question shall cease to have effect. As I understand it, the Government had originally explained that the purpose of withdrawing deemed approval was to enable the competition authority to examine whether or not a provision was anti-competitive. But surely there is no reason why a provision that is subject to challenge in that way should be invalidated in the meantime.
The Law Society would be grateful for an explanation by the Government as to why they have taken that approach. It appears that the only provisions which can be "undeemed" are the training rules and rules of conduct concerned with the rights of audience. It is important that that should be the case since otherwise solicitors' existing rights of audience could be put in question. I therefore ask the Government for an undertaking that the clause does not have that effect.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has correctly explained the effects of the clause. The clause can render inoperative regulations of conduct or of qualification but not the rights of audience. The rights of audience granted in accordance with the rules that prevail at the time will remain.
I explained originally that the mere fact that the mechanism did not approve a rule did not necessarily affect the rule. That was one of the points that the

1411
noble Lord, Lord Meston, raised on a previous occasion. Having considered all those arguments I took the view that the mechanism should decide one way or the other in relation to rules of conduct or training qualification rules in relation to rights of audience or the right to conduct litigation. If it was thought that they were not appropriate rules it would be right that they should cease to have effect. However, that does not affect the rights gained while those rules were in operation. I believe that meets the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
75 Leave out Clause 31
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 75. This amendment refers to the legal aid provisions. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 111, 112, 233 and 259, all of which concern that subject.
Your Lordships will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, moved Clause 31. I accepted it at the time on the basis that there were details that required to be looked into while I accepted the principle of the clause on which we appeared to be substantially agreed: that the Crown Court, by exercise of legal aid powers, could not be turned into a solicitor-only court.
As a result of a good deal of discussion, we have been able to reformulate Clause 31 in a way which I believe is acceptable. It is the subject matter of later amendments. I am in a position to give a very full explanation of all the amendments if that is required. However, I believe that the spirit of what is provided is in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, proposed in his original Clause 31 and that we have now refined the detail of that provision.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 75.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for his very gracious reference to the amendment which I had the privilege of moving. As a result of the amendment which comes from the other place, it now appears as a very valuable principle in the Bill.
We also completely understood that the noble and learned Lord wished to reserve the right to ensure that there was not a waste of costs and that therefore the remuneration provisions would still be open in spite of this right to regulate the situation properly.
I believe that it would also be the view of the noble and learned Lord that it would be wrong to use those costs arrangements to discourage counsel being instructed in the higher courts unless and until it became the normal procedure for private litigants to be represented by a solicitor alone in particular
1412
proceedings. Will the noble and learned Lord give an indication that that is a view with which he agrees? It would be very helpful.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, perhaps I too may ask for an assurance from the noble and learned Lord. I presume that the purpose of the amendment is to preserve the litigant's right to choose his representative. I believe that "representative" should be in the plural: to select his legal representatives. It is a very small point. However, if that is the purpose of the amendment, the noble and learned Lord has power under the Legal Aid Act to provide for the remuneration of legal services by regulation.
The assurance that I seek is that through that operation of the Legal Aid Act the Lord Chancellor is able to say that the fee should be only for one legal representative, whoever that may be. Will it be possible therefore that although the client may elect to have two legal representatives—a solicitor and a barrister—under the Legal Aid Act he may be allowed remuneration for only one lawyer, a solicitor, and therefore the two lawyers will have to share the fee?
There was much discussion about that when the Bill passed through this House. I believe that noble Lords on all sides are anxious to ensure that lawyers would not have to share a fee because of the operation of the Legal Aid Act.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, "representative" includes representatives. Therefore if there are two, obviously the right to choose, subject to the other provisions of the Legal Aid Act, applies. The provision prevents the power being exercised generally to restrict the representative to one representative with regard to the higher courts.
In regard to determining remuneration, the provision preserves the Lord Chancellor's right to take account of all the factors that are mentioned in the existing statutory provisions affecting that matter. The extent of the effect, if any, must depend on what happens under the new machinery.
Obviously, the more general a particular practice became the more likely it would be that there would be an effect on fees. However, the proviso merely preserves the Lord Chancellor's right to fix the fees for the representatives in question as distinct representatives in the light of all the factors that are presently in the Legal Aid Act provisions relating to fees. It does not entitle the Lord Chancellor to pay a fee to one person and oblige that person to divide the fee with another. That is not what the power would enable one to do. In considering the fee for a piece of work the provision would enable the Lord Chancellor to take account of the various ways in which that piece of work might be done.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
76 Clause 32, page 26, line 34, leave out from '26' to end of line 42 and insert:

'(a) solicitors shall be deemed to have been granted by the Law Society the rights to conduct litigation exercisable by solicitors (in their capacity as such) immediately before 7th December 1989; and

1413

(b) the Law Society shall be deemed to have in force qualification regulations and rules of conduct which have been properly approved for the purposes of section 26.'.

77 Page 26, line 46, at end insert 'and'.
78 Page 26, line 47, leave out from 'litigation' to end of line 3 on page 27 and insert:

'(2A) If any particular provision of those regulations or rules would not have been approved for the purposes of section 26 had it been submitted for approval under Part I of Schedule 4 it (but no other such provision) shall not be deemed to have been approved.'.

79 Page 27, line 5, leave out 'by virtue of subsection (2)' and insert 'subsection (3A) shall apply in relation to that question if the Lord Chancellor so directs.

(3A) Where a direction is given under subsection (3)—'.

80 Page 27, line 9, leave out 'that provision' and insert 'the provision in question'.
81 Page 27, line 11, leave out 'be deemed not' and insert 'not be deemed'.
82 Page 27, line 15, at end insert 'subsection (4A) shall apply in relation to that question if the Lord Chancellor so directs.

(4A) Where a direction is given under subsection (4)—'.

83 Page 27, line 19, leave out 'that provision' and insert 'the provision in question'.
84 Page 27, line 23, at end insert:

'(4B) Where, by virtue of subsection (3A) (c), any provision is not deemed to have been approved—

(a) it shall cease to have effect, so far as it relates to any right to conduct litigation deemed to have been granted by the Law Society; and

(b) the regulations and rules which are deemed, by virtue of subsection (1) (b), to have been properly approved shall be taken not to include that provision.'.

85 Page 27, line 27, leave out 'deemed not' and insert 'not deemed'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 76 to 85 en bloc. I spoke to the amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 55.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 76 to 85. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
86 Clause 34, page 28, line 13, leave out 'subject to the provisions of this Part'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 86. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 90, 92, 96 and 97. They are essentially technical but at the same time important amendments. At a late stage it was noticed that the provisions which were meant to apply only to conveyancing had by an accident of drafting assumed a role which they were not intended to have. The amendments limit the clauses to conveyancing as was always the intention.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 86. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
87 Page 29, line 7, at end insert '(including conditions as to repayment)'.
88 Page 29, line 10, at end insert:
1414

'(13) Any sums repaid by the Board in accordance with conditions imposed under subsection (11) shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 en bloc. They are technical amendments to ensure that sums repaid by the board shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 87 and 88. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I understood that the amendments provided that conditions could be put down relating to repayment and that that was the reason for them. If I am wrong I bow to the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, part of the reason for the amendments is that conditions as to repayment should be included and that the proceeds should be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
89 Clause 35, page 29, line 16, at end insert:

'(aa) by a body corporate at any time when it is an authorised practitioner;'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 89. This is an important but technical amendment. Clause 35 excluded the restrictions imposed by Section 22 of the Solicitors Act for officers and employees of a body corporate at any time when that body is an authorised practitioner but did not do the same for the body corporate itself when that body is an authorised practitioner. The amendment closes the gap.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 89. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
90 Clause 36, page 30, line 32, leave out from 'rules' to 'so' and insert 'made by the Board and any regulations made under section 39'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 90. I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 86.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 90. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
91 Clause 37, page 31, line 46, at end insert:

'(8A) Where the Board—

(a) proposes to impose a condition under this section on an authorised practitioner; and

(b) is satisfied that the circumstances of the case are exceptional and justify the condition taking effect immediately,

it may disregard subsections (5) to (8) when imposing the condition.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their

1415
Amendment No. 91. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 93. These amendments allow the board to impose a condition on an authorised practitioner immediately, without having to give the practitioner 28 days' notice as required by subsections (5) to (8) of this clause They make it clear that a breach of a condition does not of itself result in loss of authorised status. The purpose is to protect transactions in the pipeline because the board's power to make transitional arrangements is available only if authorisation is revoked or suspended. These amendments protect the interests of clients.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 91.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
92 Page 32, line 5, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'section 40'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 92.1 spoke to the amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 96.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 92.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
93 Page 32, line 5, at end insert:
'(11) An authorised practitioner who fails to comply with a condition imposed on him under this section shall not thereby cease to be such a practitioner; but in such a case the Board may—

(a) impose additional, or substituted, conditions on him; or

(b) revoke or suspend his authorisation in accordance with rules made under section 38(1).'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 93. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 91.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 93.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
94 Clause 39, page 33, line 6, at end insert:

'(ee) as to the information to be given to prospective clients, the manner in which or person by whom it is to be given and the circumstances in which it is to be given free of charge;'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 94. The subject of this amendment was Originally raised in Committee in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The present amendment was subsequently moved in another place. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when making regulations on the competence and conduct of authorised practitioners the Lord Chancellor has power to cover matters such as the personal interview and any charges for it. I am sure that it will be welcomed by the House.
1416
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 94.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. It meets fully the concerns that we expressed at an earlier stage.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
95 Clause 42, page 35, line 4, at end insert:

'(12) The Board may—

(a) pay such remuneration and travelling and other allowances to the Conveyancing Ombudsman as may be determined by the Board;

(b) pay such pension, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of the Conveyancing Ombudsman as may be so determined; and

(c) if the Conveyancing Ombudsman ceases to hold office and it appears to the Board that there are special circumstances which make it right that he should receive compensation, pay him such sum as may be so determined.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 95. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 198 to 201.
The amendments, except for Amendment No. 201, deal with remuneration and other expenses of members of the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board and the Conveyancing Ombudsman and his staff.
Amendment No. 201 extends the grounds on which the Conveyancing Ombudsman can make compensation orders to include inconvenience and distress as well as loss. This brings the Conveyancing Ombudsman's powers into line with those of the Legal Services Ombudsman and the Law Society's powers covering inadequate professional services.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 95.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
96 Clause 44, page 35, line 25, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'section 39'.
97 Page 35, line 34, leave out 'this Part' and insert 'section 39'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 86.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 en bloc.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
98 Page 36, line 4, leave out subsection (9).
99 Clause 45, page 36, line 24, leave out '(5)' and insert '(6)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 en bloc. I spoke to these with Amendment No. 33.

1417
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 en bloc.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
100 After Clause 45, insert the following clause:
Power to obtain information and require production of documents
' .—(1) The Board may serve a notice on any—

(a) authorised practitioner;

(b) officer or employee of an authorised practitioner;

(c) qualified person who is acting, or has acted, on behalf of an authorised practitioner; or

(d) officer or employee of such a qualified person, requiring him to provide the Board (within such time and at such place as may be specified in the notice) with such document, or documents of such a description, or with such information, as may be so specified.

(2) The Board shall not exercise its powers under subsection (1) except for the purpose of obtaining such information as it thinks reasonably necessary in connection with the discharge of any of its functions.
(3) The Board's power under this section to require a person to produce any document includes power—

(a) if the document is produced, to take copies of it or extracts from it and to require that person, or any other person who is or was a director or officer of, or is or was at any time employed by or acting as an employee of, the practitioner concerned, to provide an explanation of the document;

(b) if the document is not produced, to require the person who was required to produce it to state, to the best of his knowledge and belief, where it is.

(4) The Board's power under this section may be exercised in relation to a person who falls within subsection (1) (c) or (d) only in relation to the provision of conveyancing services on behalf of the authorised practitioner concerned.
(5) Any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a requirement imposed on him under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level five on the standard scale.
(6) Any person who, in response to any requirement imposed on him under this section, knowingly or recklessly provides any information or explanation or makes any statement which is false or misleading in a material particular shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; and

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

(7) Where any person from whom production of a document is required under this section claims a lien on the document, the production of it shall be without prejudice to the lien.
(8) Nothing in this section shall compel—

(a) the production of a document containing a communication which is privileged from disclosure in legal proceedings in England and Wales; or

(b) the furnishing of information contained in such a communication.

(9) In this section "document" includes any information recorded in any form and, in relation to information recorded otherwise than in legible form, references to its production include references to producing a copy in legible form.'.
101 After Clause 45, insert the following clause:—
Investigations on behalf of Board
.—(1) If it appears to the Board desirable to do so—

(a) in connection with the discharge of any of its functions; and

(b) in the interests of customers or potential customers of an authorised practitioner,

it may appoint one or more competent persons ("the investigators") to investigate and report to it on the state and conduct of the affairs of that authorised practitioner.
(2) The Board shall give written notice of any such appointment to the authorised practitioner concerned.
(3) If the investigators think it necessary for the purposes of their investigation, they may also investigate the affairs of any qualified person who is acting, or has acted, on behalf of the authorised practitioner (so far as concerns the provision of conveyancing services on behalf of the authorised practitioner), after giving the qualified person written notice of their investigation.
(4) Any investigation under this section of the affairs of—

(a) any institution which is authorised by the Bank of England under Part I of the Banking Act 1987, to carry on a deposit taking business;

(b) any building society which is authorised to raise money from its members by the Building Societies Commission under section 9 of the Building Societies Act 1986; or

(c) any insurance company which is authorised under

section 3 or 4 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, shall be subject to such direction (if any) given by the Lord Chancellor with a view to limiting the scope of the investigation to matters concerned with the provision of conveyancing services.
(5) Any such direction may be general or be given with respect to a particular investigation.
(6) It shall be the duty of every person whose affairs are being investigated and of any officer or employee of his—

(a) to produce to the investigators, within such time and at such place as they may reasonably require, all documents relating to the provision of conveyancing services by the practitioner which arc in that person's custody or power;

(b) to provide the investigators, within such time as they may require, with such information as they may reasonably require with respect to the provision of those services; and

(c) to give the investigators such assistance in connection with the investigation as he is reasonably able to give.

(7) The investigators may take copies of, or extracts from, any document produced to them under subsection (6).
(8) This section applies in relation to a former authorised practitioner or former qualified person as it applies in relation to an authorised practitioner or qualified person.
(9) Any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to produce any document, or provide any information, which it is his duty to produce under subsection (6) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level five on the standard scale.
(10) Any person who, in response to any requirement imposed on him under this section, knowingly or recklessly provides any information or explanation or makes any statement which is false or misleading in a material particular shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; and

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

(11) Nothing in this section shall compel the production by an authorised practitioner or qualified person acting on his behalf of a document containing a privileged communication made by him or to him in that capacity.'.
102 After Clause 45, insert the following clause:—
Restrictions on disclosure of information
'.—(1) Subject to section (Exceptions from restrictions on disclosure), restricted information which relates to the business or other affairs of any person shall not be disclosed—

(a) by the Board or any member of its staff;

(b) by any person appointed as an investigator under section (Investigations on behalf of Board) or any officer or servant of his; or

(c) by any person obtaining it directly or indirectly from a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b),

without the consent of the person from whom it was obtained and, if they are different, the person to whom it relates.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), information is restricted information for the purposes of this section if it was obtained (whether or not in response to any requirement that it be provided) for the purposes of, or in the discharge of functions under, any provision made by or under this Act.
(3) Information shall not be treated as restricted information for the purposes of this section if it has been made available to the public by virtue of being disclosed in any circumstances in which, or for any purpose for which, disclosure is not prevented by this section.
(4) Any person who contravenes this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both;

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 100 to 102 en bloc. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 100 to 105, 166, 236, 238 and 246. The amendments are designed to deal with a matter that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, at an earlier stage. They give the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board the powers it needs to exercise proper administration and control over authorised conveyancing practitioners, to preserve assets pending investigation and to provide for an appeal system against its decision should an aggrieved party wish to appeal. They represent the result of the undertaking that I gave during the Report stage in this House to consider further what powers of intervention and investigation the board might need. The Law Society has been asking for investigation and intervention powers of this kind for some time and I hope that both they and this House will welcome the amendments here.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 100 to 102.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I am sure that the Law Society is equally grateful to him for these very useful amendments which give the board the powers of intervention which he mentioned. I have tabled Amendment No. 102A. I should like to explain to your Lordships the basis of my amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that I should formally put Amendment No. 102 because I moved Amendments Nos. 100 and 101. I must put Amendment No. 102 because the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes to move an amendment to that amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, I was slightly put off by the fact that he mentioned Amendment No. 102. I had expected that he would be moving Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 and that afterwards on Amendment No. 102 I would move my amendment to the amendment, but he said that he was putting Amendment No. 102 as well.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is entirely my mistake. I am very sorry. I intended to move Amendments Nos. 100 and 101. I must do that now.
1420
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 100 and 101. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
102 After Clause 45, insert the following clause:—
Restrictions on disclosure of information
'.—(1) Subject to section (Exceptions from restrictions on disclosure), restricted information which relates to the business or other affairs of any person shall not be disclosed—

(a) by the Board or any member of its staff;

(b) by any person appointed as an investigator under section (Investigations on behalf of Board) or any officer or servant of his; or

(c) by any person obtaining it directly or indirectly from a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b),

without the consent of the person from whom it was obtained and, if they are different, the person to whom it relates.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), information is restricted information for the purposes of this section if it was obtained (whether or not in response to any requirement that it be provided) for the purposes of, or in the discharge of functions under, any provision made by or under this Act.
(3) Information shall not be treated as restricted information for the purposes of this section if it has been made available to the public by virtue of being disclosed in any circumstances in which, or for any purpose for which, disclosure is not prevented by this section.
(4) Any person who contravenes this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both;

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 102.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 102—(The Lord Chancellor.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 102
102A Line 11, after first ("the") insert ("written").
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as I said, I should like briefly to explain to your Lordships the reason for my Amendment No. 102A. It has been said that we are living in an age of leakages. Whoever be the government of the day, they find it most embarrassing that from all quarters documents are leaked and confidential information leaked. I suppose that it is the experience of most of us in the legal profession that if anybody interesting is charged or arrested, there appears to be a leakage from the relevant police station to Fleet Street within a matter of seconds.
Speaking purely for myself I am glad that the amendment from the other place makes it a criminal offence to impart information about a third party that comes into their possession
"(a) by the Board or any member of its staff; (b) by any person appointed as an investigator",
Paragraph (c) is intended to cover, for example, a journalist who quite wrongly obtains confidential information which was confidential to a third party as a result of the inquiries made by the board or by an investigator. That person is described as:

1421
"any person obtaining it directly or indirectly from a person mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)".
I have asked myself how effective that would be in order to stop a third party—not the board, one of its employees or an investigator—who had wrongfully obtained confidential information about the third party. All that the journalist in paragraph (c) would need to do is to say that he had obtained consent, not written consent but ordinary consent. To be practical, in this day and age, one can envisage a telephone call made by a newspaper to the person whose private affairs had got into the hands of the journalist. He might speak to a secretary on the telephone and say, "I assume there is no objection to my newspaper publishing this, that or the other". The reply could be a neutral one such as, "Well, I know of no objection". He might then say, "I have the consent of that party. I am now going to telephone the board and say to one of the board's employees, 'Oh, by the way, I have obtained the consent of Mr. X to my publishing certain facts about him. In those circumstances I assume that there is no objection from your point of view.'" The normal reply he might expect to receive, with the provision as it now stands, is, "Well, if he does not object, we do not object".
What happens if there is to be a prosecution? Is the onus on the prosecution to prove that the man did not have consent? If so, the task faced is almost impossible. If the onus is on the party concerned, he must have guilty knowledge that he did not have consent. He says, "I assumed from the telephone conversation that I had that consent". In those circumstances, what jury will convict?
I wish to be perfectly frank with the House because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was good enough to discuss this matter with me and, indeed, to write me a letter. He properly and fairly quoted some Acts where the word "consent" appears without the addition of the word "written". I believe that the most ancient of the Acts to which he referred was a 1986 Act. I ventured to point out to him with great respect that one has hardly had experience of any of the Acts from 1986 onwards, including the Financial Services Act. I believe that this clause will be useless as regards paragraph (c) unless there is the provision that it should be written consent. In those circumstances, I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 102A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 102, be agreed to—(Lord Mishcon.)
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord very kindly drew my attention to this point some time ago. The purpose of Commons Amendment No. 102 is to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of restricted information by making it a criminal offence, triable either way, for the board, its investigator, or any person obtaining information from them to disclose such information without consent. The amendment now moved to Amendment No. 102 has superficial attractions—and all the more so when presented by the noble Lord—in that it appears at first sight to make it easier for the prosecution to prove the absence
1422
of consent to the satisfaction of magistrates or a jury. On further analysis, however, a requirement that consent be in writing is unnecessary and could have undesirable consequences.
I say it is unnecessary because Commons Amendment No. 102 is a standard provision lifted from other legislation such as the Building Societies Act 1986, the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Banking Act 1987. So far as I am aware, the absence of a requirement for consent to be in writing has caused no problems. I accept that those are fairly recent statutes but I believe it to be quite important to have consistency in this matter. These are similar provisions. The criminal sanction for unauthorised disclosure contained in the clause should therefore have the deterrent effect intended.
It is important that two consents are required in the paragraph (c) case; namely, from the board or its investigator or the person to whom it relates. The noble Lord is saying that having obtained, by means which may not be described as entirely fair, a form of consent from the person to whom the permission relates, the board or the investigator might be persuaded to part with it. I believe that is a matter for the board about which it should have discipline.
The circumstance that the noble Lord envisages could be dealt with in that way. I fully appreciate the importance of the point he raises and I undertake to keep it in review as these provisions come into effect. I am reluctant to accept the amendment in relation to this legislation when there are parallel provisions in other recent legislation which have so far given no difficulty. There is value in retaining consistency.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale spoke of complications. It is always possible to complicate the understanding of people if in one area written consent is required and in a closely related area it is not. Accepting that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has a point worthy of consideration, he may feel that in the light of my explanation he can safely leave the matter for the present.
8 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I immediately bow to the noble and learned Lord, especially in view of his kindness in saying that he was prepared to review the matter in the light of experience. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 102A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 102, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
103 After Clause 45, insert the following clause:
Exceptions from restrictions on disclosure
'.—(1) Section (Restrictions on disclosure of information) shall not prevent the disclosure of information—

(a) with a view to the institution, or otherwise for the purposes, of any criminal proceedings;

(b) with a view to the institution, or otherwise for the purposes, of any civil proceedings arising under or by virtue of this Act;

(c) in a summary or collection of information framed in such a way as not to enable the identity of any person to whom the information relates to be ascertained; or

(d) in pursuance of any Community obligation.

(2) Section (Restrictions on disclosure of information) shall not prevent the disclosure of information for the purpose of enabling or assisting—

(a) the Lord Chancellor to discharge any of his functions under this Act with respect to the Board or authorised practitioners;

(b) the Board to discharge any of its functions;

(c) the Law Society, the General Council of the Bar, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers or the Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury to discharge any of its functions;

(d) the Building Societies Commission to discharge any of its functions;

(e) the competent authority or a designated agency, recognised investment exchange, recognised clearing house, recognised self-regulating organisation or recognised professional body (all those expressions having the meaning given in the Financial Services Act 1986) to discharge any of its functions;

(f) the Bank of England to discharge any of its functions;

(g) the Secretary of State to discharge any of his functions under this Act, the Financial Services Act 1986 or any enactment relating to competition, companies, insurance or insolvency;

(h) any inspector appointed by the Secretary of State under any of the enactments mentioned in paragraph (g) to discharge any of his functions;

(i) an official receiver to discharge any of his functions under any enactment relating to insolvency;

(j) a body which is a recognised professional body under section 391 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to discharge any of its functions as such a body;

(k) the Insurance Brokers Registration Council to discharge any of its functions under the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977;

(l) any person appointed or authorised to discharge any powers under section 94, 106 or 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 to exercise any of those powers;

(m) the Director to discharge any of his functions under—

(i) this Act;

(ii) the Fair Trading Act 1973 (other than Part II);

(iii) the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

(iv) the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976;

(v) the Estate Agents Act 1979;

(vi) the Competition Act 1980;

(vii) the Financial Services Act 1986;

(viii) the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988;

(n) the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to discharge any of its functions under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition Act 1980;

(o) the Scottish Conveyancing and Executory Services Board to discharge any of its functions;

(p) an authority in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom to discharge any functions corresponding to—

(i) the functions of the Board, the Building Societies Commission or the Bank of England; or

(ii) those functions of the Secretary of State mentioned in paragraph (g);

(q) the Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal to discharge any of its functions under the Insolvency Act 1986;

(r) the Financial Services Tribunal to discharge any of its functions under the Financial Services Act 1986.

(4) An order under subsection (3) designating an authority for the purposes of this section may—

(a) impose conditions subject to which the disclosure of information is permitted by subsection (3); and

(b) otherwise restrict the circumstances in which disclosure is permitted.

(5) Where information has been disclosed by one person ("the first person") to another, by virtue of subsection (2), section (Restrictions on disclosure of information) shall not prevent that other person from disclosing that information to any person to whom it could have been disclosed by the first person by virtue of subsection (2).
(6) The Lord Chancellor may by order modify the application of any provision of this section so as—
1424

(a) to prevent the disclosure of information by virtue of that provision; or

(b) to restrict the extent to which disclosure of information is permitted by virtue of that provision.'.

104 After Clause 45, insert the following clause:
Board's intervention powers
'.—(1) The powers conferred on the Board by this section may be exercised if it appears to the Board to be desirable to do so for the purpose of protecting the interests of the clients, or prospective clients, of an authorised practitioner.
(2) The Board may, in particular, exercise any such power where it appears to it—

(a) that an authorised practitioner who is an individual is no longer fit to provide conveyancing services;

(b) that any person carrying on the business of an authorised practitioner is not fit to provide such services; or

(c) that an authorised practitioner has failed, or is likely to fail, to comply with any regulation made under section 39.

(3) The Board may direct the authorised practitioner not to dispose of, or otherwise deal with, except in accordance with the terms of the direction—

(a) any assets belonging to any client of the authorised practitioner and held by or under the control of the authorised practitioner in connection with his business as an authorised practitioner; or

(b) any assets of such a kind which are specified in the direction.

(4) The Board may direct the authorised practitioner to transfer to the Board, or to such persons ("the trustees") as may be specified in the direction—

(a) all assets belonging to any client of that practitioner and held by or under his control in connection with his business as an authorised practitioner; or

(b) any assets of such a kind which are specified in the direction.

(5) Any assets which have been transferred as a result of a direction given under subsection (4) shall be held by the Board, or by the trustees, on trust for the client concerned.
(6) The trustees may deal with any assets which have been transferred to them only in accordance with directions given to them by the Board.
(7) In this section—

"assets" includes any sum of money held (in whatever form and whether or not in any bank, building society or other account) by the authorised practitioner or on behalf of the client concerned and any instrument or other document belonging to that client; and

"authorised practitioner" includes a person whose authorisation has been suspended or revoked under section 38.

(8) Any direction under this section—

(a) must be given in writing;

(b) must state the reason why it is being given;

(c) shall take effect on such date as may be specified in the direction (which may be the date on which it is served on the authorised practitioner);

(d) may be varied or revoked by a further direction given by the Board.'.

105 After Clause 45, insert the following clause:
Board's intervention powers: supplemental provisions
'.—(1) In this section—

"the intervention powers" means the powers given to the Board by section (Board's powers of intervention); and

"a direction" means a direction given under that section.

(2) An authorised practitioner to whom a direction is given may appeal against it to a Conveyancing Appeal Tribunal.
(3) Any authorised practitioner to whom a direction is given shall comply with it as soon as it takes effect (and whether or not he proposes to appeal).
(4) If, on an application made to the High Court by the Board, the court is satisfied—

(a) that an authorised practitioner has failed, within a reasonable time, to comply with any direction given to it; or

(b) that there is a reasonable likelihood that an authorised practitioner will so fail,

1425
it may make an order requiring the authorised practitioner, and any other person whom the court considers it appropriate to subject to its order, to take such steps as the court may direct with a view to securing compliance with the direction.
(5) Where an authorised practitioner is—

(a) an authorised person under the Financial Services Act 1986; or

(b) an appointed representative (as defined in section 44(2) of that Act) of such an authorised person,

the intervention powers may be exercised only after consultation with the body by reference to which the authorised person acquired its authorisation under that Act.
(6) Where an authorised practitioner is—

(a) an institution which is authorised by the Bank of England under Part I of the Banking Act 1987 to carry on a deposit-taking business; or

(b) an appointed representative of such an institution, the intervention powers may be exercised only after consultation with the Bank of England.

(7) Where an authorised practitioner is—

(a) a building society which is authorised to raise money from its members by the Building Societies Commission under section 9 of the Building Societies Act 1986; or

(b) an appointed representative of such a building society,

the intervention powers may be exercised only after consultation with the Commission.
(8) Where an authorised practitioner falls within more than one of subsections (5) to (7), the Board shall comply with each of the subsections in question.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 103 to 105.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 103 to 105.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
106 After Clause 45, insert the following clause:
'Licensed Conveyancers
The Council for Licensed Conveyancers
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Council for Licensed Conveyancers shall have the powers necessary to enable it to become—

(a) an authorised body for the purposes of granting rights of audience under section 25(2) (a);

(b) an authorised body for the purposes of granting rights to conduct litigation under section 26(2) (a); and

(c) an approved body for the purposes of granting, in accordance with section 47, exemption from the provisions of section 23(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (preparation of probate papers).

(2) The Council may exercise the powers given to it by this section only with respect to persons who are licensed conveyancers.
(3) Where the Council—

(a) becomes an authorised body for the purposes of section 25 and grants any right of audience;

(b) becomes an authorised body for the purposes of section 26 and grants any right to conduct litigation; or

(c) becomes an approved body for the purposes of section 47 and grants an exemption under that section,

it shall do so by issuing a licence to the licensed conveyancer to whom the right or exemption is being granted.
(4) Any such licence may be granted as a separate licence or as part of a composite licence comprising the licensed conveyancer's licence issued under Part II of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 and any other licence which the Council may grant to the licensed conveyancer concerned.
(5) The Council's general duty shall include the duty to ensure that the standards of competence and professional conduct among licensed conveyancers who are granted rights of audience, rights to conduct litigation or an exemption under section 47 are sufficient to secure adequate protection for consumers, and that the advocacy, litigation or (as the case may be) probate services provided by such persons are provided both economically and efficiently.
(6) Where the Council exercises any of its powers in connection with—

(a) an application under section 27 for authorisation or an application under Schedule 8 for approval; or

(b) the granting of any right of audience or right to

conduct litigation or of an exemption under section 47, it shall do so subject to any requirements to which it is subject in accordance with the provisions of this Act relating to the grant of any such right or exemption.
(7) Schedule (Licensed conveyancers) makes further provision in connection with the powers given to the Council by this section and the provision made by the Act of 1985 in relation to licensed conveyancers, including amendments of Part II of that Act.
(8) The Lord Chancellor may by order make such—

(a) amendments of, or modifications to, the provisions of Part II of the Act of 1985; or

(b) transitional or consequential provision,

(9) Subject to any provision made by this section, Schedule (Licensed conveyancers) or any order made by the Lord Chancellor under subsection (8), the provisions of Part II of the Act of 1985 shall, with the necessary modifications, apply with respect to—

(a) any application for an advocacy, litigation or probate licence;

(b) any such licence;

(c) the practice of any licensed conveyancer which is carried on by virtue of any such licence;

(d) rules made by the Council under Schedule (Licensed conveyancers);

(e) the management and control by licensed conveyancers (or by licensed conveyancers together with persons who are not licensed conveyancers) of bodies corporate carrying on businesses which include the provision of advocacy, litigation or probate services; and

(f) any other matter dealt with by this section or Schedule (Licensed conveyancers),

as they apply with respect to the corresponding matters dealt with by Part II of that Act.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 106. In moving Amendment No. 106 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 202, 266, 295 and 298. They deal with the Council for Licensed Conveyancers and their powers.
These amendments, though necessarily bulky, are straightforward in their main purpose, which is to extend the powers of the Council for Licensed Conveyancers so that it will have the opportunity to apply, under the framework in Part II of the Bill, for approval to license conveyancers to undertake probate work, and authorisation to grant them rights of audience and rights to conduct litigation.
The Council is a statutory body established under the Administration of Justice Act 1985. It therefore only has the powers given to it under that statute. When it was set up in 1985 the power was to grant licences and regulate practitioners solely for the provision of conveyancing services. It is desirable that it should have the opportunity of expanding its role if that turns out to be desirable.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 106.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
107 Clause 46, page 36, line 31, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'subsections (2) and (3)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 107. In moving Amendment No. 107 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 108A.
These amendments exempt from Section 23 of the Solicitors Act 1974, employees of banks, building societies and insurance companies and therefore allow them to prepare for reward applications for grants of representation in probate. They also provide that employees of those who are exempt from Section 23, by virtue of that section, for example, solicitors, barristers, notaries public and the Public Trustee, or Clause 47 of this Bill (members of approved bodies) may prepare applications if done at the direction, and under the supervision, of those who are exempt. The clause already provides that those who wish to be exempted from Section 23 and provide the full range of probate services must be suitably trained, as must their staff. This amendment, which allows the staff of exempted people to prepare papers only if they are under supervision, provides additional protection to clients in respect of new entrants to the market.
As to Amendment No. 108A, it must be remembered that the kind of work in this area protected by the monopoly is very limited. It extends only to the preparation for reward of applications for grants of probate, and not to the administration of estates. The financial institutions are already experienced in administration of estates and are prudentially regulated and it is for this reason that they were put on the "fast-track" and only required to belong to a suitable ombudsman scheme.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 107.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am mystified. It must be my fault, but at least I have the excuse, as I understand it, that the Law Society is similarly mystified by one part of the provision. I completely understand that the statute should be able to say that a private practitioner must work under supervision; or that the employee must work under supervision. But for some unknown reason a body corporate is able to employ anybody to prepare papers for probate without such supervision.
A partnership or sole practitioner must ensure that the work is supervised by a solicitor, a barrister or a notary public. Apparently all one needs to do is become a limited company and one will escape completely from that supervision. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could explain, first, whether I am right or wrong; secondly, if I am right, why.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment allows the staff of exempted people to prepare papers only under supervision. That provides additional protection to clients in respect of new entrants to the market.
1428
The clause already provides that those who wish to be exempted from Section 23 and provide the full range of probate services must be suitably trained as must their staff. The amendment allows the staff of exempted people to prepare papers only under supervision, thus providing additional protection to clients in respect of new entrants to the market.
The noble Lord is expressing a concern which is not justified by the way in which these provisions operate. To require people to employ staff who are exempt from Section 23 merely to supervise the preparation of applications, which in many cases is no more than filling in two forms based on the precedent set out in the text books would, in view of their present expertise, be an unnecessary regulation of their business practice. It would add to the expense of the transaction without adding significantly to the protection for the client.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord would forgive me. Before he sits down could he say whether I am completely wrong in looking at Amendment No. 108A and saying, with the wording of the section, that subsection (1) does not apply to,
"any act done by an officer or employee of a body corporate at a time when it is exempt from subsection (1) by virtue of [these] paragraphs"?
Subsection (b) says,
"any act done by any person at the direction and under the supervision of —another person if—

(i) that other person was at the time his employer, a partner of his employer or a fellow employee; and

(ii) the act could have been done by that other person …without committing an offence under this section".

That appears to be dealing with an individual, and there is an exemption in the case of a body corporate.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the body corporate is qualified in terms of the arrangements made. The amendment exempts from Section 23 employees of banks, building societies and insurance companies and therefore allows them to prepare for reward applications for grants of representations in probate. They also provide that employees of those exempt from Section 23, by virtue of that section, may prepare applications if done at the direction and under the supervision of those who are exempt.
The clause already provides that those who wish to be exempted from Section 23 and provide a full range of probate services must be suitably trained, as must their staff. The amendment allows the staff of exempted people to prepare papers only if they are under supervision. That provides additional protection to clients in respect of new entrants to the market.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I must not take up the time of the House or the noble and learned Lord any longer. It still seems to me—I say this with deep respect—that if one is an individual practitioner, one must jolly well see that there is supervision by a solicitor, barrister or a notary. If one is a corporate entity, be it a bank or whatever, that supervision is not necessary. I must not detain the House any longer but that is a worrying thought if what I am saying is

1429
correct. However, if the noble and learned Lord is saying that I am not correct then I am wasting the time of the House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there must be some misunderstanding. Financial institutions are already experienced in the administration of estates and are already prudentially regulated. Therefore, they have responsibility for ensuring that what their staffs do is proper. In addition, they have been put under the obligation of belonging to a suitable ombudsman scheme. Having regard to the nature of what is required of them, I believe that this is a suitable protection for the public. It is not necessary to impose an additional obligation that they should be supervised, for example, by a solicitor, barrister or notary public.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
108 Page 36, line 35, at end insert:

'(cc) the Official Solicitor;'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 108. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 51. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. -—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
108A Page 37, line 17, at end insert:
'(3) Subsection (1) also does not apply to—

(a) any act done by an officer or employee of a body corporate at a time when it is exempt from subsection (1) by virtue of any of paragraphs (d) to (g) of subsection (2) or by virtue of section 47 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (preparation of probate papers etc.); or

(b) any act done by any person at the direction and under the supervision of another person if—

(i) that other person was at the time his employer, a partner of his employer or a fellow employee; and

any fee, gain or reward without committing an offence under this section.

(4) For the avoidance of doubt, where a person does any act which would constitute an offence under subsection (1) but for an exemption given to him by this section or by or under any other enactment, he shall not be guilty of any offence under section 22 by virtue of having done that act".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 108A. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 107.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 108A.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
109 After Clause 47, insert the following clause:—
Administration of oaths etc. by justices in certain probate business
'.—(1) Every justice shall have power to administer any oath or take any affidavit which is required for the purposes of an application for a grant of probate or letters of administration made in any non-contentious or common form probate business.
(2) A justice before whom any oath or affidavit is taken or made under this section shall state in the jurat or attestation at what place and on what date the oath or affidavit is taken or made.
(3) No justice shall exercise the powers conferred by this section in any proceedings in which he is interested.
(4) A document purporting to be signed by a justice administering an oath or taking an affidavit shall be admitted in evidence without proof of the signature and without proof that he is a justice.
(5) In this section—

"affidavit" has the same meaning as in the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889;

"justice" means a justice of the peace;

"letters of administration" includes all letters of administration of the effects of deceased persons, whether with or without a will annexed, and whether granted for general, special or limited purposes; and

"non-contentious or common form probate business" has the same meaning as in section 128 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 109. This is an interesting amendment which was raised in the other place and enables justices of the peace to administer an oath or take affidavits in non-contentious probate matters. It will give the public greater access to people who may undertake such duties, as magistrates' courts are usually easily accessible and well spread across the country.
The Government believe that justices have the necessary basic expertise to undertake this new function, although it is intended that suitable training should be given to justices to ensure that the various statutory requirements and rules are complied with.
Lastly, I should perhaps mention that it is not intended that justices should be able to charge a fee for performing this service as they are not allowed to benefit financially from their position. The tradition of the magistracy, apart from the stipendiary magistracy, is that it is an honour to be performed without financial reward.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 109.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
110 After Clause 47, insert the following clause:—
Notaries
' .—(1) Public notaries shall no longer be appointed to practise only within particular districts in England, or particular districts in Wales.
(2) It shall no longer be necessary to serve a period of apprenticeship before being admitted as a public notary.
(3) Accordingly, the following enactments relating to public notaries shall cease to have effect—

(a) section 2 of the Public Notaries Act 1801 (which provides that no person shall be admitted as a public notary unless he has served as an apprentice for seven years);

(b) section 1 of the Public Notaries Act 1833 (which restricts the requirement to serve an apprenticeship to London and an area of ten miles from the Royal Exchange);

1431

(c) section 2 of the Public Notaries Act 1833 (appointment of public notaries to practise within particular districts in England);

(d) section 3 of the Public Notaries Act 1843 (which reduced the period of apprenticeship to five years);

(e) section 37 of the Welsh Church Act 1914 (appointment of public notaries to practise within particular districts in Wales); and

(f) section 29 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 (which reduced the period of apprenticeship for public notaries in London).

(4) The Master may by rules make provision—

(a) as to the educational and training qualifications which must be satisfied before a person may be granted a faculty to practise as a public notary;

(b) as to further training which public notaries arc to be required to undergo;

(c) for regulating the practice, conduct and discipline of public notaries;

(d) supplementing the provision made by subsections (8) and (9);

(e) as to the keeping by public notaries of records and accounts;

(f) as to the handling by public notaries of client's money;

(g) as to the indemnification of public notaries against losses arising from claims in respect of civil liability incurred by them;

(h) as to compensation payable for losses suffered by persons in respect of dishonesty on the part of public notaries or their employees; and

(i) requiring the payment, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, of such reasonable fees as may be prescribed, including in particular fees for—

(i) the grant of a faculty;

(ii) the issue of a practising certificate by the court of faculties of the Archbishop of Canterbury; or

(iii) the entering in that court of a practising certificate issued under the Solicitors Act 1974.

(5) The repeal of section 2 of the Act of 1833 and section 37 of the Act of 1914 by this Act shall not affect any appointment made under either of those sections; but the Master may by rules make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient in consequence of either, or both, of those repeals.
(6) Rules made under subsection (5) may, in particular, provide for the grant by the Master of a new faculty for any person to whom the Notary Public (Welsh Districts) Rules 1924 applied immediately before the commencement of this section, in place of the faculty granted to him by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.
(7) Subsections (4) to (6) shall not be taken to prejudice—

(a) any other power of the Master to make rules; or

(b) any rules made by him under any such power.

(8) With effect from the operative date any restriction placed on a qualifying district notary, in terms of the district within which he may practise as a public notary, shall cease to apply.
(9) In this section—

"Master" means the Master of the Faculties;

"prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this section;

"the operative date" means the date on which subsection (1) comes into force or, if on that date the notary concerned is not a qualifying district notary (having held his faculty for less than five years)—

(a) the date on which he becomes a qualifying district notary; or

(b) such earlier date, after the commencement of subsection (1), as the Master may by rules prescribe for the purpose of this subsection; and

"qualifying district notary" means a person who—

(a) holds a faculty as a notary appointed under section 2 of the Act of 1833 or section 37 of the Act of 1914; and

(b) has held it for a continuous period of at least five years.

(10) Section 5 of the Ecclesiastical Licences Act 1533 (which amongst other things now has the effect of requiring faculties to be registered by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery) shall not apply in relation to any faculty granted to a public notary.
(11) Nothing in this section shall be taken—

(a) to authorise any public notary to practise as a notary or to perform or certify any notarial act within the jurisdiction of the Incorporated Company of Scriveners of London or to affect the jurisdiction or powers of the Company; or

(b) to restrict the power of the Company to require a person seeking to become a public notary within its jurisdiction to serve a period of apprenticeship.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 110. In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 160, 228, 229, 234, 264, 269, 270, 272 and 275.
During the progress of and discussions surrounding the Bill it became clear that the opportunity had arisen to make useful amendments in respect of notaries. The amendments which I now bring forward have been discussed fully with the Master of the Faculties and will, I believe, make for substantial improvements in the notarial profession. They will, first, help to remedy the present specific problem of scarcity of notaries practising in the outer London area. More generally, they will make it possible to improve the training and regulation of the profession. This purpose is achieved by abolishing the appointment of district notaries and the requirement that a person must serve an apprenticeship before admission as a public notary.
The Master of the Faculties' broad rule-making powers in relation to education and training, conduct and discipline and other ancillary matters are clarified and strengthened. This, I am confident, is the most appropriate method to ensure the continuation of the high standards of the profession.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 110.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
8.15 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
111 After Clause 48, insert the following clause:—
Representation under the Legal Aid Act 1988
'.—(1) Nothing in this Part shall affect the right of a person who is represented in proceedings in the Supreme Court or the House of Lords under the Legal Aid Act 1988 to select his legal representative.
(2) The power to make regulations with respect to representation under section 2(7) or 32(8) of that Act shall not be exercised so as to provide that representation in any such proceedings may only be by a single barrister, solicitor or other legal representative (but that is not to be taken as restricting the power to make regulations under section 34(2) (e) of that Act).'.
112 Leave out Clause 49.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 111 and 112. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 75.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 111 and 112. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
113 Clause 51, page 40, line 32, leave out from 'described)' to end of line 33 and insert 'which prohibits barristers from entering into contracts or restrict their right to do so.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the Amendment No. 113. This amendment clarifies the extent to which the General Council of the Bar is empowered to formulate rules restricting a barrister's right to enter into contracts for the provision of his services as a barrister.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 113.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I put on record that, from the point of view of the Bar, this is a very necessary and welcome amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
114 After Clause 52, insert the following clause:—
Legal professional privilege
'.—(1) This section applies to any communication made to or by a person who is not a barrister or solicitor at any time when that person is—

(a) providing advocacy or litigation services as an authorised advocate or authorised litigator;

(b) providing conveyancing services as an authorised practitioner; or

(c) providing probate services as a probate practitioner.

(2) Any such communication shall in any legal proceedings be privileged from disclosure in like manner as if the person in question had at all material times been acting as his client's solicitor.
(3) In subsection (1), "probate practitioner" means a person to whom section 23(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (unqualified person not to prepare probate papers etc.) does not apply.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 114. This amendment extends the concept of legal professional privilege so as to apply to the new classes of legal practitioner established by the Bill; that is, authorised advocates, authorised litigators, authorised practitioners and probate practitioners.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 114.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
115 After Clause 52, insert the following clause:—
Discrimination by, or in relation to, barristers
'.—(1) The following shall be inserted in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 after section 35—
"Barristers
Discrimination by, or in relation to, barristers.
35A.—(1) It is unlawful for a barrister or barrister's clerk, in relation to any offer of a pupillage or tenancy, to discriminate against a woman—

(a) in the arrangements which are made for the purpose of determining to whom it should be offered;

(b) in respect of any terms on which it is offered; or

1434

(c)by refusing, or deliberately omitting, to offer it to her.

(2) It is unlawful for a barrister or barrister's clerk, in relation to a woman who is a pupil or tenant in the chambers in question, to discriminate against her—

(a) in respect of any terms applicable to her as a pupil or tenant;

(b) in the opportunities for training, or gaining experience, which are afforded or denied to her;

(c) in the benefits, facilities or services which are afforded or denied to her; or

(d) by terminating her pupillage or by subjecting her to any pressure to leave the chambers or other detriment.

(3) It is unlawful for any person, in relation to the giving, withholding or acceptance of instructions to a barrister, to discriminate against a woman.
(4) In this section—

"barrister's clerk" includes any person carrying out any of the functions of a barrister's clerk; and

"pupil", "pupillage", "tenancy" and "tenant" have the meanings commonly associated with their use in the context of a set of barristers' chambers.

(5) Section 3 applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of any provision of Part II.
(6) This section does not apply to Scotland."
(2) The following shall be inserted in the Race Relations Act 1976 after section 26—
"Barristers
Discrimination by, or in relation to, barristers.
26A.—(1) It is unlawful for a barrister or barrister's clerk, in relation to any offer of a pupillage or tenancy, to discriminate against a person—

(a) in the arrangements which are made for the purpose of determining to whom it should be offered;

(b) in respect of any terms on which it is offered; or

(c) by refusing, or deliberately omitting, to offer it to him.

(2) It is unlawful for a barrister or barrister's clerk, in relation to a pupil or tenant in the chambers in question, to discriminate against him—

(a) in respect of any terms applicable to him as a pupil or tenant;

(b) in the opportunities for training, or gaining experience, which are afforded or denied to him;

(c) in the benefits, facilities or services which are afforded or denied to him; or

(d) by terminating his pupillage or by subjecting him to any pressure to leave the chambers or other detriment.

(3) It is unlawful for any person, in relation to the giving, withholding or acceptance of instructions to a barrister, to discriminate against any person.
(4) In this section—

"barrister's clerk" includes any person carrying out any of the functions of a barrister's clerk; and

"pupil", "pupillage", "tenancy" and "tenant" have the meanings commonly associated with their use in the context of a set of barristers' chambers.

(5) This section does not apply to Scotland.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 115. In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 116, 175 and 260.
The introduction of these new clauses bring barristers and, in Scotland, advocates in independent practice within the ambit of the Race Relations Act 1976 and Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The scope of the previous legislation will be extended to ensure that no unfair obstructions are placed in the way of women barristers and barristers from ethnic minorities. The provisions apply to prospective and existing pupils or tenants, and to discrimination in the sending of instructions to a barrister.

1435
Speaking generally, these provisions were requested by the legal profession and were accepted in another place. I believe that they are extremely important not only for their effect but for the signal that they give. It would be right for me to take this opportunity to pay tribute to both branches of the profession for what they are doing in seeking to eliminate difficulty for women and the ethnic minorities. Leaders of the profession in both branches have given a very good lead in that respect. I have done my best to support them. I believe that these amendments are important and I hope that your Lordships will agree with me and with the Commons in these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should merely like to add that the leadership given by the noble and learned Lord in this matter is very much appreciated by the professions.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I second those words as I raised this matter first in this House at an early stage. These provisions are all-embracing in regard to both sex and race discrimination. In my opinion they are undoubtedly necessary in matters of pupilage and particularly in regard to giving instruction. As the noble and learned Lord has already said, the provisions will be welcomed by the Race Relations Committee of the Bar, which has done such invaluable work in this area. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the all-embracing content of this amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
116 After Clause 52, insert the following clause:—
Discrimination by, or in relation to, advocates
'.—(1) The following shall be inserted in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 after section 35A (as inserted by this Act)—
"Advocates
Discrimination by, or in relation to, advocates.
35B.—(1) It is unlawful for an advocate, in relation to taking any person as his pupil, to discriminate against a woman—

(a) in the arrangements which he makes for the purpose of determining whom he will take as his pupil;

(b) in respect of any terms on which he offers to take her as his pupil; or

(c) by refusing, or deliberately omitting, to take her as his pupil.

(2) It is unlawful for an advocate, in relation to a woman who is a pupil, to discriminate against her—

(a) in respect of any terms applicable to her as a pupil;

(b) in the opportunities for training, or gaining experience, which are afforded or denied to her;

(c) in the benefits, facilities or services which are afforded or denied to her; or

(d) by terminating the relationship or by subjecting her to any pressure to terminate the relationship or other detriment.

(3) It is unlawful for any person, in relation to the giving, withholding or acceptance of instructions to an advocate, to discriminate against a woman.
(4) In this section—

'advocate' means a member of the Faculty of Advocates practising as such; and

'pupil' has the meaning commonly associated with its use in the context of a person training to be an advocate.

(5) Section 3 applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of any provision of Part II.
(6) This section does not apply to England and Wales."
(2) The following shall be inserted in the Race Relations Act 1976 after section 26A (as inserted by this Act)—
"Advocates
Discrimination by, or in relation to, advocates.
26B.—(1) It is unlawful for an advocate, in relation to taking any person as his pupil, to discriminate against a person—

(a) in the arrangements which he makes for the purpose of determining whom he will take as his pupil;

(b) in respect of any terms on which he offers to take any person as his pupil; or

(c) by refusing, or deliberately omitting, to take a person as his pupil.

(2) It is unlawful for an advocate, in relation to a person who is a pupil, to discriminate against him—

(a) in respect of any terms applicable to him as a pupil;

(b) in the opportunities for training, or gaining experience, which are afforded or denied to him;

(c) in the benefits, facilities or services which are afforded or denied to him; or

(d) by terminating the relationship or by subjecting him to any pressure to terminate the relationship or other detriment.

(3) It is unlawful for any person, in relation to the giving, withholding or acceptance of instructions to an advocate, to discriminate against any person.
(4) In this section—

'advocate' means a member of the Faculty of Advocates practising as such; and

'pupil' has the meaning commonly associated with its use in the context of a person training to be an advocate.

(5) This section does not apply to England and Wales.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
117 After Clause 54, insert the following clause:—
Preparation of documents etc. by registered patent agents and trade mark agents
'.—(1) Section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (unqualified person not to prepare certain instruments) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) (persons exempt from subsection (I)), the following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph (a)—

"(aa) a registered trade mark agent drawing or preparing any instrument relating to any design, trade mark or service mark;

(ab) a registered patent agent drawing or preparing any instrument relating to any invention, design, technical information, trade mark or service mark."

(3) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)—

"(3A) In subsection (2)—

"registered trade mark agent" has the same meaning as in section 282(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988; and

"registered patent agent" has the same meaning as in section 275(1) of that Act".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 117. In doing so I speak also to Amendments Nos. 120, 126, 127, 129 to 137, 139, 238A, 239 to 245, 278 and 281. These amendments are

1437
designed to deal with the problem of the admission of various people to the possibility of work in the area of legal practice.
When the Bill was previously before this House, I said that a number of amendments to the Solicitors Act 1974 were to be considered, beyond those which were to be found in Part IV of the Bill at that time. Practice with, and admission of, foreign lawyers, and new powers to deal with complaints of poor work, are dealt with in other groups of amendments to this part of the Bill. These remaining provisions, which have been arrived at following consultation with the Law Society and with my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls, are designed to improve and bring up to date the regulation of various aspects of the solicitors' profession, and to facilitate changes in the range of work which certain classes of persons are permitted to undertake. I do not propose to dwell upon this at length.
First, a greater degree of flexibility is to be introduced into the way in which the Law Society carries out certain of its functions, by providing greater powers of delegation among its committees and sub-committees. That is at the request of the Law Society to make it somewhat more flexible. Secondly, the powers and functions of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal are clarified and brought up to date. Thirdly, provision is made for solicitors to be charged reduced or, if appropriate, increased fees on the issue of a practising certificate where this is considered justified.
Fourthly, the Solicitors Act 1974 is to be altered to allow registered trade mark agents and registered patent agents to draw up certain documents which they were previously unqualified to prepare, relaxing the existing monopoly in these areas. This amendment has the approval of the vice-chancellor. There are also a number of minor amendments consequential on these, or on material concerning the Solicitors Act 1974 and the regulation of the profession which are already in the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 117.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
118 Clause 55, page 42, line 2, leave out `or by a designated judge' and insert ', a designated judge or the Director'.
119 Page 42, line 3, after `by' insert 'or to'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 118 and 119. I have spoken to them with Amendment No. 33.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 118 and 119. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
120 Clause 59, page 45, line 23, leave out paragraph (d) and insert:
1438
`(d) section 9 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (functions in relation to incorporated practices).'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 120. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 117.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 120.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
121 Clause 60, page 45, line 36, at end insert:
`(2A) Any reference in any enactment, instrument or other document to an office which is, or includes, one to which this section applies shall be construed as a reference to, or (as the case may be) as including a reference to, that office by its new name.'.
122 Page 46, line 3, at end insert:
`(5A) In section 42 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (which allows certain county court proceedings to be taken in the principal registry of the Family Division) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(4A) Where a district judge of the principal registry is exercising jurisdiction in any matrimonial cause or matter which could be exercised by a district judge of a county court, he shall have the same powers in relation to those proceedings as if he were a district judge of a county court and the proceedings were in a county court.".'.
123 Page 46, leave out lines 4 to 8.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 121 to 123. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 125, 261 and 262. These amendments, with the exception of Amendment No. 122 are purely drafting changes. Amendment No. 122 ensures that the disciplinary powers made available to district judges by Clause 60 are also available to district judges of the principal registry of the Family Division when exercising jurisdiction in county court matters under Section 42 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. In general, the principal registry of the Family Division district judges exercise a High Court jurisdiction. There is no present intention to alter their disciplinary powers when exercising that jurisdiction.
Section 42 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, however, confers jurisdiction on the principal registry of the Family Division district judges in certain county court matters. To ensure consistency of approach, it is considered right that when principal registry of the Family Division district judges are hearing these county court matters they should be able to deal with any of the disciplinary incidents which may arise, and are perhaps particularly likely to arise given the emotional nature of these family matters, in precisely the same way as could the district judges actually sitting in the county courts.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 121 to 123.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
124 After Clause 60, insert the following clause:—
Judges etc. barred from legal practice
'.—No person holding as a full-time appointment any of the offices listed in Schedule (Judges etc barred from legal practice) shall—

(a) provide any advocacy or litigation services (in any jurisdiction);

(b) provide any conveyancing or probate services;

(c) practise as a barrister, solicitor, public notary or licensed conveyancer, or be indirectly concerned in any such practice;

(d) practise as an advocate or solicitor in Scotland, or be indirectly concerned in any such practice; or

(e) act for any remuneration to himself as an arbitrator or umpire.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 124. With this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 211, 214, 248, 253 to 255, 276, 282, 284, 286, 288 and 289.
The purpose of these amendments is to prohibit a person who holds a full-time appointment in any post listed in the new schedule from providing any advocacy, litigation, conveyancing, or probate services; practising as a barrister, solicitor, public notary or licensed conveyancer (or in Scotland as an advocate or solicitor); or acting for any remuneration to himself as an arbitrator or umpire.
They will not, however, I am glad to say, and as a matter of caution, prevent a judge from acting as a litigant in person. The purpose of the amendments is to standardise the current prohibitions on these matters.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 124.—(The Lord Chancellor".)
Lord Renton: My Lords, we are considering about 300 amendments on this occasion. We have found a group of amendments which merely place into legislation matters which have always been understood as matters of tradition, integrity and honour. It surprises me that it is necessary to legislate at all for these issues.
In the past there has never been any suggestion that the holders of legal office at any level could or would practise I have never known it to happen. I believe there was a case, which was referred to in someone's memoirs, a great many years ago of a judge who wanted to retire from the Bench because he thought he would do better to go back into practice. The Lord Chancellor of the day said that he could not. Is there no limit to the number of matters that we now have to put into statute in order to ensure that there is compliance? These provisions are rather overzealous.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are statutory provisions already designed to secure commonsense results. For example, part-time judicial appointment holders should not hear cases in which they or their partners have been involved. There is also a widening of the scope of people who may become eligible for appointment to judicial posts in time. Therefore, I believe it is right that the statutory provision should be simplified and made general. That is what this clause does.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, for the purpose of the record, would the noble and learned Lord care to indicate why it is that the Lord Chancellor is not in the list?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I suppose it is because the situation is difficult to regulate in detail. A good deal of the other functions which the Lord Chancellor carries out may come into it. He is a judge by statute. He also receives remuneration for acting as Speaker of this House as distinct from his remuneration as a judge. Most people are interested in the total and it is certainly what I am interested in. The qualifications for Lord Chancellor have never been very closely regulated. I believe that there may be more implications about the qualifications than some people think nowadays. I expect that those points are at least part of the reason.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
125 After Clause 60, insert the following clause:—
Judicial oaths
`.—(1) A person holding any of the following offices—

(a) district judge, including district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division;

(b) Master of the Queen's Bench Division;

(c) Master of the Chancery Division;

(d) Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court;

(e) Taxing Master of the Supreme Court;

(f) Admiralty Registrar,

shall take the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath before a judge of the High Court or a Circuit judge.
(2) The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 shall have effect as if the offices listed in the Second Part of the Schedule to that Act included those offices.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 125. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 121.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 125.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
126 After Clause 70, insert the following clause:—
Fees payable on issue of practising certificates
'. In section 11 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (fees payable on issue of practising certificates), the following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (2) and (2A)—
"(2) An order under subsection (1) may specify reduced fees for practising certificates in such circumstances as may be so specified.
(2A) Subsection (2B) applies where an order under subsection (1) specifies a reduced fee in the case of a solicitor whose income, from his practice as a solicitor, is, during such period as may be so specified, less than an amount so specified.
(2B) The question whether, for the purposes of any such order, the income of a solicitor during the specified period falls below the specified amount shall be determined in accordance with regulations made by the Master of the Rolls with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice.".'.
127 After Clause 70, insert the following clause:
Additional fee payable by certain solicitors on applying for practising certificates
' The following section shall be inserted in the Solicitors Act 1974 after section 12—
12A.—(1) Where a solicitor applies for a practising certificate at a time when section 12 has effect in relation to him by reason of the circumstances mentioned in section 12(1) (ee), he shall pay an additional fee to the Society when making his application.
(2) The amount of that additional fee—

(a) shall be fixed by order of the Master of the Rolls made with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice; and

(b) shall be designed to provide reasonable compensation to the Society for the additional cost of dealing with such applications.".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 126 and 127. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 117.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 126 and 127. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
128 After Clause 70, insert the following clause:
Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors
'.—(1) The Law Society shall maintain a register of foreign lawyers for the purposes of this section.
(2) A foreign lawyer who wishes to be registered under this section must apply to the Society in accordance with the requirements of Part I of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies).
(3) The power to make rules under—

(a) the following provisions of the Solicitors Act 1974—

(i) section 31 (professional practice, conduct and discipline);

(ii) section 32 (accounts and trust accounts);

(iii) section 34 (accountants' reports);

(iv) section 36 (Compensation Fund); and

(v) section 37 (professional indemnity); and

(b) section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (incorporated practices),

shall also be exercisable in relation to registered foreign lawyers.
(4) Subject to the provisions of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies), any such power may be exercised so as—

(a) to make different provision with respect to solicitors who enter into multi-national partnerships to the provision made with respect to other solicitors;

(b) to make different provision with respect to the management and control of recognised bodies by solicitors and registered foreign lawyers to the provision made with respect to the management and control of recognised bodies by solicitors;

(c) to make different provision with respect to registered foreign lawyers who are members of multi-national partnerships to the provision made with respect to solicitors; or

(d) to make different provision with respect to officers of recognised bodies who are registered foreign lawyers to the provision made with respect to officers of recognised bodies who are solicitors.

(5) Subject to the provisions of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies), the Lord Chancellor may by order provide that any enactment or instrument—

(a) passed or made before the commencement of this section;

(b) having effect in relation to solicitors; and

(c) specified in the order,

shall have effect with respect to registered foreign lawyers as it has effect with respect to solicitors.
(6) An order under subsection (5) may provide for an enactment or instrument to have effect with respect to registered foreign lawyers subject to such additions, omissions or other modifications as the Lord Chancellor sees fit to specify in the order.
(7) Subject to the provisions of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies), the Lord Chancellor may by order provide that any enactment or instrument—

(a) passed or made before the commencement of this section;

(b) having effect in relation to recognised bodies; and

(c) specified in the order,

shall, in its application in relation to recognised bodies whose officers include one or more registered foreign lawyers, have effect with such additions, omissions or other modifications as the Lord Chancellor sees fit to specify in the order.
(8) Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies) shall have effect for the purposes of supplementing this section.
(9) In this section and in Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies)—

"foreign lawyer" means a person who is not a solicitor or barrister but who is a member, and entitled to practise as such, of a legal profession regulated within a jurisdiction outside England and Wales;

"multi-national partnership" means a partnership whose members consist of one or more registered foreign lawyers and one or more solicitors;

"recognised body" has the same meaning as in section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (management and control by solicitors of incorporated practices); and

"registered foreign lawyer" means a foreign lawyer who is registered under this section.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 128. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 39.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 128.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
8.30 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
129 Clause 72, page 53, line 6, leave out 'the powers conferred by this Schedule have' and insert 'any power conferred by this Schedule has'.
130 Page 53, line 9, leave out 'they were' and insert 'it was'.
131 Page 53, line 16, after 'granted', insert 'or otherwise has effect'.
132 Page 53, line 18, at end insert 'in connection with the imposition of that condition'.
133 Page 53, line 23, after '1985', insert 'and so approved'.
134 Clause 73, page 54, line 3, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:
'(2) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (1) and (2)—
"(1) Any application—

(a) to strike the name of a solicitor off the roll;

(b) to require a solicitor to answer allegations contained in an affidavit;

(c) to require a former solicitor whose name has been removed from or struck off the roll to answer allegations contained in an affidavit relating to a time when he was a solicitor;

(d) by a solicitor who has been suspended from practice for an unspecified period, by order of the Tribunal, for the termination of that suspension;

(e) by a former solicitor whose name has been struck off the roll to have his name restored to the roll;

1443

(f) by a former solicitor in respect of whom a direction has been given under subsection (2) (g) to have his name restored to the roll,

shall be made to the Tribunal; but nothing in this subsection shall affect any jurisdiction over solicitors exercisable by the Master of the Rolls, or by any judge of the High Court, by virtue of section 50.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) and to section 54, on the hearing of any application or complaint made to the Tribunal under this Act, other than an application under section 43, the Tribunal shall have power to make such order as it may think fit, and any such order may in particular include provision for any of the following matters—

(a) the striking off the roll of the name of the solicitor to whom the application or complaint relates;

(b) the suspension of that solicitor from practice indefinitely or for a specified period;

(c) the payment by that solicitor or former solicitor of a penalty not exceeding £5,000, which shall be forfeit to Her Majesty;

(d) in the circumstances referred to in subsection (2A), the exclusion of that solicitor from legal aid work (either permanently or for a specified period);

(e) the termination of that solicitor's unspecified period of suspension from practice;

(f) the restoration to the roll of the name of a former solicitor whose name has been struck off the roll and to whom the application relates;

(g) in the case of a former solicitor whose name has been removed from the roll, a direction prohibiting the restoration of his name to the roll except by order of the Tribunal;

(h) in the case of an application under subsection (I) (f), the restoration of the applicant's name to the roll;

(i) the payment by any party of costs or a contribution towards costs of such amount as the Tribunal may consider reasonable."

(3) In subsection (2A) for the words "(2) (bb)" there shall be substituted "(2) (d)".'.
135 Page 54, line 32, after first '(a)', insert 'for the words "(a) to (e)" there shall be substituted "(a) to (i)";(aa)'.
136 Page 54, line 34, leave out from second `(b)' to end of line 35 and insert 'for the words "paragraph (d) or (e) of that subsection" there shall be substituted "paragraph (e), (f), (h) or (i) of section 47(2)".'.
137 Page 54, line 38, leave out 'or (e)" and insert '(e) or (f)".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 129 to 137. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 117.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 129 to 137.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
138After Clause 73, insert the following clause:—
Redress for inadequate professional services
`.—(1) Section 44A of the Solicitors Act 1974 (powers of Council to impose sanctions for inadequate professional services) shall cease to have effect.
(2) In its place, the following shall be inserted in that Act after section 37—
"Inadequate professional services
Redress for inadequate professional services.
37A. Schedule IA shall have effect with respect to the provision by solicitors of services which are not of the quality which it is reasonable to expect of them."
(3) The provisions set out in Schedule (Inadequate professional services) shall be inserted in that Act as Schedule 1A.
(4) Section 47A of that Act (power of Tribunal to impose sanctions for inadequate professional services) shall cease to have effect.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 138. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 140, 216, 265, 279, 280, 296, 297 and 299. These are important amendments to the Solicitors Act 1974. All except Amendment No. 140 extend the Law Society's jurisdiction in cases of inadequate professional services or, as it is sometimes called, shoddy work. I had hoped to introduce these powers at Report stage in this House but they are rather detailed and it did not prove possible to bring them forward until the Bill reached another place.
Section 44A of the Solicitors Act 1974 gave the society power to reduce fees; to order a solicitor, at his or her own expense, to take action rectifying an error; or to take other action in the interests of the client. These powers have served a useful purpose but they are to be extended now to enable the society to take action, and direct the payment of compensation, to enable a client's clearly justified "small claim" to be satisfied.
It may help the House if I briefly outline the effect of these amendments. First, by revising the relevant structure of the Solicitors Act, they draw a clear distinction between the society's disciplinary functions, dealing with matters of professional misconduct, and its powers to deal with complaints about the quality of service provided. That is an important distinction. Secondly, the amendments give the Law Society power to direct a solicitor to pay compensation up to £1,000 where it is satisfied that the services provided by the solicitor were not of the quality that could reasonably have been expected. The Lord Chancellor is to have power to vary the £1,000 limit by statutory instrument after consultation with the Law Society, and the intention is that it should move in broad equivalence to the small claims limit.
The council will also be able to charge a fee once a complainant has decided that he or she wishes the society to adjudicate formally on a complaint of shoddy work. The charge will be refunded if any of the powers are exercised in the applicant's favour. The society will also have the power to recover costs from the solicitor.
The new provisions will fit very closely with the powers of the legal services ombudsman and I hope that they place the Law Society in a better position to maintain standards and to resolve many of the public's grievances against solicitors.
Finally, the new clause at Amendment No. 140 is a modest but welcome amendment, also made at the request of the Law Society, which will provide that an agreement between the solicitor and his client as to the solicitor's hourly charging rate may constitute a contentious or non-contentious business agreement. Such agreements benefit both solicitor and client by providing some certainty at the outset as to what the solicitor will charge the client. The agreement must he in writing and may be set aside if the court considers it to be unfair or unreasonable. An important safeguard in the new clause is the provision which

1445
retains the client's right to taxation of the number of hours actually worked and inquiry as to whether the total was excessive.
I consider this a useful contribution to a package of measures on matters of considerable concern to the client public.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 138.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
139 After Clause 76, insert the following clause:
Committees and sub-committees of the Council
' . The following section shall be substituted for section 79 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (committees of the Council)—
"Committees and sub-committees of the Council.
79.—(1) Subject to any provision to the contrary made by or under any enactment, the Council may arrange for any of its functions (other than reserved functions) to be discharged by—

(a) a committee of the Council;

(b) a sub-committee of such a committee; or

(c) an individual (whether or not a member of the Society's staff).

(2) Where, by virtue of subsection (1) (a), any of the Council's functions may be discharged by a committee, the committee may arrange for the discharge of any of those functions by—

(a) a sub-committee of that committee; or

(b) an individual (whether or not a member of the Society's staff).

(3) Where, by virtue of subsection (1) or (2), any of the Council's functions may be discharged by a subcommittee, the sub-committee may arrange for the discharge of any of those functions by a member of the Society's staff.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) shall have effect subject to any contrary direction given by the Council.
(5) Subject to any direction given by the Council under subsection (4), subsection (3) shall have effect subject to any contrary direction given by the committee concerned.
(6) Any power given by subsection (1), (2) or (3) may be exercised so as to impose restrictions or conditions on the body or individual by whom the functions concerned are to be discharged.
(7) A committee of the Council, and any sub-committee of such a committee, discharging functions delegated under this section may include persons other than—

(a) members of the Council;

(b) members of the Society;

(c) solicitors.

(8) The majority of the members of any such committee or sub-committee may be persons who may be included by virtue of subsection (7).
(9) The number and term of office of the members of such a committee and the number of those members necessary to form a quorum, shall be fixed by the Council.
(10) Subject to any restriction or condition imposed by the Council, the number and term of office of the members of such a sub-committee and the number of those members necessary to form a quorum, shall be fixed by the committee concerned.
(11) The validity of any proceedings of such a committee or sub-committee shall not be affected by any casual vacancy among its members.
(12) In this section "reserved functions" means—

(a) the function of making rules or regulations under sections 2, 31, 32, 34, 36, or 37 or under section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (incorporated practices);

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 139. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 117.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 139.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
140 After Clause 76, insert the following clause:—
Agreements with solicitors for payment by hourly rates
'.—(1) Section 57 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (non-contentious business agreements) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In subsection (2) (method of payment which may be agreed), after the words "gross sum" there shall be inserted "or by reference to an hourly rate".
(3) In subsection (4), for the words "Subject to subsection (5)" there shall be substituted "Subject to subsections (5) and (7)".
(4) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(6) Subsection (7) applies where the agreement provides for the remuneration of the solicitor to be by reference to an hourly rate.
(7) If, on the taxation of any costs, the agreement is relied on by the solicitor and the client objects to the amount of the costs (but is not alleging that the agreement is unfair or unreasonable), the taxing officer may enquire into—

(a) the number of hours worked by the solicitor; and

(b) whether the number of hours worked by him was excessive."

(5) In section 59(1) of the Act of 1974 (method of payment which may be agreed in contentious business agreement) after the words "gross sum" there shall be inserted "or by reference to an hourly rate".
(6) In section 60(1) of the Act of 1974 (which among other things provides for section 69 of that Act not to apply to contentious business agreements), after the word "or" there shall be inserted "(except in the case of an agreement which provides for the solicitor to be remunerated by reference to an hourly rate)".
(7) In section 61 of the Act of 1974 (enforcement of contentious business agreements), the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(4A) Subsection (4B) applies where a contentious business agreement provides for the remuneration of the solicitor to be by reference to an hourly rate.
(4B) If on the taxation of any costs the agreement is relied on by the solicitor and the client objects to the amount of the costs (but is not alleging that the agreement is unfair or unreasonable), the taxing officer may enquire into—

(a) the number of hours worked by the solicitor; and

(b) whether the number of hours worked by him was excessive." '.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 140. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 138.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 140.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
141 Clause 77, page 58, line 32, at end insert:
'(7) Rules of the Supreme Court may make provision for—

(a) cases in which it is necessary to allocate references made under or by virtue of arbitration agreements to official referees;

1447

(b) the transfer of references from one official referee to another.'.

142After Clause 78, insert the following clause:—
Power of parties in certain cases to fill vacancy
.—(1) In section 10 of the Arbitration Act 1950 (power of court in certain cases to appoint an arbitrator or umpire), the following shall be substituted for subsection (3)—
"(3) In any case where—

(a) an arbitration agreement provides that the reference shall be to three arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party and the third to be appointed by the two appointed by the parties or in some other manner specified in the agreement; and

(b) one of the parties ("the party in default") refuses to appoint an arbitrator or does not do so within the time specified in the agreement or, if no time is specified, within a reasonable time,

the other party to the agreement, having appointed his arbitrator, may serve the party in default with a written notice to appoint an arbitrator.
(3A) A notice under subsection (3) must indicate whether it is served for the purposes of subsection (3B) or for the purposes of subsection (3C).
(3B) Where a notice is served for the purposes of this subsection, then unless a contrary intention is expressed in the agreement, if the required appointment is not made within seven clear days after the service of the notice—

(a) the party who gave the notice may appoint his arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator in the reference; and

(b) his award shall be binding on both parties as if he had been appointed by consent.

(3C) Where a notice is served for the purposes of this subsection, then, if the required appointment is not made within seven clear days after the service of the notice the High Court or a judge thereof may, on the application of the party who gave the notice, appoint an arbitrator on behalf of the party in default who shall have the like powers to act in the reference and make an award (and, if the case so requires, the like duty in relation to the appointment of a third arbitrator) as if he had been appointed in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
(3D) The High Court or a judge thereof may set aside any appointment made by virtue of subsection (3B)."
(2) Section 10 of the Act of 1950 shall continue to apply in relation to any arbitration agreement entered into before the commencement of this section as if this section had not been enacted.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if a contrary intention is expressed in the arbitration agreement, whether or not as the result of a variation made after the commencement of this section.'.
143 Clause 79, page 59, line 11, at end insert:
(3) For the purpose of keeping the provision made by this section and the corresponding provision which applies in relation to proceedings in the High Court in step, the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend subsection (2) above.
(4) Before making any such order the Secretary of State shall consult the Lord Chancellor and such other persons as he considers appropriate.
(5) No such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 141 to 143.
Amendment No. 141 allows the rules of the Supreme Court to regulate the allocation of arbitrations to particular official referees, where no such referee was nominated on the application, and the transfer of arbitrations between official referees as the state of their business demands. This provision is necessary so that the procedural details of the scheme established by the new Section 11 of the Arbitration Act 1950 substituted for the old by Clause 77 can be
1448
dealt with by rules of court. The details of how arbitrations are allocated and transferred among the official referees are clearly appropriate for the rules, but, because these arbitrations are not strictly proceedings in the High Court, a specific enabling provision of this kind is desirable.
The provision has not been necessary hitherto because, as Section 11 of the Arbitration Act is presently worded, applications are to specific referees to hear an arbitration, so no initial allocation is necessary, nor are transfers provided for. The provision will provide the flexibility needed to ensure the most efficient use of judicial resources.
The new clause, Amendment No. 142, takes forward a proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Byron, in relation to arbitrations to a three-member tribunal and is supported by the departmental advisory committee on arbitration. Section 7 of the Arbitration Act 1950 provides a simple and effective method for dealing with the problem which arises when each of the two parties to an arbitration agreement is required to appoint an arbitrator where there is a dispute, but one fails to do so. The other party may in certain circumstances appoint his own arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator. However, this procedure only applies where the reference is to be to two arbitrators. Where it is to three arbitrators, and one party defaults in making art appointment, an application to the High Court is necessary under Section 10(3) of the 1950 Act for the court to appoint an arbitrator. Such an application of course costs time and money. This amendment, the key provision of which is the new subsection (3B), makes a similar provision to that in Section 7, so that the party who is not in default may appoint his arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator once the other party has failed to comply with a notice requiring him to make his appointment.
The present remedy is also to continue by virtue of new subsection (3C). This is needed because in some jurisdictions, it may not be possible to enforce an award which was intended to have been made by a three-member tribunal but has been made by a sole arbitrator appointed by one party alone.
Amendment No. 143 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the conditions set out in subsection (2) of Clause 79 in order to bring them into line with those for the time being applying in the High Court. The power would be exercisable after consultation with the Lord Chancellor and any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and any order would require an affirmative resolution of both Houses.
Clause 79 does, of course, provide a new Section 13A to the Arbitration Act 1950, and not Section 11 as is stated in the explanatory document I issued with the list of Commons amendments to the Bill. I apologise for that error and mistaken reference.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 141 to 143.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, with regard to Amendment No. 142, the noble and learned Lord is

1449
certainly to be congratulated on, and thanked for, giving effect to a proposal made about the subject matter by the noble Lord, Lord Byron, who was present earlier today. One can see that the clause has been given a good deal of attention and careful drafting. At the same time it is a complicated matter. It interacts with a large number of other matters relating to the law of arbitration. One cannot but be left with a little regret that piecemeal legislation in this important field should have been thought necessary rather than leaving it to a general and comprehensive overhaul of the Arbitration Act. However, I thank the noble and learned Lord on behalf of my noble friend for the trouble he has taken in bringing forward this amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that message. I sympathise with his view about the desirability of a general revision of arbitration law. That was a reason for perhaps not acting on this suggestion. However, I felt that this was a specific problem which it was possible to deal with, and that if we could bring matters forward on this particular question it would be desirable to do so. I hope this will not impede more general consideration of arbitration law in due course. I do not think it will. It is something which can be dealt with on its own.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
144 Clause 81, leave out Clause 81
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is rather a complicated subject and one to which we have directed a good deal of attention over the period of this Bill's consideration. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 144. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 145, 145A to 145K, 146, 146A to 146D, 147, 147A to 147E, 148 and 177. The new clauses added by Amendments Nos. 145 to 148 and their related amendments deal with tying in and they replace Clause 81 of the Bill, which is deleted by Amendment No. 144. Amendment No. 177 extends the application of the clauses to Scotland.
It has always been our intention, as signalled in the papers which preceded this Bill and the Bill itself, to deal with the problem of tying in the area of the provision of financial loans on residential property. Those who have followed the progress of this portion of the Bill with particular interest will have noticed that by comparison with the existing version of the clause these amendments now take a rather different approach towards dealing with the mischief that we have identified.
That problem is basically very simple. For most people the size of the loan they will need to buy a home and the speed with which they will need to get it makes them vulnerable to pressure. The particular form we are concerned with here is pressure to take the loan in combination with other services which are not necessarily quite what the borrower wants or needs.
1450
There has been much concern about that recently. I need only refer to the report of the National Consumer Council, Home Truths. Although the form which the provisions are taking has changed in response to the many useful points which have been put to the Government both before and since the new clauses were added to the Bill in another place, we have not altered our mind on that basic issue.
What we have therefore sought to create is a framework in which providers of residential property loans are obliged to make clear, as a condition of supplying a package to the consumer, what is available, in what form and at what cost. The clearer and more coherent structure of the new clauses added by these amendments represents a rather different approach from that taken in Clause 81 to the important topic of tying in, particularly with regard to the perceived abuse of the mortgage lender using his potential coercive power to the disadvantage of the borrower. As the Solicitor General said when speaking to these amendments in Report in another place, our touchstone in dealing with this problem must be openness, so that a borrower can see clearly how much a loan will cost them, whether that loan is provided alone or in conjunction with other services.
I should like to say a few words now to explain the main points in the amendments made in another place and the amendments to these which the Government have tabled in this House. Commons Amendment No. 145 adds a new clause prohibiting people who make residential property loans from doing so as part of a package with other services unless certain conditions are first complied with. The lender must inform the borrower, by notice, in a form prescribed by the Secretary of State that the loan and other services are separate services. He must inform the borrower whether the terms and conditions of the loan are variable. If the borrower declines to take other services in the package, as many borrowers may, the lender must say that he will not refuse to provide the loan simply for that reason. The lender must provide the borrower with a statement of the price payable for each of the other services in the package, and the extent to which the terms and conditions of the loan would differ if it were made without the other services in the package. Differential pricing is to be permitted and may be justifiable and desirable; but it must be clear to the lender what he is buying and what he is paying for, whether he takes the package as a whole or just an individual service.
Amendment No. 145 also creates an offence where a person advertises or promotes the provision or arrangements for the provision of any controlled services together with the making of a residential property loan unless certain requirements about information to be given are complied with. The requirements will be laid by regulations made by the Secretary of State. I should explain the reason behind this. As I have already said, in the main we have sought to put ourselves in a position to tackle the lender since it is the ability to provide the loan which is the essential key to the level of pressure which can be applied to the borrower; but because this

1451
regulation-making power in respect of advertisements and promotion extends to the arrangement for the provision of services with a loan, this particular provision applies also to the way intermediaries (brokers) market their services.
I am, however, moving a number of amendments to Amendment No. 145 in the light of further discussions with interested parties, and of our own further thoughts. The principal amendment, which has consequential results throughout the other clauses, is the amendment in line 8 (No. 145B) which changes the tying-in prohibition from one based on the lender entering; into an agreement with the borrower to one based on the provision of the loan together with other controlled services by the borrower.
To focus on the agreement is too narrow because there may well not be contractual provisions that encompass all these services, and what we have sought to do in the new amendments that I have tabled in this House is to widen it in order to base the provisions on the provision of the loan, together with other controlled services by the borrower.
The reason for this change is simple. It became clear on further consideration of the amendments made in another place that the ambit of the prohibition was not as clear and effective as intended. "Agreement" was likely to be interpreted by the courts to mean "contract", and such an interpretation could have led to legal argument as to whether a contract existed in a particular case. The Government did not consider that this was desirable, particularly in those cases which were heard by magistrates. A further difficulty was that the prohibition in the form it left the other place was based on an agreement to offer a loan together with other controlled services; apart from the difficulty of proving the existence of such an agreement, all a lender would need to do to avoid the prohibition was to make sure that he never entered into such a single agreement.
There is another important amendment covered in the amendment in line 8 (No. 145B) and that is the power given to the Secretary of State to provide for the stage, or "relevant step", to quote the amendment, at which the lender must serve the relevant notices and statements. The purpose here is to make sure that the borrower is given the information required by the clause at an appropriate stage in the transaction. I believe this flexible approach is preferable to imposing an absolute timetable which could cause unnecessary delay or loss in some circumstances.
The other amendments to Amendment No. 145 are either consequential on the deletion of the concept of "agreement" or they are merely technical drafting ones intended to tidy up the clause.
Let me turn now to Commons Amendment No. 146. This adds a new clause giving the Secretary of State power to prescribe which services cause the previous clause to apply when included in a package with a loan. They may include insurance and other financial services, valuation and surveying services, conveyancing services and removal services. The Secretary of State is also given power to define what is
1452
meant by important terms in Amendment No. 145, such as "notice", "price" and "statement". It may be helpful if I say at this stage that the Secretary of State will pay due regard to the importance of avoiding unnecessary compliance costs when drawing up these regulations; and he intends to consult widely with all those concerned before regulations are made. Amendment No. 146 also provides for connected agreements.
The amendments to Amendment No. 146 remove the references to agreements, hence the provision about connected agreements which I have just mentioned falls. The amendment at line 53 (No. 146D) gives the Secretary of State power to define the "relevant step" which I mentioned in connection with the previous clause. The remaining amendments are, again, consequential and technical drafting ones.
I turn now to Commons Amendment No. 147. This amendment adds a new clause making it an offence to fail to comply with the requirements of the new clause added by Amendment No. 145 or refuse to grant a loan, having complied with the conditions required by subsection (3) of this clause where the borrower declines other services in the package. The amendments to Amendment No. 147 are either consequential on the removal of "agreement" or are, once again, technical drafting ones.
Amendment No. 148, which is not the subject of any government amendments before this House, adds a new clause providing for enforcement. Enforcement falls to local trading standards officers and to the Director General of Fair Trading. In Scotland, however, prosecutions will, as always, be in the hands of the procurator fiscal.
Before I close, I should like to say a few words about implementation. I know that there are some lenders who would like the Government to commit themselves to delaying implementation of these provisions pending attempts by the industry to put its own house in order. Let me say straightaway that the Government would be delighted if it were possible to implement the spirit of the new clauses in advance of the relevant regulations being made and hope, for the sake of house-buyers, that the industry will see fit to do so.
There are, however, two major difficulties which the Government see for lenders in that regard. In the first place, there is no one organisation which currently represents all mortgage lenders; and, in the second place, it is doubtful whether lenders would be able to enforce a voluntary code against fringe operators.
Having said that it may be helpful to give the House some idea of the Government's timetable for implementation. The regulation-making powers in the new clauses provide for some flexibility. There will be consultation, as indeed is required by subsection (11) of Amendment No. 146, before any regulations are made. The Government intend to hold extensive consultations with interested parties towards the end of the year with a view to making regulations in the spring. That is not a fixed timetable as much will depend on the outcome of the consultations. If the

1453
industry could convince the Government that it had a simpler way of avoiding tying-in by lenders which it could police adequately, the Government could be open to persuasion that bringing the relevant provisions into force would not be necessary after all. But—and I must be clear on this point—the case would have to be a convincing one and the disclosure requirements in the clauses under discussion are the minimum that the Government consider necessary to protect the borrower.
Meanwhile, the Government believe that the amendments before the House today represent important safeguards for the consumer when buying his home. The amendments, taken together, provide a full statutory framework to cover this important area of tying-in. They were formulated after considerable detailed deliberation in another place and by taking account of representations made to the Government since that deliberation. I hope that the House will welcome them.
I should perhaps particularly mention the help that the Government have had in consultation from the Council of Mortgage Lenders and its observations on the detail of the provisions. The Government certainly wish to thank it most sincerely for its co-operation and help. That also goes in respect of others who have helped us in the formulation of the clauses. This is a difficult but important area and we have a responsibility to make the provisions as effective as we possibly can. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 144—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the legal profession and the public at large owe a deep debt of gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for all the care that he has taken in regard to these tying in provisions. I happen to know the number of consultations that he has had and the thought that he has given to the matter. He deserves the appreciation of everyone who is concerned with the problem.
There are a couple of worries that I should like to share with the noble and learned Lord and with your Lordships. First, I appreciate what has been done in improving the Commons amendment, as we received it, by the further amendments to the Commons amendments which the noble and learned Lord has discussed. However, many of us are worried because we are not certain whether Amendment No. 145K covers mortgage brokers and agents. I say that because it would be ridiculous if mortgage brokers were free to arrange package services which would be prohibited if they were offered by lending institutions. We all know that they are heavily dependent on commission earned from associated insurance business and that they would have an even stronger incentive to package services than would have lending institutions.
I was relieved to see Amendment No. 145K because I saw the words:
1454
"in the course of his business provides, or makes arrangements for the provision of, controlled services together with residential property loans; and advertises or in any other manner promotes—

(i) the provision of any controlled service or any residential property loan; or

(ii) the making by him of any such arrangements".

The noble and learned Lord has been engaged in long discussions with interested parties. If he is satisfied that the mortgage brokers and agents who effect the introductions to all the mortgage arrangements are covered by the provision, I shall cease to be miserable. However, if that is not so, there appears to be a serious lacuna.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will permit me to ask a question. He dealt with the question of implementation. We were all interested to hear what he said about a regulation-making period round about the spring of next year, without giving any undertaking that that would be the precise date. He referred to discussions that might take place and said that, although it would be hard to convince the Government, if they could be convinced that self-regulation would do the trick, regulations might not have to be made.
My question arose in regard to members of the public learning about those regulations when they are made. I wondered whether the noble and learned Lord had considered not only the legal aspects of the matter, as they are contained in the Bill, but the pragmatic aspects. The regulations would be useless if they were merely made without the public being made aware of them through pamphlets and other publications, possibly from the Department of Trade and Industry, saying precisely what the protection was; for example, whether it was the house-buyers' charter for which the Bill was responsible or something of that kind. If the public do not know, we shall never know whether the provisions of the Bill are known to the prospective borrower or whether there have been contraventions.
If the noble and learned Lord would kindly help me on both those matters, I would immediately revert to the praise that we on these Benches want to give him with regard to these protective provisions for the public.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in answer to the first question, my understanding is that Amendment No. 145K covers brokers and intermediaries. That is certainly the amendment's intention. On the question of bringing the regulations to the public's attention, the intention is that the persons involved in the transactions would require to bring to the attention of people concerned various matters about which we believe they should know under the regulations. I understand that the noble Lord would like wider publicity in case the regulations are not complied with. Of course, if they are not complied with the matters to which I have just referred do not reach the client.
The Director General of Fair Trading already provides publicity with regard to the safeguards available to house buyers. He regards that publicity as important. I undertake that my right honourable

1455
friend the Secretary of State will have his attention drawn to what the noble Lord has said so that he may consider what publicity may be required, because obviously we are most anxious that those safeguarding provisions are effective. That means that the public need to have knowledge that the safeguards exist.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
9 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
145 Before Clause 82, insert the following clause:—
Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans
'.—(1) In this section "residential property loan" means any loan which—

(a) is secured on land in the United Kingdom; and

(b) is made to an individual in respect of the acquisition of land which is for his residential use or the residential use of a dependant of his.

(2) No person ("the lender") shall enter into an agreement with another ("the borrower") for the provision to the borrower by the lender of a residential property loan together with one or more controlled services, unless the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) are complied with before the agreement is entered into.
(3) The conditions are that the lender—

(a) informs the borrower by notice that the residential property loan, and each controlled service to which the proposed agreement relates, are separate services;

(b) informs the borrower by notice whether the terms and conditions of the proposed residential property loan will, if the loan is made in accordance with the proposed agreement, be capable of subsequently being varied by the lender;

(c) provides the borrower with a statement of—

(i) the price which will be payable by the borrower for each of the controlled services if they are all provided in accordance with the terms of the proposed agreement; and

(ii) the extent to which (if at all) the terms and conditions of the proposed residential property loan would differ if it were to be provided by the lender without the controlled services to which the proposed agreement relates being provided by the lender; and

(d) informs the borrower by notice that, if the borrower declines to take from the lender any of the controlled services to which the proposed agreement relates, the lender will not on that account refuse to provide the proposed loan.

(4) Where a person advertises, or in any other manner promotes—

(a) the provision of any controlled services which, in the course of his business, he offers to provide in conjunction with the making by him of residential property loans; or

(b) the making by him, in the course of his business, of any arrangements for the provision of any controlled services in conjunction with the making by him or any other person of residential property loans,

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 145.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 145.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

AS AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 145
145A Line 2, after ("section") insert (" and sections (Tying-in Arrangements: supplemental provisions) and (Tying-in: offences)").
145B Line 8, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 12, and insert ("provide a residential property loan together with one or more controlled services to another person ("the borrower") unless the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) are complied with before a relevant step is taken with respect to any of those services or the loan.").
145C Line 15, leave out ("controlled service to which the proposed agreement relates") and insert ("of the controlled services in question").
145D Line 18, leave out from first ("the") to ("be"), in line 19, and insert ("residential property loan will").
145E Line 20, leave out ("subsequently").
145F Line 20, after ("lender") insert ("after it is made").
145G Line 24, leave out ("of the proposed agreement") and insert ("proposed by the lender").
145H Line 26, leave out ("proposed").
145J Line 28, leave out ("to which the proposed agreement relates") and insert ("in question").
145K Line 31, leave out from ("services") to ("shall") in line 42, and insert ("in question, the lender will not on that account refuse to provide the residential property loan.
(4) a person who—

(a) in the course of his business provides, or makes arrangements for the provision of, controlled services together with residential property loans; and

(b) advertises or in any other manner promotes—

(i) the provision of any controlled service or any residential property loan; or

(ii) the making by him of any such arrangements,").

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 145A to 145K as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 145.
Moved, That Amendments Nos. 145A to 145K, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 145, be agreed to.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 145, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
146 Before Clause 82, insert the following clause:—
Tying-in arrangements: supplemental provisions
`.—(1) In section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) "controlled services" means any services of a description prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State.
(2) The order may, in particular, prescribe any description of—

(a) banking, insurance, investment, trusteeship, executorship or other financial services;

(b) services relating to the acquisition, valuation, surveying or disposal of property;

(c) conveyancing services; or

(d) removal services.

(3) Where a lender enters into—

(a) an agreement for the provision to a borrower of a residential property loan; and

(b) a separate agreement with the borrower for the provision to him of a controlled service,

those agreements shall be treated, for the purposes of section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans), as a single agreement.
(4) Subsection (3) does not apply with respect to any agreement of a kind mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection if the lender proves—

(a) that it was not connected with the transaction in respect of which, or purpose for which, the borrower required the residential property loan; or

(b) where it was so connected, that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to know, that it was.

(5) For the purposes of section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) (1), the Secretary of State may by order specify—

(a) the circumstances in which land is to be treated as being for a person's residential use; and

(b) who are to be treated as a person's dependants.

(6) For the purposes of section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans), this section and section (Tying-in: offences)—

(a) where the lender is a member of a group of companies, the lender and all the other members of the group shall be treated as one; and

(b) where the lender derives any financial benefit from the provision of a controlled service by any other person the lender shall be treated as providing that service.

(7) In subsection (6), "a group of companies" means a holding company and its subsidiaries within the meaning of section 736 of the Companies Act 1985.
(8) The Secretary of State may by order provide that, for such purposes as may be prescribed by the order, paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (6) shall not have effect.
(9) For the purposes of section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans)—

"notice" means a notice in writing given in the form prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

"price" shall have the meaning given by order made by the Secretary of State; and

"statement" means a statement in writing given in the form prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(10) In relation to land in Scotland—

(a) "conveyancing services" has the same meaning as in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990; and

(b) the reference in section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) (1) to a loan being secured on land shall be read as a reference to its being secured over land by a standard security.

(11) Before making any order or regulations under section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) or this section the Secretary of State shall consult the Director and such other persons as he considers appropriate.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 146.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 146.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

AS AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 146
146A Line 3, after ("loans)") insert ("this section and section (Tying-in: offences)").
146B Line 12, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
("(4) Section (Tying-in: arrangements in connection with residential property loans) (2) shall not apply in relation to the provisions of a controlled service if the lender proves—

(a) that the provision of that service was not connected with the transaction in respect of which the borrower required the residential property loan in question; or

(b) where it was so connected, that the lender did not know, and had no reasonable cause to know, that it was").

146C Line 45, after ("that") insert ("in such cases or").
146D Line 53, after ("State") insert—
("—"relevant step", in relation to any controlled service or residential property loan, means such step as may be prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State in relation to that service or loan (taken by such person as may be so prescribed);").
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 146A to 146D.
1458
Moved, That Amendments Nos. 146A to 146D, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 146, be agreed to.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 146, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
147 Before Clause 82, insert the following clause:
Tying-in: offences
`.—(1) If any person contravenes section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) (2) or (4) he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Subsection (3) applies where—

(a) a person ("the lender") has, in relation to a proposed agreement for the provision to any person ("the borrower") of a residential property loan together with one or more controlled services, complied with the conditions mentioned in section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) (3); and

(b) the borrower has declined to take from the lender one or more of the controlled services to which the proposed agreement relates.

(3) The lender shall be guilty of an offence if he refuses to provide the borrower with the proposed residential loan or refuses to provide it to him—

(a) on the terms of the proposed agreement; or

(b) where they differ, on terms which are compatible with the statement required by section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) (3) (c) (ii),

unless he proves that his reason for so refusing was unconnected with the borrower's having declined as mentioned in subsection (2) (b).
(4) Where a lender proposes to enter into—

(a) an agreement for the provision to a borrower of a residential property loan; and

(b) a separate agreement with the borrower for the provision to him of a controlled service,
those proposed agreements shall be treated, for the purposes of subsection (2), as a single proposed agreement.

(5) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; and

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

(6) Subsection (7) applies where an offence under this section is committed by a body corporate.
(7) If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

(a) any director, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate; or

(b) any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

he (as well as the body corporate) shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(8) The fact that a person has committed an offence under this section in connection with any agreement shall not make the agreement void, or unenforceable (whether as a whole or in part) or otherwise affect its validity or give rise to any cause of action for breach of statutory duty.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 147.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 147.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

AS AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 147
147A Line 6, leave out ("a proposed agreement for the") and insert ("the proposed").
147B Line 13, leave out ("to which the proposed agreement relates").
147C Line 15, leave out ("proposed residential") and insert ("residential property").
147D Line 17, leave out ("of the proposed agreement") and insert ("applicable if it were provided together with the controlled services").
147E Line 23, leave out subsection (4).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 147A to 147E.
Moved, That Amendments Nos. 147A to 147E, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 147, be agreed to.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 147, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
148 Before Clause 82, insert the following clause:
Tying-in: enforcement
`.—(1) Every local weights and measures authority ("an authority") and the Director shall have the duty of enforcing sections (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) to (Tying-in: offences) and any regulations made under them.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) is to be taken as authorising a local weights and measures authority in Scotland to institute proceedings for an offence.
(3) Where an authority propose to institute proceedings for an offence under section (Tying-in: offences) they shall give the Director notice of the intended proceedings together with a summary of the facts on which the charges are to be founded.
(4) Where an authority are under a duty to give such a notice and summary they shall not institute the proceedings until—

(a) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which they gave the required notice and summary; or

(b) if earlier, the date on which the Director notifies them of receipt of the notice and summary.

(5) Every authority shall, whenever the Director requires, report to him in such form and with such particulars as he requires on the exercise of their functions under this section.
(6) A duly authorised officer of the Director or of an authority ("an authorised officer") who has reasonable cause to suspect that an offence may have been committed under section (Tying-in: offences) may, at any reasonable time—

(a) enter any premises which are not used solely as a dwelling;

(b) require any officer, agent or other competent person on the premises who is, or may be, in possession of information relevant to an investigation in connection with the provision made by section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) or (Tying-in arrangements: supplemental), to provide such information;

(c) require the production of any document which may be relevant to such an investigation;

(d) take copies, or extracts, of any such documents;

(e) seize and retain any document which he has reason to believe may be required as evidence in proceedings for an offence under section (Tying-in: offences).

(7) Any authorised officer exercising any power given by subsection (6) shall, if asked to do so, produce evidence that he is such an officer.
(8) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant under this section if satisfied, on information on oath given by an authorised officer, that there is reasonable cause to believe that an offence may have been committed under section (Tying-in: offences) and that—
1460

(a) entry to the premises concerned, or production of any documents which may be relevant to an investigation in connection with the provision made by section (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) or (Tying-in arrangements: supplemental), has been or is likely to be refused to the authorised officer; or

(b) there is reasonable cause to believe that, if production of any such document were to be required by the authorised officer without a warrant having been issued under this section, the document would not be produced but would be removed from the premises or hidden, tampered with or destroyed.

(9) In the application of this section to Scotland, "justice of the peace" includes a sheriff and "information on oath" shall be read as "evidence on oath".
(10) A warrant issued under this section shall authorise the authorised officer (accompanied, where he considers it appropriate, by a constable or any other person)—

(a) to enter the premises specified in the information, using such force as is reasonably necessary; and

(b) to exercise any of the powers given to the authorised officer by subsection (6).

(11) If a person—

(a) intentionally obstructs an authorised officer in the exercise of any power under this section;

(b) intentionally fails to comply with any requirement properly imposed on him by an authorised officer in the exercise of any such power;

(c) fails, without reasonable excuse, to give to an authorised officer any assistance or information which he may reasonably require of him for the purpose of exercising any such power; or

(d) in giving to an authorised officer any information which he has been required to give to an authorised officer exercising any such power, makes any statement which he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular,

he shall be guilty of an offence.
(12) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (11) (a), (b) or (c) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(13) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (11) (d) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(14) Nothing in this section shall be taken to require any person to answer any question put to him by an authorised officer, or to give any information to an authorised officer, if to do so might incriminate him.
(15) In this section "document" includes information recorded in any form.
(16) In relation to information recorded otherwise than in legible form, references in this section to its production include references to producing a copy of the information in legible form.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 148. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 144.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 148.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
149 Clause 82, page 60, line 40, at end insert:
`(3A) In section 15 (acting stipendiary magistrate) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) Sections 44, 45 and 53 of this Act shall apply to a person acting as a stipendiary magistrate under subsection (1) as they apply to a stipendiary magistrate."
(3B) In section 34 (acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) Sections 44, 45 and 53 of this Act shall apply to a person acting as a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate under subsection (1) as they apply to a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 149. With this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 150, 151, 267 and 285. The amendments all relate to the new provisions concerning the liability of magistrates for damages. Amendment No. 149 makes it clear that the protection provided by Clause 82 will be enjoyed by acting stipendiary magistrates. The other amendments make repeals in legislation which is no longer necessary as a result of the provisions contained in Clauses 82 and 83, provide for transitional arrangements, and preserve any rights of action accrued before the commencement of those clauses.
My noble friend Lord Renton will remember that he raised the question of whether various classes, including acting stipendiary magistrates, were properly included. Amendment No. 149 is the fruit of his endeavours.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 149.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I know that those who raised this matter with me are grateful for the immense amount of trouble taken in getting it right. I should like to add their thanks to mine.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
150 Page 60, line 41, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
`(4) The following sections shall cease to have effect—

(a) 46 (warrant granted on conviction or order made by another justice);

(b) 47 (exercise of discretionary powers);

(c) 48 (compliance with, or confirmation on appeal to, superior court);

(d) 49 (distress warrant for rates);

(e) 51 (no action in county court if defendant justice objects);

(f) 52 (limitation of damages against justice); and

(g) 54 (provisions as to prerogative proceedings and membership of Crown Court).'.

151 Clause 83, page 61, line 39, at end insert:
'(6) The following provisions of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 shall cease to have effect and are hereby repealed—

(a) in Article 7, the words from "another" to "or by", and the words "magistrate, justice or"; and

(b) in Article 8, paragraph (1), and in paragraph (2) the words "resident magistrate or justice of the peace or" and the words "magistrate, justice or".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 150 and 151.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 150 and 151. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
152 Clause 85, leave out Clause 85.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 152.
The main purpose of Clause 85 was to reduce pre-trial delay by cutting down the overall time limit for service of originating process by four months. It would also have ensured that the existence of proceedings was brought to the attention of the defendant within the limitation period, thus reducing the period of uncertainty for the defendant. There has been resistance to that change on the grounds that it would replace the known quantity of the present arrangements with a system which solicitors, initially at least, would find confusing, and which, because of the need to serve quickly when proceedings are commenced near the end of the three-year limitation period, would be potentially expensive.
I recognised the force of those objections and concluded that the limited benefits to be gained from implementation of that proposal of the Civil Justice Review could be outweighed by the disruption that it would cause. I drew that conclusion against the background that rules of court have, in any event, already been amended to reduce the period of validity of a writ from 12 months to four. It is hoped that this change in itself will have a significant impact on pre-trial delay.
I have been advised in this matter by some of those who were involved in the Civil Justice Review. I wish to mention particularly Mr. Justice Potter as he looked at this matter again recently with some of his colleagues. Although originally the Civil Justice Review had proposed this measure, he came to the conclusion, which I now share, that the disruption caused by the measure would not be worth the likely benefits that might accrue from it. Accordingly, we are not implementing that particular provision of the Civil Justice Review but we have come pretty close to obtaining the right result.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 152.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, justice has been served. On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
153 Before Clause 86, insert the following clause:
Costs against legal representatives etc. in criminal proceedings
. The following section shall be inserted after section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985—
"Costs against legal representatives etc.
19A.—(1) In any criminal proceedings—

(a) the Court of Appeal;

(b) the Crown Court; or

(c) a magistrates' court,

may disallow, or (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet, the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with regulations.
(2) Regulations shall provide that a legal or other representative against whom action is taken by a magistrates' court under subsection (1) may appeal to the Crown Court and that a legal or other representative against whom action is taken by the Crown Court under subsection (1) may appeal to the Court of Appeal.
(3) In this section—

1463

"legal or other representative", in relation to any proceedings, means a person who is exercising a right of audience, or a right to conduct litigation, on behalf of any party to the proceedings;

"regulations" means regulations made by the Lord Chancellor; and

"wasted costs" means any costs incurred by a party

(a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any representative or any employee of a representative; or

(b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay." '.

154 Clause 86, Page 62, leave out from (1) in line 18 to end of line 37 and insert:
'In any civil proceedings, a magistrates' court may disallow or (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined in accordance with rules.
(1A) In subsection (1), "wasted costs" means any costs incurred by a party—

(a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative; or

(b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the court considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay.'.

155 Page 62, line 38, after 'legal' insert 'or other'.
156 Page 62, line 46, leave out 'or out of central funds'.
157 Page 63, line 3, after 'legal' insert 'or other'.
158 Page 63, line 10, leave out 'and'.
159 Page 63, line 14, at end insert 'and

(d) shall provide that a legal or other representative against whom action is taken under the rules may appeal to the Crown Court.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 153 to 159 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 153 to 159. (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
160 Clause 87, page 63, line 25, leave out 'or district'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 160. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 110.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 160.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
161 Clause 90, page 64, line 46, at end add—
'(3) The general rule making power of any authority having power to make rules of court for Northern Ireland shall include power to make any provision which may be made under section 93 of the Act of 1989 (rules of court) subject to the modifications that in subsection (2)—

(a) paragraphs (e) and (i) shall be omitted; and

(b) in paragraphs (f) and (g) the references to England and Wales shall be read as references to Northern Ireland.'.

162 After Clause 90, insert the following clause:—
Extension of powers of justices' clerks
'. In section 28 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (general powers and duties of justices' clerks) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) Such rules may also make provision enabling things authorised to be done by, to or before a justices' clerk (whether by virtue of subsection (1) above or otherwise) to be done instead by, to or before—

(a) a person appointed by a magistrates' courts committee to assist him;

(b) where he is a part-time justices' clerk, any member of his staff who has been appointed by the magistrates' courts committee to assist him in his duties as such;

(c) any officer appointed by the committee of magistrates to be his deputy or to assist him.".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 161 and 162 en bloc. I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 161 and 162 with Amendment No. 12.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 161 and 162. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
163 Clause 92, page 66, line 22, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 24.
164 Page 66, line 41, leave out from 'body' to end of line 43 and insert '(other than any body established by this Act), includes any person who is not a member of that body but who may be subject to disciplinary sanctions for failure to comply with any of that body's rules.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 , en bloc. These two items in the amendments to the interpretation clause cannot be conveniently grouped elsewhere. Amendment No. 163 is a purely drafting amendment and deletes the unnecessary reference to an arbitrator or an umpire as being a species of court. Your Lordships will remember that my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls drew attention to this matter in discussion of an amendment during the passage of the Bill through this House.
Amendment No. 164 defines "member" in such a way as to enable the term to be used to denote members of a profession who are subject to the regulatory power and authority of a relevant professional body even though they are not members of that body itself; for example, the General Council of the Bar. That is a good example as not all members of the Bar are members of the general council, but they are subject to the power and authority of that body. This amendment is required to recognise the way in which solicitors, for example, are regulated by the Law Society. It is of relevance to a number of provisions in the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 163 and 164. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, I understand Amendment No. 164 a little better, having listened to the speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.

1465
However, the amendment involves a rather complicated internal series of cross-references. We are amending the definition of "member". We have to find out what is meant by a body that is established by the Act. In order to do that, one naturally looks to the words "authorised body" which are mentioned higher up on page 66 in the definition clause. That refers to Sections 25 and 26 of the Act we are discussing. There we find references to the Bar Council and the Law Society. However, various other bodies not mentioned in the Bill, will have the right to apply for certain rights under the Bill, including rights of audience. I wonder whether such bodies are to be included in the phrase,
"any body established by this Act".
I find that a little puzzling. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend can enlighten me.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I hope I can. The words,
"any body established by this Act"
refer to, for example, the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on education, training and conduct, and to the authorised practitioners' board. I am glad to say that the Bar Council does not constitute a body that is established by this Act. However, authority may be given to it under the Act. The Law Society is not a body established by the Act. Its establishment occurred much earlier. The purpose of this measure is to provide a general definition which will apply to all bodies which are likely to be authorised under the Act, or which may apply for authorisation.
However, we had to make an exception for the bodies set up under the Bill, such as the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board, because in that context we are talking only about those who are members of the board and not those who may be subject to its discipline.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to say that I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that explanation. However, he may find that administratively it may be as well for his department to give some guidance so that the way back through the Bill can easily be found.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall certainly consider that suggestion. On reading the Bill as a whole, that is the route along which one would be led. However, we shall certainly consider whether we can lead people more gently and more clearly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
165 Clause 92, page 66, line 43, at end insert:
"multi-national partnership" has the meaning given by section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors) (9);'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 165. I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 39.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 165.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
166 Clause 92, page 67, line 6, at end insert:
"qualified person" has the meaning given in section 35(6);'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 166, which was spoken to with Amendment No. 100.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 166.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
167 Clause 92, page 67, line 6, at end insert:
' "registered foreign lawyer" has the meaning given by section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors) (9);'.
168 Page 67, line 14, after 'actions);', insert:
"solicitor" means solicitor of the Supreme Court;'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 167 and 168. I spoke to the amendments with Amendment No. 39.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 167 and 168. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
169 Clause 93, page 67, line 31, at end insert:
(2A) Any such regulations or order may contain such incidental, supplemental or transitional provisions or savings as the person making the regulations or order considers expedient.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 169. In speaking to Amendment No. 169, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 171, 186, 235, 249, 251, 256, 257, 290, 291, 293 and 294.
Amendment No. 169 provides a useful supplement to the more specific regulation-making powers already in the Bill which are directed at its implementation. It will enable any authority making regulations or orders under the Bill to include any necessary, incidental, supplemental or transitional provisions or savings, so ensuring that change may be introduced as sensibly and effectively as possible.
The majority of the other amendments in the group take account of the introduction of the concept of authorised advocates and litigators. However, I have not attempted to change any of the references in the Bill to barristers and solicitors. I am aware of some 2,751 such references and it is possible that some have escaped me. Therefore, I have proposed changes to the main relevant Acts of Parliament and the creation by Amendment No. 186 of a power for the Lord Chancellor to change other legislation by regulation where that is necessary and expedient to give effect to Part II of the Bill. As in other cases where the Bill provides a power to change statute by regulation, the regulations provided in Amendment No. 171 require the approval of both Houses. I have also taken the opportunity to replace a number of references to

1467
registrars with references instead to district judges to take account of the scope for wider rights of audience in the county courts.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 169.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
170 Clause 93, page 67, line 33, after '50' insert '(Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors) (5) or (7)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 170. The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 39.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 170.—(The Lord Chancedlor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
171 Clause 93, page 67, line 33, after '50' insert '98(3A)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 171. I spoke to the amendment together with Amendment No. 169.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 171.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
172 Clause 93, page 67, line 33, after '8' insert 'or paragraph 9(c) of Schedule (Foreign lawyers: partnerships and recognised bodies)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 172, which was spoken to with Amendment No. 39.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 172.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
173 Clause 95, page 68, leave out lines 3 to 5 and insert:

'(a) that it amends the law in Northern Ireland with respect to—

(i) the pensions of county court judges and resident magistrates, and

(ii) pensions in relation to which provisions of the Judicial Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 1951 apply; and'.

174 Page 68, line 7, leave out from 'sections' to `I l' and insert '63 to 67' and 'Schedules 10 and'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 173 and 174. I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 250.
The amendments make necessary minor and technical changes to the judicial pensions arrangements. Clause 95 provides for the amendment of Northern Ireland laws with respect to pensions of county court judges, resident magistrates and the Social Security Commissioner. The Judicial Pensions
1468
Act (Northern Ireland) 1951 is, however, also applied in relation to the pensions for a number of other posts including the president, vice-president and chairman of industrial tribunals and the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Amendment No. 173 will expand the clause so that Orders in Council can deal with all those pensions which are subject to the 1951 Act. Amendment No. 174 will allow transitional provisions to be made corresponding to those in Schedule 10 of the Bill. The schedule needs to be included to provide for widowers' pensions.
Amendment No. 250 is purely technical. Clause 65, which inserts a new Schedule 1A relating to transfer of accrued rights into the Judicial Pension Act 1981, does not also insert a founding provision. The amendment remedies that deficiency.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 173 and 174. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
175 Clause 96, page 68, line 15, at end insert:
'() section (Discrimination by, or in relation to advocates);'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 175. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 115.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 175.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
176 Page 68, line 15, at end insert:
'() section 57(2), so far as necessary:'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 176. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 178 to 184.
Clause 8 enables rules of court to confer a new power on the Court of Appeal to substitute its own award of damages for the sum awarded by a jury in the court of first instance. At the moment these provisions extend only to England and Wales. We consider, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland agrees, that the law within the two jurisdictions should be kept in line in this respect. The remaining amendments make straightforward drafting and technical changes to Clause 96 dealing with the extent of the application of the Bill to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 176.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
177 Page 68, line 17, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
`(b) sections (Tying-in arrangements in connection with residential property loans) to (Tying-in: enforcement);'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 177.
I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 144.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 177.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
178 Page 68, line 18, after '(c)' insert 'section 90, this
179 Page 68, line 23, leave out `and' and insert:
() paragraphs 3B, 10 to 11A, 14, 15 and 15A of Schedule 12.'.
180 page 68, line 24, at end insert 'and

(i) Schedule 16, so far as it repeals any Act extending to Scotland'.

181 Page 68, line 26, after '(a)' insert 'section 8;

() section 57(2) so far as necessary;

()

182 Page 68, line 27, leave out '94 to 98' and insert '94, 95, this section and sections 97 and 98, so far as necessary'.
183 Page 68, line 34, leave out 'Schedules 12' and insert 'paragraphs 3B, 8D, 10, 11, 14 and 15 of Schedule 12; () Schedules'
184 Page 68, line 34, after 'amend' insert 'or relate to'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 178 to 184. I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 176.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 178 to 184.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
185 Clause 97, page 68, line 37, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:
'(1) The following provisions come into force on the passing of this Act—

(a) sections 1, 5, 92 to 96, this section and section 98(1); and

(b) paragraphs 1A and 1B of Schedule 13.

(2) The following provisions come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed—

(a) sections 6, 8, 9, 14, (Discrimination by, or in relation to, barristers), (Discrimination by, or in relation to, advocates), 58, 59. 69, (Fees payable on issue of practising certificate), (Additional fee payable by certain solicitors on applying for practising certificates), 71 to 73, (Agreements with solicitors for payments by hourly rates), 74 to 76, (Committees and Sub-committees of the Council) and 82 to 84;

(b) paragraphs 1, 6, 7, 10 and 12B of Schedule l3;

(c) paragraphs 3A, 3B, 6A, 6B, 7A, 30I and 30K of Schedule 14; and

(d) paragraph 1A of Schedule 15.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 185.
Clause 97 of the Bill deals with the arrangements for commencement of the various provisions and allows for them to come into force on Royal Assent, two months after Royal Assent or on such day appointed by order of the Lord Chancellor or the
1470
Secretary of State, or both. This amendment simply extends the list of provisions which will come into force either on Royal Assent, or two months later.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 185.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is a very important clause. I draw your Lordships' attention to new subsection (2) as proposed in Amendment No. 185. Paragraph (a) refers to Sections 6, 8, 9 and 14 and describes them as,
"(Discrimination by, or in relation to, barristers), (Discrimination by, or in relation to advocates)".
However, when one refers to those clauses one finds that they refer to evidence given in arbitrations on small claims, the powers of the Court of Appeal to award damages, representation in certain county court cases, and county court rules.
Among the earlier Commons amendments I cannot find one which turned Clause 15 into Clause 14. I wonder whether a mistake has been made in listing those Sections 6, 8, 9 and 14 and giving them the description which follows in italics.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the references in the brackets in relation to those clauses are to the new clauses inserted by the Commons amendments. The clauses referred to are the new clauses in the Commons amendments. When the Bill is amended to give effect to the amendments, the result will be to use the numbering of the clauses which is appropriate for the purpose of the full text of the Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, naturally I had considered that as a possibility. But even working that through, I cannot find that any of the clauses, including the new Clauses 6, 8, 9 and 14, relate to discrimination by or in relation to barristers or to discrimination by or in relation to advocates. 'The present Clause 15 will be renumbered and will come after Clause 14. Therefore, there is something rather odd. It may be that when the matter goes back to another place simple renumbering can be carried out. However, we must get it right and it does not appear to be right at the moment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with great respect, if the noble Lord looks at page 25 of the Marshalled List he will see a new clause described in the side note as:
"Discrimination by, or in relation to".
I am receiving somewhat contradictory information. I feel sure that it is a matter of giving effect to the Commons amendments in the printing of the Bill as a whole. The sections which will come into effect on those dates are those as numbered in the Bill. My original answer is now corrected and that is the correct answer. The result is that the clauses in question are those which have that number in the Bill. That is my understanding.
Notwithstanding my present difficulty, I feel fairly confident that the matter will be taken into account when the amendments are put together in the final form of the Bill as it goes to the other place.
Lord Renton: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, I hope only that my noble and learned friend is right. We must get it right and if it is found not to be right it will have to be adjusted.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I share my noble friend's sentiments most strongly. It now looks as though I may have the benefit of even further advice for which I shall be grateful.
The numbers in the amendment refer to the clauses in the Bill as passed by this House. The words in the bracket; relate to the clauses added by the Commons. I now understand the position. I am sorry—it is my fault. Tie new clauses added by the Commons as yet have no number in the Bill because, as I said earlier, they are described merely as new clauses. Therefore, in order to make proper reference to them in this provision we must use the heading for the clause. Clause 6 of the Bill will come into effect at the end of two months as will the clause side-noted,
"Discrimination by, or in relation to, barristers".
That is on page 25 of the Marshalled List.
There are alternative ways of referring to clauses in the Bill. Those in the original Bill are numbered; for example, 6, 8 and so forth. Those that have been added as new clauses without as yet having the benefit of a number are referred to by the side-noted name. I believe that that makes sense. I am grateful to my noble friend for asking about the matter and I am sorry that I was not quicker in my response.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, at this hour of the night I thought that the noble and learned Lord was remarkably quick in his response. Perhaps I may make a suggestion for the future because I have learnt from what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said. It is misleading to have on the front of the Commons amendments:
"References are to Bill 105 as first printed for the Commons",
because one immediately thinks that all references to clause numbers and everything else are to the Bill as first printed for the Commons.
Therefore, if there are references to a Bill in another state—namely the one leaving this House—it would be of advantage, either by asterisk or otherwise, to make it perfectly clear that those references are not to the Bill 105 as first printed for the Commons but to some other stage of the Bill.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is a slight misunderstanding about this. Bill 105 as first printed for the Commons is the same Bill as the Bill which left this House. The numbers are the same. However, the problem is that in these amendments, for example the one on page 25—and I take that as an illustration—there are the words "insert the following clause". There is no number for that new clause but a space is provided for the number to be added hereafter. Therefore, as the clause has no number, your Lordships must think of another way to which it can be referred. That could perhaps be done by reference:
"discrimination by, or in relation to, barristers".
1472
That is the side note of the clause. Therefore, the composite amendment which I have moved—Amendment No. 185 —is an amendment which uses the references where possible in the existing Bill as it left this House because that is also the way in which it reached the Commons. Where that is not possible because new clauses are proposed in the Commons amendment which is not in the Bill and not yet numbered, a description must be used. That is the explanation. At long last, it is clear and convincing and I am sorry that I did not take that up more directly. I should have known the answer before the question was asked.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
186 Clause 98, page 69, line 7, at end insert:
'(3A) The Lord Chancellor may by order make such amendments or repeals in relevant enactments as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision made by Part II with respect to advocacy, litigation, conveyancing or probate services.
(3B) In subsection (3A) "relevant enactments" means such enactments or instruments passed or made before or in the same Session as this Act as may be specified in the order.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 186. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 169.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 186—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
187 Page 69, line 10, after '16', insert '(which include repeals of certain enactments that are spent or of no further practical utility):
188 Page 69, line 11, leave out subsection (6).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 187 and 188. I speak also to Amendment No. 271. These are minor alterations and repeals. Amendments Nos. 187 and 271 provide for the formal repeal of existing legislation which is no longer required. Amendment No. 188 removes the privilege amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 187 and 188. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
189 Schedule 1, page 70, line 19, leave out 'he has been adjudged bankrupt' and insert 'a bankruptcy order has been made against him'.
190 Page 71, line 11, leave out 'specially' and insert 'specifically'.
191 Schedule 2, page 75, line 40, at end insert:
'Persons with special needs
. In discharging its functions under this Schedule, the Advisory Committee shall have regard to the need for the efficient provision of legal services for persons who face special difficulties in making use of those services, including in particular special difficulties in expressing themselves or in understanding.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 189 to 191. en bloc. I have spoken to these amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 33.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 189 to 191.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
192 Schedule 3, page 76, line 32, at end insert:
'(3) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) to pensions, allowances or gratuities includes a reference to pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of any of the Ombudsman's staff who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments.'
193 Page 77, line 26, at end insert:
`Acting Ombudsman
9.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a person to exercise the functions of the Ombudsman where—

(a) the Ombudsman's office becomes vacant; or

(b) the Ombudsman—

(i) is incapable of exercising his functions; or

(ii) considers that it would be inappropriate for him to exercise any of his functions in connection with a particular matter (because of a possible conflict of interests or for any other reason).

(2) A person so appointed shall have the powers of the Ombudsman but shall act only in accordance with the terms on which he is appointed.
(3) The Lord Chancellor may pay to any person so appointed such remuneration as he may determine with the approval of the Treasury.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 192 and 193 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 38.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 192 and 193. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
194 Schedule 4, page 79, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
195 Page 81, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
196 Page 83, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert:
`(4) On concluding any investigation carried out under sub-paragraph (2) or (3), the Advisory Committee shall—

(a) advise the Lord Chancellor as to whether or not there appear to be grounds for recommending the making of an Order under section 28 with respect to the authorised body concerned; and

(b) if its advice is that there appear to be such grounds, advise the Lord Chancellor as to the transitional and incidental provision (if any) which it considers should be made under section 28(4) with respect to the authorised body concerned.

Duty to comply with requests for information
12A.—(1) Where the Advisory Committee is carrying out an investigation under paragraph 12 it may require the authorised body concerned to provide it with such information, including copies of such documents, as it may reasonably require for the purposes of the investigation.
(2) No person shall be required under sub-paragraph (1) to provide any information, or produce any copy of a document, which he could not be compelled to provide or produce in civil proceedings before a court.
(3) Where an authorised body fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a request made to it by the Committee under sub-paragraph (1), section 28(2) (c) shall be taken to have been satisfied in relation to that body.'.
197 Schedule 5, page 84, line 26, leave out 'he has been adjudged bankrupt' and insert 'a bankruptcy order has been made against him'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 194 to 197 en bloc. I have spoken to these amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 33.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 194 to 197. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
198 Page 85, line 21, at end insert:
`(2) If a member of the Board ceases to hold office and it appears to the Board that there are special circumstances which make it right that he should receive compensation, the Board may pay him such sum as it may determine.'.
199 Page 85, line 30, at end insert:
`(3) The references in sub-paragraph (2) to pensions, allowances or gratuities include references to pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of any of the Board's staff who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments.'.
200 Schedule 7, page 87, line 25, at end insert:
`2A.—(1) The scheme may provide for the Conveyancing Ombudsman—

(a) to pay, as regards any of his staff such remuneration and travelling and other allowances as he may determine with the approval of the Board; and

(b) to pay such pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of any of his staff as may be so determined.

(2) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to pensions, allowances or gratuities includes a reference to pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of any of the Conveyancing Ombudsman's staff who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments.'.
201 Page 88, line 2, after 'by' insert `, or inconvenience or distress has been caused to,'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 198 to 201 en bloc. I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 95.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 198 to 201.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
202 After Schedule 7, insert the following schedule—
`SCHEDULE
  Licensed Conveyancers

    Part I
    Additional Powers of Council for Licensed Conveyancers In Connection with Sections 25, 26, and 47 General
    1. In this Schedule—

    "the Act of 1985" means the Administration of Justice Act 1985;

    "advocacy licence" means a licence issued under section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) and constituting the grant by the Council to the licensed conveyancer concerned of a right of audience;

    "the Council" means the Council for Licensed Conveyancers;

    1475

    "the Discipline and Appeals Committee" means the committee established under section 25 of the Act of 1985;

    "litigation licence" means a licence issued under section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) and constituting the grant by the Council to the licensed conveyancer concerned of a right to conduct litigation;

    "probate licence" means a licence issued under section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) and constituting the grant by the Council to the licensed conveyancer concerned of an exemption under section 47; and

    "relevant licence" means a licence under Part II of the Act of 1985 or an advocacy, litigation or probate licence.

    Qualification regulations and rules of conduct
    2.—(1) For the purpose of exercising the powers conferred by section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers), the Council may make such qualification regulations and rules of conduct as it considers appropriate in connection with the granting of the rights or exemption in question.
    (2) In making any such regulations or rules the Council may, in particular, do anything which it has power to do in making rules under section 13 of the Act of 1985 (training rules).
    Applications for licences
    3.—(1) An application for an advocacy licence, litigation licence or probate licence shall be made to the Council in such manner, and shall be accompanied by such fee, as may be prescribed by rules made by the Council under this paragraph.
    (2) Any such rules—

    (a) may prescribe the forms to be used in connection with applications for any such licence; and

    (b) may provide for applications of any description specified in the rules to be exempt from any of the requirements of the rules.

    (3) Rules made under section 14 of the Act of 1985 and this paragraph may make provision with respect to applications for composite licences.
    Issue of licences
    4.—(1) If, on an application for an advocacy, litigation or probate licence, the Council is satisfied that—

    (a) the applicant has complied with such qualification regulations, rules of conduct or other requirements as are applicable in his case in relation to the licence applied for;

    (b) that he has made adequate arrangements for the purpose of complying with any provisions which are applicable in his case in relation to the licence applied for; and

    (c) that he is a fit and proper person to provide the advocacy, litigation or probate services in question,

    the Council may issue the applicant either with a licence free of conditions or with a licence subject to such conditions as it sees fit to impose.
    (2) If the Council is for any reason not so satisfied, or for any other reason refuses the application, it shall notify the applicant of its refusal and of the grounds on which the application has been refused.
    Conditional licences
    5.—(1) This paragraph has effect in any case where a person applies for an advocacy, litigation or probate licence—

    (a) for the first time;

    (b) when a licence of the kind applied for which has previously been held by him has been subject to conditions;

    (c) when, on the first day of the period to which the licence applied for would (if granted) relate, a period of twelve months or more will have elapsed since he held a licence of that kind;

    (d) after the Discipline and Appeals Committee have made any order in his case under section 26 of the Act of 1985.

    (2) This paragraph also has effect in any case where a person applies for such a licence and any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (e) to (j) of section 16 of the Act of 1985 (conditional licences) apply in his case.
    (3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) are subject to subsection (4) of section 16 of the Act of 1985, as applied by sub-paragraph (7) of this paragraph.
    (4) In any case where this paragraph has effect the Council may, on issuing an advocacy, litigation or probate licence to the applicant, issue it subject to such conditions as the Council thinks fit.
    (5) The Council's decision in any such case to impose any particular conditions under this paragraph may be made by reference to such criteria of general application as may have been determined by the Council.
    (6) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (4), conditions may be imposed under that sub-paragraph—

    (a) for restricting the kinds of service that may be provided by the applicant by virtue of his having the advocacy, litigation or probate licence in question; or

    (b) for requiring the applicant to take any specified steps that will, in the opinion of the Council, be conducive to his carrying on an efficient practice as a licensed conveyancer who provides the additional services authorised by that licence,

    and conditions may be imposed under that sub-paragraph (whether for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (b) or otherwise) as they may be under Part II of the Act of 1985.
    (7) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 16 of the Act of 1985 shall have effect, with the necessary modifications, with respect to an advocacy, litigation or probate licence as they have effect with respect to a licence issued under Part II of that Act.
    Register of licensed conveyancers
    6.—(1) Where an advocacy, litigation or probate licence is in force with respect to a licensed conveyancer, the Council shall enter details of the licence in the appropriate place in the register of licensed conveyancers maintained by it under section 19 of the Act of 1985.
    (2) The Council shall accordingly cause the appropriate entries to be made on the issue of any advocacy, litigation or probate licence and deletions on any such licence ceasing to be in force.
    (3) Where any such licence is for the time being suspended, the Council shall cause that fact to be noted in the register against the name of the licensed conveyancer concerned.
    Code of conduct
    7.—(1) The rules made by the Council under section 20 of the Act of 1985 (rules as to professional practice, conduct and discipline) shall also be made in pursuance of the Council's general duty under section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers) (5).
    (2) Those rules may also provide for regulating the association of licensed conveyancers with respect to whom advocacy, litigation or probate licences are in force, with other persons in connection with the provision of advocacy, litigation or (as the case may be) probate services to members of the public.
    Effect of suspension or disqualification under Part II of the Act of 1985
    8. Where a licence issued under Part II of the Act of 1985 ceases to be in force (whether because it is suspended or the licensed conveyancer concerned is disqualified from holding a such a licence or for any other reason), any advocacy, litigation or probate licence in force with respect to that licensed conveyancer at the time shall cease to have effect to the same extent as the licence under Part II of the Act of 1985.
    Removal of disqualification from holding a licence
    9.—(1) Where the Discipline and Appeals Committee have made any order directing that a licensed conveyancer shall be disqualified (either permanently or during a specified period) from holding an advocacy licence, a litigation licence or a probate licence, he shall not, while his disqualification continues in force, be issued with a licence of a kind to which the disqualification relates unless the Committee, on an application made to them in that behalf, direct otherwise.
    (2) An application under this paragraph shall not be made to the Committee—

    (a) within ten months of the date of the Committee's order relating to the kind of licence in question; or

    1477

    (b) within ten months of a previous such application by the licensed conveyancer concerned with respect to that kind of licence.

    Revocation on grounds of error or fraud
    10.—(1) Where the Discipline and Appeals Committee are satisfied that a relevant licence was issued to any person as a result of any error, or as a result of fraud on the part of that person, they may if they think fit by order revoke that licence and any other relevant licence issued to that person.
    (2) Where a person has had a relevant licence which was held by him revoked, he shall not be issued with any relevant licence except on the advice of the Committee given to the Council as the result of an application made by that person to the Committee.
    (4) Paragraph 9 shall apply in relation to a direction under sub-paragraph (3) as it applies in relation to any direction of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.
    Recognised bodies
    11. Section 32 of the Act of 1985 (provision of conveyancing services by recognised bodies) shall have effect as if the references to conveyancing services included references to advocacy, litigation or probate services.
    PART II
    Amendments of Provisions Relating to Powers of Council Etc.
    Delegation of powers etc.
    12.—(1) Subject to any provision to the contrary made by or under any enactment, the Council may arrange for any of its functions (other than those of making rules, schemes or standing orders under Part II of the Act of 1985) to be discharged—

    (a) by a committee of the Council; or

    (b) by a member of the Council's staff.

    (2) The Council may make rules providing for functions conferred by Part II of the Act of 1985 on any committee established under that Part to be discharged by a committee established under this paragraph.
    (3) In exercising its powers under sub-paragraphs (I) or (2), the Council may impose restrictions or conditions on the committee by which the functions concerned are to be discharged.
    (4) The Council may make rules providing for any of its committees (including one established under Part II of the Act of 1985) to refer any matter of a kind specified in the rules, in such circumstances as may be so specified, to any other such committee, or to the Council.
    (5) Where any matter is referred under sub-paragraph (4) to a committee of the Council or to the Council, that committee or (as the case may be) the Council shall have the same power to deal with it as the committee referring it.
    (6) The number of members of a committee established under this paragraph, and the terms on which they are to hold and vacate office, shall be fixed by the Council.
    (7) A committee established under this paragraph may include persons who are not members of the Council (whether licensed conveyancers or not) but a majority of the members of any such committee (including the chairman) shall be members of the Council.
    (8) The validity of any proceedings Of such a committee shall not be affected by any casual vacancy among its members.
    (9) Any rules made under this paragraph—

    (a) may make such incidental and supplemental provision as the Council considers appropriate; and

    (b) may make different provision for different circumstances.

    Council's intervention powers
    13.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), the powers conferred by Part II of Schedule 5 to the Act of 1985 (intervention in licensed conveyancer's practice) shall also be exercisable where—

    (a) the Council is satisfied that a sole licensed conveyancer has abandoned his practice; or

    (b) the Council is satisfied that a licensed conveyancer has been practising in breach of any condition imposed on him in connection with any relevant licence of his.

    (2) The powers—
    1478

    (a)conferred by Part II of Schedule 5 to the Act of 1985; and

    (b) exercisable by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) (b), shall only be exercised if the Council has given the licensed conveyancer notice in writing that it is satisfied as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (b) and also (at the same or any later time) notice in writing that the powers conferred by Part II of that Schedule are accordingly exercisable in his case.

    Inadequate professional services
    14.—(1) The Council may take any of the steps mentioned in paragraph 15 ("the steps") with respect to a licensed conveyancer where it appears to it that the professional services provided by him in connection with any matter in which he or his firm has been instructed by a client have, in any respect, not been of the quality which it is reasonable to expect of him as a licensed conveyancer.
    (2) The Council shall not take any of the steps unless it is satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case it is appropriate to do so.
    (3) In determining in any case whether it is appropriate to take any of the steps, the Council may—

    (a) have regard to the existence of any remedy which it is reasonable to expect to be available to the client in civil proceedings; and

    (b) where proceedings seeking any such remedy have not been begun by him, have regard to whether it is reasonable to expect him to begin them.

    (4) The Council's powers under this paragraph are exercisable in relation to a person who was, at the material time, a licensed conveyancer even though he is no longer a licensed conveyancer and references to a licensed conveyancer in this paragraph and paragraphs 15 to 20, so far as they relate to the exercise of those powers, shall be construed accordingly.
    Inadequate professional services: steps that may be taken 15.—(1) The steps are—

    (a) determining that the costs to which the licensed conveyancer is entitled in respect of his services ("the costs") are to be limited to such amount as may be specified in the determination and directing him to comply, or to secure compliance, with such one or more of the permitted requirements as appear to the Council to be necessary in order for effect to be given to its determination;

    (b) directing him to secure the rectification, at his expense or at that of his firm, of any such error, omission or other deficiency arising in connection with the matter in question as it may specify;

    (c) directing him to pay such compensation to the client as the Council sees fit to specify in the direction;

    (d) directing him to take, at his expense or at that of his firm, such other action in the interests of the client as it may specify.

    (2) The "permitted requirements" are—

    (a) that the whole or part of any amount already paid by or on behalf of the client in respect of the costs be refunded;

    (b) that the whole or part of the costs be remitted;

    (c) that the right to recover the costs be waived, whether wholly or to any specified extent.

    (3) The power of the Council to take any such steps is not confined to cases where the client may have a cause of action against the licensed conveyancer for negligence.
    Inadequate professional services: compensation
    16.—(1) The amount specified in a direction by virtue of paragraph 15(1) (c) shall not exceed £1,000.
    (2) The Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument amend sub-paragraph (1) by substituting for the sum of £1,000 such other sum as he considers appropriate.
    (3) Before making any such order the Lord Chancellor shall consult the Council.
    (4) Any statutory instrument made under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
    Inadequate professional services: failure to comply with direction

    1479
    17.—(1) If a licensed conveyancer fails to comply with a direction given under this Part of this Schedule, any person may make a complaint in respect of that failure to the Discipline and Appeals Committee; but no other proceedings whatever shall be brought in respect of it.
    (2) On the hearing of such a complaint the Discipline and Appeals Committee may, if it thinks fit (and whether or not it makes any order under section 26(2) of the Act of 1985), direct that the direction be treated, for the purpose of enforcement, as if it were contained in an order made by the High Court.
    Inadequate professional services: fees
    18.—(1) The Council may, by regulations made with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, make provision for the payment, by any client with respect to whom the Council is asked to consider whether to take any of the steps, of such fee as may be prescribed.
    (2) The regulations may provide for the exemption of such classes of client as may be prescribed.
    (3) Where a client pays the prescribed fee it shall be repaid to him if the Council takes any of the steps in the matter with respect to which the fee was paid.
    (4) In this paragraph "prescribed" means prescribed by the regulations.
    Inadequate professional services: costs
    19. Where the Council takes any of the steps with respect to a licensed conveyancer it may also direct him to pay to the Council—

    (a) the amount of the fee repayable by the Council to the client under paragraph 18(3); and

    (b) an amount which is calculated by the Council as the cost to it of dealing with the complaint, or which in its opinion represents a reasonable contribution towards that cost.

    Duty of Discipline and Appeals Committee
    20. Where the Discipline and Appeals Committee—

    (a) is considering, or has considered, an application or complaint with respect to a licensed conveyancer; and

    (b) is of the opinion that the Council should consider whether to take any of the steps with respect to that licensed conveyancer,

    it shall inform the Council.
    Power to examine files
    21.—(1) Where the Council is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of investigating any complaint made to it—

    (a) alleging professional misconduct by a licensed conveyancer; or

    (b) relating to the quality of any professional services provided by a licensed conveyancer,

    the Council may give notice to the licensed conveyancer or his firm requiring the production or delivery to any person appointed by the Council, at a time and place to be fixed by the Council, of all documents in the possession of the licensed conveyancer or his firm in connection with the matters to which the complaint relates (whether or not they relate also to other matters).
    (2) The provisions of paragraphs 9(2) to (12), 11 and 12 of Schedule 5 to the Act of 1985 shall apply in relation to the powers conferred by sub-paragraph (1) as they apply in relation to the powers conferred by paragraph 9(1) of that Schedule.
    Interest on clients' money
    22. Where a licensed conveyancer—

    (a) is required by rules made under section 23 of the Act of 1985 to place any sum of money in a separate deposit account; but

    (b) fails to do so as soon as is reasonably practicable,

    the Council may give a direction requiring him to account to the client in question for any interest which has not been earned but which would have been earned if that sum had been placed in a separate deposit account as soon as was reasonably practicable.
    Full and limited licences
    23. In section 15 of the Act of 1985 (issue of licences by Council), the following subsections shall be added at the end—
    "(7) A licence issued under this Part may be endorsed by the Council as—

    (a) a full licence, if the Council is satisfied that the person to whom it is issued has complied, or will comply, with the requirements made under this Part with respect to professional indemnity and compensation; or

    (b) as a limited licence, if the Council is not so satisfied.

    (8) Rules made under section 21 may make provision for the making, or removal, of endorsements while a licence is in force and for the recording of' any such endorsement, or of its removal, in the register maintained under section 19."
    Cases in which conditions may be attached to licences
    24. In section 16(1) of the Act of 1985 (cases in which conditions may be attached to licences), the following shall be substituted for paragraph (i)—

    "(i) after having been committed to prison in civil proceedings;

    (ia) after having been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty or deception or a serious arrestable offence (as defined by section 116 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984); or".

    The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 202. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 106.
    Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 202—(The Lord Chancellor.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
203 Schedule 8, page 90, line 27, at end insert:
'Duty to comply with requests for information
7A.—(1) Where the Advisory Committee is carrying out an investigation under paragraph 7 it may require the approved body concerned to provide it with such information, including copies of such documents, as it may reasonably require for the purposes of the investigation.
(2) No person shall be required under sub-paragraph (1) to provide any information or produce any copy of a document, which he could not be compelled to provide or produce in civil proceedings before a court.
(3) Where an approved body fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a request made to it by the Committee under sub-paragraph (1), paragraph 6(2) (c) shall be taken to have been satisfied in relation to that body.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 203. I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 33.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 203.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
204 Schedule 9, page 94, line 18, leave out paragraph 12.
205 Page 94, line 37, at end insert:
'County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (c.25 (N.I.)) County Court Judge
13A. In section 103 of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (qualifications for appointment as county court judge in Northern Ireland) after paragraph (a) of subsection (1) there shall be inserted—

"(aa) he is a solicitor who has practised for not less than ten years as a solicitor in Northern Ireland; or".'.

206 Page 95, line 27, leave out 'High Court qualification' and insert 'general qualification'.
207 Page 98, line 34, leave out from `under' to 'that' in line 35 and insert 'Schedule 10 to'.
208Page 98, line 48, at end insert:
'Coroner appointed under section 2 of the Coroners Act 1988.'.
209 Page 99, leave out line 11.
210 Page 99, line 13, leave out 'Metropolitan or provincial'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 204 to 210. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 212, 213, 227 and 273, which all concern qualifications for judicial or related appointments.
Amendments Nos. 204, 227 and 273 all concern senior posts in the Land Registry, and remove the requirement that the Chief Land Registrar and certain of his senior staff be lawyers. This reflects the enormous change in the role of the Chief Land Registrar, who nowadays is the administrative head of a substantial organisation.
The Land Registry was established as an Executive Agency. The Chief Land Registrar will be the Agency Chief Executive. The best candidate for the job may in future not always be a lawyer. It would be anomalous if the Chief Land Registrar could be a non-lawyer but his senior officials could not, and that requirement has also been removed. However, Amendment No. 227 also puts beyond doubt the Lord Chancellor's ability
1482
to use his regulation-making power under Section 126(5) of the Land Registration Act 1925 to require that certain legal functions be undertaken by lawyers.
Amendment No. 205 reflects in Northern Ireland legislation the removal, at paragraph 31(1) of Schedule 9, of the requirement that solicitors in England and Wales serve part-time as a recorder before they may be appointed as a circuit judge. The amendment removes the statutory requirement that a solicitor candidate for appointment as County Court judge in Northern Ireland must first serve as a deputy judge for at least three years.
At the request of the General Synod of the Church of England the proposed eligibility requirement for appointment as a judge of the Consistory Court has been changed from a seven year High Court qualification to a seven year general qualification, thus opening the post up to solicitors.
Amendments Nos. 207, 208, 209 and 210 concern the list of office holders who will become eligible for appointment to the circuit bench after three years full-time service. There are two substantive changes: to remove district probate registrars from the list; and, following an undertaking I gave to this House to consider the proposal—in answer to an amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Prys-Davies—to add coroners to it. I think the more appropriate promotion route for a district probate registrar is (as now) to the post of district judge of the Principal Registry of the Family Division.
The two drafting amendments correct the references to social security legislation in this list, and delete the reference to the non-statutory position of provincial stipendiary magistrate. That does not, however, affect the eligibility of provincial stipendiaries for appointment under this provision.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 212 and 213 add to the schedule the posts of legal secretary to certain senior judges, and Crown Prosecutor. These posts are currently open to solicitors and barristers. The amendments simply convert those qualification requirements, in line with the changes used for other comparable posts in the schedule, to possession of the "general qualification".
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, once again I thank the noble and learned Lord for promoting the coroner to be an office-holder eligible for appointment as a circuit judge. We are grateful for the amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
211 Page 100, leave out lines 30 to 35.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 211. I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 124.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
212 Page 102, line 20, at end insert:
'Judge's legal secretary
46A. In section 98(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (appointment by certain senior judges of a legally qualified secretary) for the words "barrister or solicitor" there shall be substituted "person who has a general qualification (within the meaning of section 57 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)".'.
213 Page 107, line 21, at end insert:
'Crown Prosecutors
.—(1) In section 1(3) of that Act (Crown Prosecutors) for the words "who is a barrister or solicitor" there shall be substituted "who has a general qualification (within the meaning of section 57 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)".
(2) In section 5(1) of that Act (conduct of prosecutions by barristers or solicitors) for the words from "who is" to "authority" there shall be substituted "who has a general qualification (within the meaning of section 57 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 212 and 213.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
214 After Schedule 9, insert the following schedule—
'SCHEDULE
Judges Etc. Barred From Legal Practice
The following are the offices for the purposes of section (Judges etc barred from legal practice)—

Lord of Appeal in Ordinary

Lord Justice of Appeal

Puisne judge of the High Court

Circuit judge

District judge, including district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division

Master of the Queen's Bench Division

Queen's Coroner and Attorney and Master of the Crown Office and Registrar of Criminal Appeals

Admiralty Registrar

Master of the Chancery Division

Registrar in Bankruptcy of the High Court

Taxing Master of the Supreme Court

Registrar of Civil Appeals

Master of the Court of Protection

District probate registrar

Judge Advocate General

Vice-Judge Advocate General

Assistant or Deputy Judge Advocate General Stipendiary Magistrate

Social Security Commissioner appointed under section 97 of the Social Security Act 1975

President of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals or chairman of such a tribunal appointed under Schedule 10 to that Act

President of Industrial Tribunals or chairman of such a tribunal appointed under the Industrial Tribunals (England and Wales) Regulations 1965

President or member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal appointed under Schedule 5 to the Immigration Act 1971

Member of the Lands Tribunal appointed under section 2 of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949

1484

President of Value Added Tax Tribunals or chairman of such a tribunal appointed under Schedule 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1983

Special Commissioner appointed under section 4 of the Taxes Management Act 1970

Charity Commissioner appointed under the First Schedule to the Charities Act 1960

Coroner appointed under section 2 of the Coroners Act 1988.'.

The Lord Chancellor:
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 214.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
215 After Schedule 11, insert the following schedule—
'SCHEDULE
  PARTNERSHIPS AND RECOGNISED BODIES
    PART I
      REGISTRATION

        General
        1. In this Schedule—
        "the Act of 1974" means the Solicitors Act 1974;
        "controlled trust" means, in relation to a registered foreign lawyer who is a member of a multi-national partnership, a trust of which he is a sole trustee or co-trustee only with one or more of the employees or other partners of that partnership and of which he is a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership;
        "the Council" means the Council of the Law Society;
        "the register" means the register maintained by the
        Society under section (Foreign lawyers: recognized bodies and partnerships with solicitors);
        "registration" means registration in that register;
        "the Society" means the Law Society; and
        "the Tribunal" means the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
        Application for registration
        2.—(1) An application for registration or for renewal of registration—

        (a) shall be made to the Society in such form as the Council may prescribe; and

        (b) shall be accompanied by such fee as the Council may, with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, prescribe.

        (2) Where such an application is duly made by a foreign lawyer, the Law Society may register the applicant if it is satisfied that the legal profession of which the applicant is a member is one which is so regulated as to make it appropriate—

        (a) for solicitors to enter into multi-national partnerships with members of that profession; and

        (b) for members of that profession to be officers of recognised bodies.

        (3) Any registration may be made subject to such conditions as the Society sees fit to impose.
        (4) The Council may make regulations, with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls, with respect to—

        (a) the keeping of the register (including the manner in which entries are to be made, altered or removed); and

        (b) applications for registration or renewal of registration.

        (5) The register may be kept by means of a computer. Duration of registration
        3.—(1) Every registration shall have effect from the beginning of the day on which it is entered in the register.
        (2) The Council may make regulations—

        1485

        (a) prescribing the date ("the renewal date") by which each registered foreign lawyer must apply for his registration to be renewed; and

        (b) requiring every entry in the register to specify the renewal date applicable to that registration.

        (3) Any such regulations may—

        (a) provide different renewal dates for different categories of registered foreign lawyer or different circumstances;

        (b) provide for the Society to specify, in the case of individual registered foreign lawyers, different renewal dates to those prescribed by the regulations;

        (c) make such transitional, incidental and supplemental provision in connection with any provision for different renewal dates as the Council considers expedient.

        (4) Where a foreign lawyer is registered, the Society may cancel his registration if—

        (a) the renewal date for his registration has passed but he has not applied for it to be renewed; or

        (b) he has applied to the Society for it to be cancelled. Evidence as to registration

        4. Any certificate purporting to be signed by an officer of the Society and stating that a particular foreign lawyer—

        (a) is, or is not, registered; or

        (b) was registered during a period specified in the certificate,

        shall, unless the contrary is proved, be evidence of that fact and be taken to have been so signed.
        PART II

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
Intervention in practices
5.—(l) In this paragraph "the intervention powers" means the powers conferred by Part II of Schedule I to the Act of 1974 (intervention in solicitors' practices) as modified by this Schedule or under section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors).
(2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), the intervention powers shall be exercisable in relation to a person who is or has been a registered foreign lawyer and the practice of the multi-national partnership of which he is or was a member as they are exercisable in relation to a solicitor and his practice.
(3) The intervention powers are only exercisable where—

(a) the Council have reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of the registered foreign lawyer, or on the part of an employee of the multi-national partnership, in connection with—

(i) the practice of that partnership; or

(ii) any trust of which the registered foreign lawyer is or was a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership;

(b) in the case of a registered foreign lawyer who has died, the Council have reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of his personal representative, in connection with—

(i) the practice of the multi-national partnership; or

(ii) any trust of which the registered foreign lawyer was a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership;

(c) the Council are satisfied that the registered foreign lawyer has failed to comply with rules made under section 32 or 37(2) (c) of the Act of 1974;

(d) a bankruptcy order (as defined in paragraph 10(3)) has been made against him or he has made a composition or arrangement with his creditors;

(e) he has been committed to prison in any civil or criminal proceedings;

(f) the powers conferred by section 98 (emergency powers) or 99 (appointment of receiver) of the Mental Health Act 1983 have been exercised in respect of him;

(g) his name has been struck off the register or his registration has been suspended or cancelled;

(h) he has purported to act as a member of a multi-national partnership at a time when he was not registered;

(i) the Council are satisfied that he has failed to comply with any condition, subject to which he is registered, to the effect that—

1486

(i) he may only be a member of a partnership which is approved by the Society; or

(ii) he may only be an officer of a recognised body which is so approved; or

(iii) he may only be such a member or such an officer.

(4) The intervention powers shall only be exercisable under sub-paragraph (3) (c) if the Society has given the foreign lawyer notice—

(a) that the Council are satisfied that he has failed to comply with rules specified in the notice; and

(b) that the intervention powers are accordingly exercisable.

(5) The intervention powers (other than those conferred by paragraphs 5 and 10 of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1974) shall also be exercisable where—

(a) a complaint is made to the Society that there has been undue delay on the part of a registered foreign lawyer in connection with—

(i) any matter in which he, or the multi-national partnership of which he is or was a member, was instructed on behalf of a client; or

(ii) any controlled trust;

(b) the Society by notice invites the registered foreign lawyer to give an explanation within a period (of not less than 8 days) specified in the notice;

(c) the registered foreign lawyer fails within that period to give an explanation which the Council regard as satisfactory; and

(d) the Society gives notice of the failure to the registered foreign lawyer and notice that the intervention powers are accordingly exercisable.

(6) Where the intervention powers are exercisable in relation to a registered foreign lawyer, they shall continue to be exercisable—

(a) at any time when his registration is suspended;

(b) after his name has been struck off the register or his registration has been cancelled; or

(c) after his death.

(7) Part II of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1974 shall have effect in relation to the intervention powers exercisable by virtue of this Schedule, subject to—

(a) any express modifications made under section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships with solicitors); and

(b) any modifications necessary in the light of this paragraph.

(8) For the purposes of this paragraph, Part II of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1974 shall be read with paragraph 4(2) of Part I of that Schedule.
(9) The notices required to be given by this paragraph must be in writing but need not be given at the same time.
The Compensation Fund
6.—(1) Where the Council are satisfied—

(a) that a person has suffered or is likely to suffer loss in consequence of dishonesty on the part of a registered foreign lawyer, or of an employee of a registered foreign lawyer, in connection with the practice of the multi-national partnership of which the foreign lawyer is or was a member or in connection with any trust of which that foreign lawyer is or was a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership; or

(b) that a person has suffered or is likely to suffer hardship in consequence of failure on the part of a registered foreign lawyer to account for money which has come to his hands in connection with the practice of the multi-national partnership of which he is or was a member, or in connection with any trust of which he is or was a trustee by virtue of his being a member of that partnership; or

(c) that a registered foreign lawyer has suffered or is likely to suffer loss or hardship by reason of his liability to any client of his, or of the multi-national partnership of which he is or was a member, in consequence of some act or default of any of his partners or employees in circumstances where but for the liability of that registered foreign lawyer a grant might have been made out of the Compensation Fund to some other person,

the Society may make a grant out of the Compensation Fund for the purpose of relieving that loss or hardship.
(2) Section 36 of the Act of 1974 (Compensation Fund) shall apply with the necessary modifications in relation to grants under this paragraph as it applies in relation to grants under that section.
Contributions to the Fund
7.—(1) On an application for registration, a foreign lawyer shall pay to the Society a contribution to the Compensation Fund ("the initial contribution") of such amount as the Council may from time to time determine.
(2) On each application for renewal of his registration, a registered foreign lawyer shall pay to the Society—

(a) a contribution of such amount as the Council may from time to time determine ("the annual contribution"); and

(b) where it appears from his application that—

(i) he has, at any time during the period specified in the application, held or received clients' money in connection with a multi-national partnership of which he is, or was, a member; or

(ii) he is, or was at any time during that period, an officer of a recognised body which has, at any time during that period, held or received clients' money,

a further contribution ("the special levy") of such amount as the Council may from time to time determine.
(3) The Council may make rules providing, in circumstances specified by the rules, for a foreign lawyer—

(a) to pay a reduced initial or annual contribution or special levy; or

(b) not to be required to pay such a contribution or levy.

(4) Any rules under sub-paragraph (3) shall be made with the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls.
Accountants' reports
8.—(1) Unless the Council are satisfied that it is unnecessary for him to do so, every registered foreign lawyer shall, once in each period of twelve months ending with 31st October, deliver to the Society (whether by post or otherwise) a report signed by an accountant and containing such information as may be prescribed by rules made by the Council under section 34 of the Act of 1974 (accountants' reports).
(2) The provisions of that section shall apply in relation to accountants' reports required by this paragraph, and registered foreign lawyers, as they apply in relation to accountants' reports required by subsection (1) of that section and solicitors.
Certification for purposes of investment business
9. For the purposes of enabling the Law Society to issue certificates under Part I of the Financial Services Act 1986 (regulation of investment business) to any multi-national partnership or to any recognised body managed or controlled by solicitors and one or more registered foreign lawyers—

(a) the Society shall be taken to be the appropriate professional body for that purpose;

(b) the registered foreign lawyer concerned shall be treated—

(i) as if he were a member of the Society; and

(ii) as if he were a solicitor for the purposes of paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3 to the Act of 1986 (requirements for recognition of professional body); and

(c) Part I of that Act shall have effect subject to any modifications which the Secretary of State sees fit to make by order under this paragraph with a view to enabling certificates to be issued to such partnerships or such recognised bodies.

Effect of bankruptcy
10.—(1) The registration of any foreign lawyer against whom a bankruptcy order is made shall be suspended on the making of that order.
(2) The suspension of any registration by reason of a bankruptcy order shall terminate if the order is annulled and an office copy of the order annulling it is served on the Society.
(3) In sub-paragraph (I), "bankruptcy order" includes any order which is not a bankruptcy order but which has the same, or a similar, effect under the law in force in any territory outside England and Wales.
Effect of disciplinary action
11.—(1) Where a registered foreign lawyer is struck off, or suspended from practice, his registration shall be suspended.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) "struck off" and "suspended from practice" mean—

(a) any action taken within the jurisdiction by reference to which the registered foreign lawyer is qualified to be registered; or

(b) where the registered foreign lawyer is qualified to be registered by reference to more than one jurisdiction, any action taken within any one of those jurisdictions,

which is the equivalent, respectively, of a solicitor being struck off the roll or suspended from practice under the Act of 1974.
Re-instatement of disciplined foreign lawyer
12.—(1) Where a person's registration has been suspended by virtue of paragraph II, it shall be revived—

(a) if his right to practise in the jurisdiction in question is restored; and

(b) a copy of the instrument restoring his right, certified to be a true copy by an officer of the appropriate court in the jurisdiction in question, or the professional body concerned, is served on the Society.

(2) Where a person whose registration is suspended by virtue of paragraph 11 applies to the Society for the suspension to be terminated, the Society may terminate it subject to such conditions, if any, as it thinks fit to impose.
Effective date of revived registration
13. Where a foreign lawyer's registration is revived (whether as the result of the termination of its suspension, restoration by order of the Tribunal or for any other reason), that revival shall take effect on such date, and subject to such conditions, as the Society may direct.
Appeal against conditions or refusals
14.—-(1) Any foreign lawyer may appeal to the Master of the Rolls against—

(a) the refusal of the Society to register him or to renew his registration;

(b) the refusal of the Society to terminate the suspension of his registration on an application made by him under paragraph 12;

(c) the failure of the Society to deal with any application by him for registration, renewal of registration or the termination (under paragraph 12(2)) of a suspension within a reasonable time; or

(d) any condition imposed by the Society under paragraph 2(3), 12(2) or 13.

(2) An appeal under sub-paragraph (1) (a), (b) or (d) must be brought within the period of one month beginning with the date on which the Society notifies the applicant of its decision on his application.
(3) On an appeal to him under this paragraph, the Master of the Rolls may make such order as he thinks fit.
Jurisdiction and powers of Disciplinary Tribunal
15.—(1) Subject to paragraph 16, section 46 of the Act of 1974 (Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal) shall apply, with the necessary modifications, in relation to applications and complaints made by virtue of any provision of this Schedule as it applies in relation to applications and complaints made by virtue of any provision of that Act.
(2) Any application—

(a) to strike the name of a foreign lawyer off the register;

(b) to require a registered foreign lawyer to answer allegations in an affidavit;

(c) to suspend the registration of a foreign lawyer for a specified or indefinite period;

(d) by a foreign lawyer whose name has been struck off the register by order of the Tribunal to have his name restored to the register;

(e) by a foreign lawyer whose registration has been suspended for an indefinite period by order of the Tribunal for the termination of that suspension,

shall be made to the Tribunal.
(3) Any person who alleges that a registered foreign lawyer has failed to comply with any rule made under section 31, 32, 34, or 37 of the Act of 1974 may make a complaint to the Tribunal.
(4) On the hearing of any application or complaint made to the Tribunal with respect to a foreign lawyer, the Tribunal shall have power to make such order as it may think fit, and any such order may in particular include provision for any of the following matters—

(a) the striking off the register of the name of the foreign lawyer to whom the application or complaint relates;

(b) the suspension of that foreign lawyer's registration indefinitely or for a specified period;

(c) the payment by that foreign lawyer of a penalty not exceeding £5,000, which shall be forfeit to Her Majesty;

(d) the termination of that foreign lawyer's unspecified period of suspension from registration;

(e) the restoration to the register of the name of a foreign lawyer which has been struck off the register;

(f) the payment by any party of costs or a contribution towards costs of such amount as the Tribunal may consider reasonable.

(5) Any order made under subsection (4) of section 47 of the Act of 1974 varying the maximum amount of the penalty which may be imposed under subsection (2) (c) of that section may make the same variation in the corresponding amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) (c).
Foreign lawyers assisting the Tribunal
16.—(1) For the purposes of section 46 of the Act of 1974 (Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal), the Tribunal may make rules providing for it to be assisted, in dealing with any application or complaint of a kind mentioned in paragraph 15, by a member of the legal profession in the jurisdiction by reference to which the foreign lawyer is or was qualified to be registered.
(2) Rules under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be made without the concurrence of the Master of the Rolls.
(3) Subsection (12) of section 46 of the Act of 1974 (rules to be made by statutory instrument etc.) shall apply to rules made under this paragraph as it applies to rules made under subsection (9) of that section.
Appeals from Tribunal
17.—(1) An Appeal from the Tribunal shall lie—

(a) in the case of an order on an application under paragraph 15(2) (d) or (e), or the refusal of any such application, to the Master of the Rolls;

(b) in the case of any other order or refusal under paragraph 15, to the High Court.

(2) The High Court and the Master of the Rolls shall have poser to make such order on an appeal under this paragraph as they may think fit.
(3) Any decision of the Master of the Rolls on an appeal under this paragraph shall be final.
(4) The Master of the Rolls may make regulations about appeals to him under this paragraph.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 215. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 39.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 215.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
216 After Schedule II, insert the following schedule—
'SCHEDULE
  Inadequate Professional Services
  The following are the provisions which are inserted in the Solicitors Act 1974 as Schedule 1A—
SCHEDULE 1A

  Inadequate Professional Services
  Circumstances in which Council's powers may be exercised
  1.—(1) The Council may take any of the steps mentioned in paragraph 2 ("the steps") with respect to a solicitor where it appears to them that the professional services provided by him in connection with any matter in which he or his firm have been instructed by a client have, in any respect, not been of the quality which it is reasonable to expect of him as a solicitor.
  (2) The Council shall not take any of the steps unless they are satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case it is appropriate to do so.
  (3) In determining in any case whether it is appropriate to take any of the steps, the Council may—

  (a) have regard to the existence of any remedy which it is reasonable to expect to be available to the client in civil proceedings; and

  (b) where proceedings seeking any such remedy have not been begun by him, have regard to whether it is reasonable to expect him to begin them.

  Directions which may be given
  2.—(1) The steps are—

  (a) determining that the costs to which the solicitor is entitled in respect of his services ("the costs") are to be limited to such amount as may be specified in the determination and directing him to comply, or to secure compliance, with such one or more of the permitted requirements as appear to the Council to be necessary in order for effect to be given to their determination;

  (b) directing him to secure the rectification, at his expense or at that of his firm, of any such error, omission or other deficiency arising in connection with the matter in question as they may specify;

  (c) directing him to pay such compensation to the client as the Council sees fit to specify in the direction;

  (d) directing him to take, at his expense or at that of his firm, such other action in the interests of the client as they may specify.

  (2) The "permitted requirements" are—

  (a) that the whole or part of any amount already paid by or on behalf of the client in respect of the costs be refunded;

  (b) that the whole or part of the costs be remitted;

  (c) that the right to recover the costs be waived, whether wholly or to any specifed extent.

  (3) The power of the Council to take any such steps is not confined to cases where the client may have a cause of action against the solicitor for negligence.
  Compensation
  3.—(1) The amount specified in a direction by virtue of paragraph 2(1) (c) shall not exceed £1,000.
  (2) The Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument amend sub-paragraph (1) by substituting for the sum of £1,000 such other sum as he considers appropriate.
  (3) Before making any such order the Lord Chancellor shall consult the Law Society.
  (4) Any statutory instrument made under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  Taxation of costs
  4.—(1) Where the Council have given a direction under paragraph 2(1) (a), then—

  (a) for the purposes of any taxation of a bill covering the costs, the amount charged by the bill in respect of them shall be deemed to be limited to the amount specified in the determination; and

  (b) where a bill covering the costs has not been taxed, the client shall, for the purposes of their recovery (by whatever means and notwithstanding any statutory provision or agreement) be deemed to be liable to pay in respect of them only the amount specified in the determination.

  (2) Where a bill covering the costs has been taxed, the direction shall, so far as it relates to the costs, cease to have effect.
  Failure to comply with direction
  5.—(1) If a solicitor fails to comply with a direction given under this Schedule, any person may make a complaint in respect of that failure to the Tribunal; but no other proceedings whatever shall be brought in respect of it.
  (2) On the hearing of such a complaint the Tribunal may, if it thinks fit (and whether or not it makes any order under section 47(2)), direct that the direction be treated, for the purpose of enforcement, as if it were contained in an order made by the High Court.
  Fees
  6.—(1) The Council may, by regulations made with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls, make provision for the payment, by any client with respect to whom the Council are asked to consider whether to take any of the steps, of such fee as may be prescribed.
  (2) The regulations may provide for the exemption of such classes of client as may be prescribed.
  (3) Where a client pays the prescribed fee it shall be repaid to him if the Council take any of the steps in the matter with respect to which the fee was paid.
  (4) In this paragraph "prescribed" means prescribed by the regulations.
  Costs
  7. Where the Council take any of the steps with respect to a solicitor they may also direct him to pay to the Council—

  (a) the amount of the fee repayable by the Council to the client under paragraph 6(3); and

  (b) an amount which is calculated by the Council as the cost to them of dealing with the complaint, or which in their opinion represents a reasonable contribution towards that cost.

Duty of Tribunal
8. Where the Tribunal—

(a) is considering, or has considered, an application or complaint with respect to a solicitor; and

(b) is of the opinion that the Council should consider whether to take any of the steps with respect to that solicitor,

it shall inform the Council.

Interpretation
9. The Council's powers under this Schedule are exercisable in relation to a person even though his name has been removed from, or struck off, the roll and references to a solicitor in this Schedule, so far as they relate to the exercise of those powers shall be construed accordingly.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 216. This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 138.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 216.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
217 Schedule 12, page 118, line 14, at end insert:
'The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (c.54)
3A.—(1) Section 16 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (provisions supplementary to section 15) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3)—

(a) for the words "relevant infant" there shall be substituted "supervised person"; and

(b) the words from "and the justice" to the end shall be omitted.

(3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(3A) Where a supervised person is brought before a justice under subsection (3) of this section, the justice may—

(a) direct that he be released forthwith; or

(b) subject to subsection (3C) of this section, remand him to local authority accommodation.

(3B) A justice who remands a person to local authority accommodation shall designate, as the authority who are to receive him, the authority named in the supervision order in respect of which the application or reference is being made.
(3C) Where the supervised person has attained the age of eighteen at the time when he is brought before the justice, he shall not be remanded to local authority accommodation but may instead be remanded—

(a) to a remand centre, if the justice has been notified that such a centre is available for the reception of persons under this subsection; or

(b) to a prison, if he has not been so notified."

(4) For subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(4) Where an application is made to a court under section 15(1) of this Act, the court may remand (or further remand) the supervised person to local authority accommodation if—

(a) a warrant has been issued under subsection (2) of this section for the purpose of securing the attendance of the supervised person before the court; or

(b) the court considers that remanding (or further remanding) him will enable information to be obtained which is likely to assist the court in deciding whether and, if so, how to exercise its powers under section 15(1)."

(5) In subsections (5) (b) and (c) and (6) (a), after the word "12A", in each place where it occurs, there shall be inserted "12AA".
3B.—(1) Section 32 of that Act (detention of absentees), as amended by paragraph 27 of Schedule 12 to the Act of 1989, shall be further amended as follows.
(2) In the new subsection (1A), in paragraph (b) (ii), for the words "section 23(1)" there shall be substituted "section 16(3A) or 23(1)".
(3) In the new subsection (1C), after the words "section 12AA" there shall be inserted ", 16(3B)".'.
218 Page 118, line 23, at end insert:
'The Adoption Act 1976 (c.36)
4A. In section 65A of the Adoption Act 1976 (which was inserted by paragraph 29 of Schedule 10 to the Act of 1989 and which makes similar provision with respect to the appointment of panels of guardians ad litem to that made by section 41 of the Act of 1989), the following subsection shall be added at the endߞ
"(4) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make such grants with respect to expenditure of any local authority—

(a) in connection with the establishment and administration of guardian ad litem and reporting officer panels in accordance with section 65;

(b) in paying expenses, fees, allowances and in the provision of training for members of such panels, as he considers appropriate.".

'The Child Care Act 1980 (c.5)
4B. After section 21(2) of the Child Care Act 1980 (power of local authority to allow child in care to be under charge and control of parent, etc.) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above and section 22A below a child shall be regarded as being under the charge and control of a person if he stays with that person for a continuous period of more than 24 hours".'.
219 Page 118, line 39, at end insert:
6A. In section 21(2) (c) (i) of the 1989 Act (provision of accommodation for children on remand) after word "section" there shall be inserted "16(3A) or".'.
6B.—(1) In section 23 of the Act of 1989 (provision of accommodation and maintenance made by local authority for children whom they are looking after), in subsection (2) (e) after the word "provided" there shall be inserted "in accordance with arrangements made".
(2) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5) a child shall be regarded as living with a person if he stays with that person for a continuous period of more than 24 hours".
6C. At the end of section 24 of the Act of 1989 (advice and assistance) there shall be added the following subsections
"(14) Every local authority shall establish a procedure for considering any representations (including any complaint) made to them by a person qualifying for advice and assistance about the discharge of their functions under this Part in relation to him.
(15) In carrying out any consideration of representations under subsection (14), a local authority shall comply with any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection."
6D. In section 27 of the Act of 1989 (co-operation between authorities)—

(a) in subsection (1) the words "or other person" and the words "or person" shall be omitted; and

(b) in subsection (3) for the word "persons" there shall be substituted "authorities" and after the words "health authority" there shall be inserted "or National Health Service trust".

6E. In section 29 of the Act of 1989 (recoupment of cost of providing services etc.), in subsection (9), for the words "expenses reasonably" there shall be substituted "reasonable expenses".'.
220 Page 118, line 42, at end insert:
'7A. In section 41 of the Act of 1989 (appointment of guardian ad litem for child in certain proceedings), the following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(12) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make such grants with respect to expenditure of any local authority—

(a) in connection with the establishment and administration of guardian ad litem panels in accordance with this section;

(b) in paying expenses, fees, allowances and in the provision of training for members of such panels,as he considers appropriate.".'.

7B.—(1) Section 42 of the Act of 1989 (right of guardian ad litem to have access to local authority records) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (a), after the word "authority" there shall be inserted "or an authorised person".
(3) At the end of subsection (1) there shall be added—

";or

(c) any records of, or held by, an authorised person which were compiled in connection with the activities of that person, so far as those records relate to that child."

(4) The following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(4) In this section "authorised person" has the same meaning as in section 31."
7C. For section 45(10) of the Act of 1989 (appeals against emergency protection orders) there shall be substituted—
"(10) No appeal may be made against—

(a) the making of, or refusal to make, an emergency protection order;

(b) the extension of, or refusal to extend, the period during which such an order is to have effect;

(c) the discharge of, or refusal to discharge, such an order; or

(d) the giving of, or refusal to give, any direction in connection with such an order."

7D. In section 47(11) (d) of the Act of 1989 (persons obliged to assist local authority investigations), after the words "health authority" there shall be inserted "or National Health Service trust".'.
221 Page 118, line 44, at end insert 'and in subsection (1) (f) after the word "provided" there shall be inserted "in accordance with arrangements made".
8A. In section 93(2) of the Act of 1989 (rules of court)—

(a) in paragraph (f) for the words "the United Kingdom" there shall be substituted "England and Wales"; and

(b) in paragraph (g) after the word "is" there shall be inserted "or resides".

8B. In section 94(l) (appeals), for the first word "An" there shall be substituted "Subject to any express provisions to the contrary made by or under this Act, an".
8C. In section 97(8) of the Act of 1989 (privacy for children involved in certain proceedings) for the words "Section 71 of the Act of 1980 (newspaper reports of certain proceedings)" there shall be substituted "Sections 69 (sittings of magistrates' courts for family proceedings) and 71 (newspaper reports of certain proceedings) of the Act of 1980".
8D. In section 108(12) of the Act of 1989 (provisions extending to Northern Ireland), in the entry relating to Schedule 14, the word "18" shall be omitted.
8E. In paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1989 (regulations as to conditions under which child in care is allowed to live with parent, etc.), the following sub-paragraph shall be added at the end—
"(d) the records to be kept by local authorities.".
8F. In Schedule 3 to the Act of 1989 (supervision orders) paragraph 7 shall be omitted.'.
222 Page 119, line 5, at end insert:
'9A. In paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 6 to the Act of 1989 (registered children's homes—meaning of "responsible authority") for the word "Part" there shall be substituted "Schedule".
9B.—(1) Paragraph 2 of Schedule 9 to the Act of 1989 (disqualification from registration as child minder etc. under section 71) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), there shall be added at the end "unless—

(a) he has disclosed the fact to the appropriate local authority; and

(b) obtained their written consent."

(3) In sub-paragraph (2) (g), for "61" there shall be substituted "69".
9C. In Schedule 12 to the Act of 1989 (minor amendments), paragraph 25 (which amended section 16 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969) shall be omitted.
9D. In Schedule 13 to the Act of 1989 (consequential amendments), paragraph 40 shall be omitted.
9E.—(1) Schedule 14 to the Act of 1989 (transitionals and savings) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 15 (children in compulsory care) at the end of sub-paragraph (1) there shall be added "; or—

(h) in care by virtue of an order of the court made in the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children,".

(3) In paragraph 16 (modifications)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (4), for the word "(g)" there shall be substituted "(h)"; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (5) for the words from "under" to "1973" there shall be substituted "—

(a) under section 4(4) (a) of the Guardianship Act 1973;

(b) under section 43(5) (a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; or

(c) in the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children,".

(4) After paragraph 16 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"Cessation of wardship where ward in care
9F. Where a child who is a ward of court is in care by virtue of—

(a) an order under section 7(2) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969; or

(b) an order made in the exercise of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction with respect to children,

he shall, on the day on which Part IV commences, cease to be a ward of court."
(5) In paragraph 22(a) for the word "(g)" there shall be substituted "(h)".
(6) In paragraph 36(5) (b) for the words "subsection (4)" there shall be substituted "subsection (6)".'.
223 Page 119, line 13, after 'Act' insert '(including that provision as applied in relation to Northern Ireland by section 97(3) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)'.
224 Page 119, line 19, at end insert:
'The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (c.49)
11A. In section 94(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (interpretation), in the definition of "supervision order" for the words from first "has" to "1969" there shall be substituted "means a supervision order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 or the Children Act 1989".'.
225 Page 119, line 45, at end insert:
'The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43)
14A. In section 65(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (meaning of family proceedings), paragraph (k) shall be omitted.'.
226 Page 120, line 6, at end insert:
'The Mental Health Act 1983 (c.20)
15A. In section 116(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (visiting of patients who are children) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—

"(a) a child or young person—

(i) who is in the care of a local authority by virtue of a care order within the meaning of the Children Act 1989, or

(ii) in respect of whom the rights and powers of a parent are vested in a local authority by virtue of section 16 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968;".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 217 to 226 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 217 to 226.—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
227 Schedule 13, page 120, line 12, at end insert:
'The Land Registration Act 1925 (c.21)
1A. In section 126 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (business of the Land Registry), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (6)—
"(6A) The fact that the Chief Land Registrar and other officers of the Land Registry are not required to be legally qualified is not to be taken as preventing the making of regulations under this section which provide for certain acts to be done by an officer who is legally qualified."
The Administration of Justice Act 1956 (c.46)
1B. Section 53 of the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (only certain barristers or solicitors eligible for appointment as the Chief Land Registrar, a registrar or assistant registrar in the Land Registry) shall cease to have effect.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 227. This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 204.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 227.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
228 Page 120, line 12, at end insert:
'The Powers of Attorney Act 1971 (c.27)
In section 3 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 (proof of instruments creating powers of attorney)—

(a) in subsection (1) (b), after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted "duly certificated notary public"; and

(b) in subsection (3), after the word "section" there shall be inserted " 'duly certificated notary public' has the same meaning as it has in the Solicitors Act 1974 by virtue of section 87(1) of that Act and".'.

229 Page 120, line 32, at end insert:
'The Juries Act 1974 (c.23)
3A. In Group B in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974 (ineligibility and disqualification for and excusal from jury service) after the entry relating to legal executives in the employment of solicitors there shall be inserted—
"Public notaries".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 228 and 229. These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 204.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 228 and 229. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
230 Page 120, line 43, at end insert:
'4A. Section 4 of that Act (which sets out conditions to be satisfied before certain overseas solicitors may be admitted) shall cease to have effect.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 230. This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 39.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 230.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
231 Page 121, line 18, at end insert:
'7A. In section 36(4) of that Act (witness not to be punished for failing to appear if he is not offered payment of his reasonable expenses of attending), for the words from "the expenses", to the end, there shall be substituted "—

(a) the expenses of coming and attending to give evidence and of returning from giving evidence; and

(b) any other reasonable expenses which he has asked to be defrayed in connection with his evidence,

was tendered to him at the time when the writ was served upon him.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their
This amendment effects a minor change to Section 36(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. At present this subsection prevents a court from punishing a person summoned to give evidence for his absence where he was not given,
"a reasonable and sufficient sum of money to defray the expenses of coming and attending to give evidence and of returning from giving evidence".
The Supreme Court Procedure Committee has recently recommended that witnesses be able to recover the costs of copying and transporting documents which they were required to bring with them in addition to their travelling expenses. To reflect this, the amendment applies Section 36(4) whenever a person has asked for, but not been given, his costs of attendance and any other reasonable costs of complying with the summons.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 231.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
232 Page 121, leave out lines 20 to 23 and insert:

1497
'8.—(1) Section 73 of the County Courts Act 1984 (register to be kept of county court judgments) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) there shall be substituted—
"(1) A register of every—

(a) judgment entered in a county court;

(b) administration order made under section 112; and

(c) order restricting enforcement made under section 112A,

shall be kept in such manner and in such place as may be prescribed."
(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a)—

(i) after the word "judgments" there shall be inserted "or orders"; and

(ii) after the word "judgment" there shall be inserted "or order"; and

(b) in paragraph (b), after the word "judgments" there shall be inserted "or orders".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 232. This amendment requires administration orders and orders restricting enforcement to be registered in the register of county court judgments. The register is open for inspection by the public and is principally used by potential creditors to inform decisions as to whether or not it would be prudent to provide loans or services on credit to a particular customer. The information that a potential customer is subject to an administration order is likely to be helpful to someone deciding whether to lend him money, since some creditors who would be prepared to lend to a customer with an existing judgment debt would not be willing to do so if they knew that an administration order was in force. This amendment therefore provides for that information to be included in the register.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 232.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
233 Page 121, line 41, at end insert:
'The Legal Aid Act 1988 (c.34)
12A. In section 15 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 (availability of, and payment for, representation in civil proceedings under Part IV) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(4A) A person may not be refused representation for the purposes of any proceedings on the ground (however expressed) that it would be more appropriate for him and a legal representative of his to enter into a conditional fee agreement (as defined by section 48 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990).".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 233. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 75.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 233.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
234 Page 121, line 41, at end insert:
'The Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (c.34)
1498
I2B.—(1) In subsection (5) of section 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 (presumption that solicitor is authorised to deliver certain instruments), after the word "solicitor", in both places where it occurs, there shall be inserted ", duly certificated notary public".
(2) In subsection (6) of that section (meaning of expressions used in subsection (5)), after the words "Act 1925" there shall be inserted—
" 'duly certificated notary public' has the same meaning as it has in the Solicitors Act 1974 by virtue of section 87 of that Act;".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 234. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 110.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 234.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
235 Schedule 14, page 122, line 16, at end insert:
'The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c.18)
2A. In section 50(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (matrimonial causes rules), for the words from "one registrar of the divorce registry" to "local law society" there shall be substituted "one district judge of the principal registry of the Family Division, two Circuit judges, one district judge appointed under the County Courts Act 1984, two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990), and two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 235. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 169.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 235.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
236 Page 122, line 16, at end insert:
'The Fair Trading Act 1973 (c.41)
2B. In section 133(2) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 (purposes for which certain information obtained under the Act may be disclosed), in paragraph (a)—

(a) after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "or the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board"; and

(b) after the words "Regulations 1988" there shall be inserted "or the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 236. This was spoken to with Amendment No. 100.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 236.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
237 Page 122, line 16, at end insert:
'The Juries Act 1974 (c.23)
2C. In Group B in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974 (ineligibility and disqualification for and excusal from jury service), after the entry relating to barristers and solicitors there shall be inserted—
"Any person who is not a barrister or solicitor but who is an authorised advocate or authorised litigator (as defined by section 92(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990) and—

(a) any legal executive or person corresponding to a legal executive; or

(b) any person corresponding to a barristers' clerk or assistant clerk,

who is employed by such an authorised advocate or authorised litigator.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 237.
Barristers and solicitors together with barristers' clerks and assistants, solicitors' articled clerks and legal executives employed by solicitors are all ineligible for jury service. The Bill will provide in the future for persons who are not barristers or solicitors to become authorised advocates or authorised litigators. This amendment simply adds such persons, and certain members of their staff, to the list of persons concerned with the administration of justice who are ineligible for jury service.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 237.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
238 Page 122, line 16, at end insert:
'The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c.39)
2D. In section 174(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (purposes for which certain information obtained under the Act may be disclosed), in paragraph (a)—

(a) after the words "Regulations 1988" there shall be inserted "or the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990"; and

(b) after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "or the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 238. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 100.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 238.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
238A Page 122, line 17, at end insert:
'2E. In section 7 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (entry of names in the roll and restoration of names struck off), the following shall be inserted at the end of paragraph (b)—"
"or

(c) of an order under section 47(2) (h) for the restoration of a person's name to the roll".

2F. In section 8 of that Act (removal or restoration of name at solicitor's request), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection(2)—
"(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply to a former solicitor with respect to whom a direction has been given under section 47(2) (g).".'.
239 Page 122, line 18, leave out paragraph (3).
240 Page 122, line 34, leave out from 'date" ' to end of line 36.
241 Page 122, line 36, at end insert:
'5A. In section 20 of that Act (unqualified person not to act as solicitor) the following subsections shall be added at the end—
"(3) A person exempted from the provisions of section 23(1) by virtue of section 23(2) or (3) of this Act or section 47 of Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 may, in any non-contentious or common form probate business, apply for a grant of probate or for letters of administration or oppose such an application without committing an offence under this section.
(4) In subsection (3) 'non-contentious or common form probate business' has the same meaning as in section 128 of the Supreme Court Act 1981."
5B. In section 25 of that Act (costs where unqualified person acts as solicitor) the following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(3) For the avoidance of doubt, where a person does an act which would be an offence under section 23 were it not for the provisions of section 46 or 47 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, this section does not apply in relation to that Act.".'.
242 Page 122, line 42, at end insert:
'6A. In section 41 of that Act (employment by solicitor of person struck off or suspended), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
(1A) No solicitor shall, except in accordance with a written permission granted under this section, employ or remunerate in connection with his practice as a solicitor any person if, to his knowledge, there is a direction in force under section 47(2) (g) in relation to that person."
6B. In section 42 of that Act (failure to disclose certain facts to solicitor employer), the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) Any person—

(a) with respect to whom a direction is in force under section 47(2) (g); and

(b) who seeks or accepts employment by a solicitor in connection with that solicitor's practice without previously informing him of the direction,

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level three on the standard scale.".'.
243 Page 122, line 43, leave out paragraph 7.
244 Page 122, line 44, at end insert:
'7A.—(1) Section 80 of that Act (powers to act on behalf of Society) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for the words "to committees conferred on the Council" there shall be substituted "conferred"
(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) after the word "Council", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted "or sub-committee"; and

(b) for the words "or the committee" there shall be substituted ", committee or sub-committee".'.

245 Page 123, line 11, at end insert:
'(3B) Where it appears from his application for a practising certificate that a solicitor has not held or received clients' money at any time during the period specified in the application, the Council may require him—

(a) to pay an annual contribution of a specified reduced amount on that application, or

(b) to pay no annual contribution on that application.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 238A to 245. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 117.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 238A to 245. —(The Lord Chancellor.).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
246 Page 123, line 11, at end insert:
'The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (c.34)

1501
9A. In section 41(1) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 (purposes for which certain information obtained under the Act may be disclosed), in paragraph (a)—

(a) after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "or the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board"; and

(b) after the words "Regulations 1988" there shall be inserted "or the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 246. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 100.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 246.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
247 Page 123, line 11, at end insert:
'The Patents Act 1977 (c.37)
9B.—(1) In section 102 of the Patents Act 1977 (right of audience etc in proceedings before the comptroller), the following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(5) Nothing in this section shall be taken to limit the right to draw or prepare deeds given to a registered patent agent by section (Preparation of documents etc. by registered patent agents and trade mark agents) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990."
(2) In section 102A of that Act (right of audience etc in proceedings on appeal from the comptroller), the following subsection shall be added at the end—
"(6) Nothing in this section shall be taken to limit the right to draw or prepare deeds given to a registered patent agent by section (Preparation of documents etc. by registered patent agents and trade mark agents) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990." '.
'The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 (c.22)
9C. In section 16 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 (powers of court to make orders for the protection of a party to marriage or a child of the family), in subsection (6) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted "that the respondent has not been given such notice of the proceedings as may be prescribed by rules".'.
'The Estate Agents Act 1979 (c.38)
9D.—(1) In section 10(3) of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (purposes for which certain information obtained under the Act may be disclosed), in paragraph (a)—

(a) after the words "Regulations 1988" there shall be inserted "or the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990"; and

(b) after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "or the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board".'.

The Competition Act 1980 (c.21)
9E. Section 19 of the Competition Act 1980 (restriction on disclosure of information) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after the words "Electricity Supply" there shall be inserted "the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board".
(3) In subsection (3) the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (1)—
"(m) the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 247. This amendment makes changes in three broad areas which we have already considered in relation to the preparation of documents by registered patent agents and trade mark agents,
1502
family proceedings in magistrates' courts and related matters and paragraphs consequential on the six new clauses.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 247.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
248 Page 123, line 11, at end insert:
'The Social Security Act 1980 (c. 30)
9F. In section 13 of the Social Security Act 1980 (Social Security Commissioners) in subsection (5) (a), for the words "(2) or (4)" there shall be substituted the words "or (2)".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 248. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 124.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 248.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
249 Page 123, line 1I, at end insert:
'The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43)
9G.—(1) The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 150(1) (interpretation) after the definition of "impose imprisonment" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"legal representative" means an authorised advocate or authorised litigator, as defined by section 92(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;".
(3) For the words—

(a) "counsel or a solicitor" in sections 4(4) (b), 6(2) (b), 23(1) (a) and 128(1B);

(b) "counsel or solicitor" in sections 122(1) and (3); there shall be substituted "a legal representative".

(4) For the words—

(a) "solicitor" in sections 6(2) (a), 12(2), 128(1A) (ii) and (3B);

(b) "counsel or solicitor" in sections 72(3) (a) and (4);

(c) "solicitor or barrister" in section 145(1) (d), there shall be substituted "legal representative".

(5) For the words "counsel and solicitors" in section 8(4) (d) there shall be substituted "the legal representatives".
(6) For the words—

(a) "solicitors and counsel" in section 69(2) (b);

(b) "solicitors or counsel" in section 69(4),

there shall be substituted "legal representatives".
(7) In section 144(3) (members of the rule committee) in subsection (3), for the words "one justices' clerk" to the end there shall be substituted—

"(a) one justices' clerk;

(b) one person who has a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 57 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990); and

(c) one person who has been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court.".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 249. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 169.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 249.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
250 Page 123, line 39, at end insert:
'14A. The following section shall be inserted in that Act at the beginning of Part III—
"Transfer of accrued benefits.
29A. Schedule 1A shall have effect with respect to the transfer of accrued rights into and out of the judicial pension schemes constituted by this Act and the Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Act 1961.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 250. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 173.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 250.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
251 Page 124, line 11, at end insert:
'18A.—(1) In section 85 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (Supreme Court Rule Committee)—

(a) for paragraphs (f) and (g) of subsection (1), there shall be substituted—

"(f) two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 57 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990); and

(g) two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court."

(b) for subsection (4) there shall be substituted—

"(4) Before appointing a person under paragraph (f) or (g) of subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor shall consult any authorised body with members who are eligible for appointment under that paragraph."
(2) In section 86 of that Act (Crown Court Rule Committee)—

(a) for paragraphs (f) and (g) of subsection (1), there shall be substituted—

"(f) two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 57 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990); and

(g) two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court."

(b) for subsection (4) there shall be substituted—

"(4) Before appointing a person under paragraph (f) or (g) of subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor shall consult any authorised body with members who are eligible for appointment under that paragraph.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 251. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 169.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 251.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
252 Page 124, line 19, at end insert:
'20A. In section 90 of that Act (Official Solicitor) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
"(3A) The holder for the time being of the office of Official Solicitor shall have the right to conduct litigation in relation to any proceedings.
(3B) When acting as Official Solicitor a person who would otherwise have the right to conduct litigation by virtue of section 26(2) (a) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 shall be treated as having acquired that right solely by virtue of subsection (3A)".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 252. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 51.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 252.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
253 Page 124, line 38, leave out paragraph 22.
254 Page 125, line 12, leave out paragraph 25.
255 Page 125, line 17, leave out paragraph 26.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 253 to 255. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 124.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 253 to 255.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
256 Page 125, line 36, at end insert:
'30A. For section 75(7) of that Act (members of the rule committee) there shall be substituted,—
"(7) The rule committee shall consist of the following persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor—

(a) five judges of county courts;

(b) two district judges;

(c) two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 57 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990); and

(d) two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court."

30B. For section 143(1) of that Act (prohibition on persons other than solicitors receiving remuneration for work in county courts) there shall be substituted—
"(1) No person other than—

(a) a legal representative; or

(b) a person exercising a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation by virtue of an order made under section 9 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (representation in county courts),

shall be entitled to have or recover any fee or reward for acting on behalf of a party in proceedings in a county court."
30C.—(1) In section 147(1) of that Act (interpretation) after the definition of "landlord" there shall be inserted—
" "legal representative" means an authorised advocate or authorised litigator, as defined by section 92(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990."
(2) For the word "solicitor" in sections 13(1) and (4), 61(2) and 126 of that Act there shall be substituted "legal representative".
(3) For the word "solicitors" in sections 18, 24(1), 27(6), 75(3) (f) and 79 of that Act there shall be substituted "legal representatives".'.
257 Page 125, line 36, at end insert:
'The Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (c. 42)
30D. In section 40(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (family proceedings rules), for paragraphs (c) to (g) there shall be substituted—

"(c) one district judge of the principal registry of that Division,

(d) two Circuit judges,

(e) one district judge appointed under the County Courts Act 1984,

(f) two persons who have a Supreme Court qualification (within the meaning of section 57 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990), and

1505

(g) two persons who have been granted by an authorised body, under Part II of that Act, the right to conduct litigation in relation to all proceedings in the Supreme Court.".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 256 and 257. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 169.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 256 and 257. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
258 Page 125, line 36, at end insert:
'The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23)
30E. In section 4 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (rights of audience etc. of Crown Prosecutors), the following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (1) to (3)—
"(1) Crown Prosecutors shall continue to have the same rights of audience, in any court, as they had immediately before the coming into force of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
(2) Subsection (1) is not to be taken as preventing those rights being varied or added to in accordance with the provisions of that Act.
(3) The Lord Chancellor may at any time direct, as respects one or more specified places where the Crown Court sits, that Crown Prosecutors, or such category of Crown Prosecutors as may be specified in the direction, may have rights of audience in the Crown Court.
(3A) Any such direction may be limited to apply only in relation to proceedings of a description specified in the direction.
(3B) In considering whether to exercise his powers under this section the Lord Chancellor shall have regard, in particular, to the need to secure the availability of persons with rights of audience in the court or proceedings in question.
(3C) Any direction under this section may be revoked by direction of the Lord Chancellor.
(3D) Any direction under this section may be subject to such conditions and restrictions as appear to the Lord Chancellor to be necessary or expedient.
(3E) Any exercise by the Lord Chancellor of his powers to give a direction under this section shall be with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor.".
30F.—(1) In section 14(1) (a) of that Act (regulations in relation to fees of counsel) for the word "counsel" there shall be substituted "any legal representative".
(2) The following definition shall be inserted in section 15(1) of that Act after the definition of "Director"—
"legal representative" means an authorised advocate or authorised litigator, as defined by section 92(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
30G. In section 20(2) of that Act (regulations providing for the recovery of sums paid by the Legal Aid Board or out of central funds), in paragraph (a) for the words "party to proceedings" there shall be substituted "person".'.
The Administration of Justice Act 1985 (c. 61)
30H.—(1) Section 9 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (management and control by solicitors of incorporated practices) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (a)—

(a) after the word "solicitors", where it first occurs, there shall be inserted "or solicitors and one or more registered foreign lawyers"; and

(b) at the end there shall be inserted "or by multi-national partnerships".

(3) In subsection (8), the following definitions shall be inserted at the appropriate places—
1506
—"multi-national partnership" means a partnership whose members consist of one or more registered foreign lawyers and one or more solicitors;
registered foreign lawyer" means a person who is registered under section (Foreign lawyers: recognised bodies and partnerships) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990".
30I. In paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (which extends the offence in section 42(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 of seeking employment whilst struck off or suspended to employment by an incorporated practice) for the words "Section 42(1)" there shall be substituted "Section 42(1) and (1A)".
30J. In paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 to that Act (incorporated practices)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for the words from "section" to "and (8))" there shall be substituted "Schedule 1A of the Act of 1974 (except paragraphs 5(1) and 9"; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), for the words "section 44A(1) (a)" there shall be substituted "paragraph 2(1) (a) of Schedule 1A to the Act of 1974".

30K. In Schedule 2 to that Act (incorporated practices), in paragraph 18 the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted after sub-paragraph (2)—
"(2A) Where, on the hearing of any application or complaint made to it under this Schedule, the Tribunal is satisfied that more than one allegation is proved against the recognised body to whom the application or complaint relates, it may impose a separate penalty (by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) (b)) with respect to each such allegation."
30L. In Schedule 6 to that Act (incorporated licensed conveyancers) the following shall be substituted for paragraph 4(3)—
"(3) Where it appears to the Council that the professional services provided by a recognised body in connection with any matter in which that body has been instructed by a client have, in any respect, not been of the quality which it is reasonable to expect of that body, the Council may take any step with respect to that recognised body as it could take under paragraphs 14 to 20 of Schedule (Licensed conveyancers) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 with respect to a licensed conveyancer in similar circumstances.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 258. This amendment brings together a number of miscellaneous and consequential amendments moved during the Commons Committee and Report stages. All except the first paragraph concern amendments which have been considered in earlier groups. Paragraph 30E breaks the link between Crown prosecutors and solicitors in relation to rights of audience in the Crown Court.
Section 4 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 currently gives Crown prosecutors the rights of audience enjoyed by solicitors holding practising certificates together with such extended rights of audience as may be conferred by the Lord Chancellor by directions similar to those that he can make in respect of solicitors under Section 83 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. It is clear that this provision cannot stand in its present form as under the framework in the Bill different categories of solicitors may, in the future, obtain different rights of audience, thus ending the present uniformity. The amendment preserves Crown prosecutors' current rights of audience while also providing for them to be varied.

1507
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 258.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, may wonder, as I do, how subsection (3) of the amendment will operate. I would not have expected it to be written into the provision but I would have hoped that my noble and learned friend could let us know whether the power he is given to direct that Crown prosecutors may have rights of audience in particular Crown Courts will be exercised after consultation with professional bodies, including the Law Society, the Bar Council and perhaps the Criminal Bar Association and the leaders of the circuits. It would be highly desirable for there to be such consultation before there is an extension of the rights of appearance of Crown prosecutors.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I presume that the provision relates only to certain inaccessible Crown Courts. If the noble and learned Lord agrees with that, the consultation which is set out in subsection (3E) is sufficient.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this matter is similar to what we discussed in some detail on the basis of questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, in an earlier debate. The House will remember that Section 4 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 gave wide powers for the Lord Chancellor to vary rights of audience. I took the view that these ought to be used only in relation to restricted types of case but the wording permitted a wider view to be taken. I agreed to modification. This represents that modification. The important point, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, has pointed out, is that any exercise by the Lord Chancellor of his powers would be with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and indeed all four designated judges. The purpose would be simply to deal with, I would not say a little local difficulty, but something of that kind.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
259 Page 125, line 36, at end insert:
'The Legal Aid Act 1988 (c.34)
30M. The Legal Aid Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
30N. The following entries shall be inserted in the appropriate places in section 43 (definitions)—
"'authorised body' has the meaning assigned by section 92(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;"
" 'legal representative' means an authorised advocate or authorised litigator, as defined by section 92(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;".
30P.—(1) In section 2(6), for the words "is only by persons who are solicitors or barristers" there shall be substituted "shall only be by legal representatives".
(2) For section 2(7) there shall be substituted—
"(7) Subject to section (Representation under the Legal Aid Act 1988) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, regulations—

(a) may prescribe the circumstances in which representation shall be only by one legal representative and may require him to be from a prescribed category;

(b) may regulate representation by more than one legal representative from any one or more prescribed categories.

(7A) If it is satisfied that the circumstances of a particular case in the Supreme Court or the House of Lords warrant a direction under this subsection, the Board or, in the case of criminal proceedings the competent authority may direct that representation in that case shall be by one legal representative.
(7B) In subsection (7A), 'competent authority' shall be construed in accordance with section 20.".
(3) In section 10, in subsections (1) (b) and (3) (a), for the word "counsel" in each place where it occurs, there shall be substituted "an additional legal representative".
(4) In section 15(6), for the words "solicitor for acting for him and to pay any fees of counsel for so acting" there shall be substituted "legal representative".
(5) In section 26(2), for the words "same as the solicitor" there shall be substituted "one".
30Q.—(1) In section 31—

(a) in subsection (1) (a), for the words "counsel, solicitor" there shall be substituted "the legal representative";

(b) in subsection (2), for the words "solicitor shall be treated as having paid counsel's fees" there shall be substituted "legal representative shall be treated as having paid the fees of any additional legal representative instructed by him".

(2) In section 32—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words from "select" to "willing" there shall be substituted "select the legal representative to advise, assist or act for him from among the legal representatives willing";

(b) in subsection (2), for the words from "a solicitor or" to the end there shall be substituted "one or more legal representatives or direct that he may only select a legal representative from among those with whom such a contract subsists.";

(c) in subsection (8), for the words "solicitor or counsel or solicitor and counsel" there shall be substituted "one or more legal representatives";

(d) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection 9—

"(9) None of the following persons may be selected or assigned under this section—

(a) a solicitor who is for the time being excluded from legal aid work under section 47(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974 (powers of Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal);

(b) a barrister excluded from such work under section 42 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (exclusion of barristers from legal aid work);

(c) any other legal representative excluded from such work for disciplinary reasons by an authorised body.".

30R.—(1) For the words—

(a) "counsel or a solicitor" in each place where they occur in sections 14(3), 31(1) (a) and 38(6); and

(b) "solicitor or counsel" in the first place whether they occur in section 32(6),

there shall be substituted "a legal representative".
(2) In sections 16(8), 32(10) and 34(8) (b), for the word "solicitor's" in each place where it occurs, there shall be substituted "legal representative's".
(3) For the words—

(a) "solicitor or counsel" in sections 2(4), 16(9), 32(3) and 32(6);

(b) "counsel or solicitor" in sections 25(2) and 32(5);

(c) "solicitor and counsel" in sections 31(2);

(d) "solicitor or his firm" in section 10(3),

in each of the remaining places where they occur, there shall be substituted "legal representative".
(4) In each of the remaining places where it occurs in sections 9(5), 9(6), 9(7), 10(1), 11(2), 11(3), 15(7), 15(8), 25(2), 26(2) and 32(10), for the word "solicitor" there shall be substituted "legal representative".
(5) For the words—

(a) "solicitors" in section 32(7);

(b) "solicitors and counsel" in section 34(2) (e);

(c) "barristers and solicitors" in section 34(9);

(d) "barristers or solicitors" in section 38(1) (f),

in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted "legal representatives".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 259. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 75.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 259.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
260 Schedule 15, page 125, line 38, at end insert:
'Discrimination by, or in relation to, barristers
1A. Nothing in section (Discrimination by, or in relation to, barristers) shall have effect in relation to anything done before the date on which that section came into force in relation to a pupillage or tenancy which began before that date.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 260. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 115.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 260.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
261 Page 126, line 35, leave out paragraphs 4 and 5.
262 Page 127, line 5, at end insert:
'Judicial oaths
.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies in relation to any person who, immediately after the coming into force of section (Judicial Oaths), holds any of the offices listed in subsection (1) of that section.
(2) The Promissory Oaths Act 1868 shall have effect as if in section 6 for the words "as soon as may be after his acceptance of office" there were substituted "not later than 6 months after the coming into force of section (Judicial Oaths) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 261 and 262. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 121.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 261 and 262. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
263 Page 127, line 50, at end insert:
'Overseas solicitors
10A.—(1) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of section 4 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (under which the Overseas Solicitors (Admission) Order 1964 has effect) training regulations made under section 2 of that Act may contain provisions expressed to have effect in relation to territories listed in Schedule 1 to that Order.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) is without prejudice to the power in section 2(3) (d) of that Act to make different provision for different classes of person and different circumstances.
(3) Sub-paragraph (1) shall cease to have effect on the coming into force of any such training regulations which contain provisions applying in relation to any territory—

(a) which is listed in the Order of 1964; but

(b) which is identified in the regulations otherwise than by reference to that list.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 263. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 39.
1510
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 263.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
264 Page 128, line 10, at end insert:
'Notaries
.—(1) Subsection (2) of section (Notaries) and the repeal by this Act of the provisions relating to the serving of apprenticeships mentioned in subsection (3) of that section shall not have effect in relation to any person who, at the date on which subsection (2) of that section comes into force, is serving such an apprenticeship.
(2) The Master of the Faculties may make rules providing—

(a) for a reduction in the period of apprenticeship of any person to whom this paragraph applies with a view to securing that no such person is required to undertake a period of training longer than the period which he would have been required to undertake, by virtue of rules made by the Master, had he started his training after the commencement of subsection (2) of section (Notaries); or

(b) for all such apprenticeships to be brought to an end on such day as may be prescribed.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 264. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 110.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 264.—(The Lord Chancellor.).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
265 Page 128, line 10, at end insert:
'Redress for inadequate professional services
11A. Section (Redress for inadequate professional services) and the repeal by Schedule 16 of—

(a) section 44A of the Solicitors Act 1974;

(b) section 47A of that Act; and

(c) paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985,

shall not affect any case in which the final bill of costs was delivered to the client concerned before the commencement of section (Redress for inadequate professional services) or those repeals.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 265. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 138.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 265.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
266 Page 128, line 10, at end insert:
'The Council for Licensed Conveyancers
.—(1) The following provisions—

(a) section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers);

(b) the repeal by Schedule 16 of section 26(3) of the Administration of Justice Act 1985; and

(c) paragraph 30L of Schedule 14,

shall not affect any case in which the final bill of costs was delivered to the client concerned before the commencement of section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers).
(2) Until such date as may be specified by order made by the Lord Chancellor, the provisions of—

(a) paragraphs 14 to 20 of Schedule (Licensed conveyancers); and

1511

(b) paragraph 4(3) and (3A) of Schedule 6 to the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (as substituted by paragraph 30L of Schedule 14),

shall have effect as if they conferred powers on the Discipline and Appeals Committee and not on the Council for Licensed Conveyancers.
(3) Any order made by the Lord Chancellor under sub-paragraph (2) may make such transitional, consequential or supplemental provision as he thinks necessary or expedient in consequence of the transfer of jurisdiction under the provisions in question from the Discipline and Appeals Committee to the Council.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 266. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 106.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 266.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
267 Page 128, line 10, at end insert:
'Immunity of magistrates etc.
.—(1) The Justices of the Peace Act 1979 shall continue to apply in relation to any matter arising before the coming into force of section 89, in connection with the exercise or purported exercise of his office by a justice of the peace, as if section 89 had not been enacted.
(2) The Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 shall continue to apply in relation to any matter arising before the coming into force of section 90, in connection with the exercise or purported exercise of his office by a resident magistrate or justice of the peace, as if section 90 had not been enacted.
(3) Section 63 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 shall continue to apply in relation to any matter arising before the coming into force of section 90, in connection with the exercise or purported exercise of his office by a person to whom this sub-paragraph applies, as if section 90 had not been enacted.
(4) Sub-paragraph (3) applies to—

(a) a resident magistrate, including a deputy resident magistrate;

(b) a justice of the peace; and

(c) a person specified in section 63(7) of the Act of 1985 (county court judges sitting in connection with certain appeals and members of juvenile court panels).'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 267. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 149.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 267.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
268 Page 128, leave out lines 11 to 14.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 268. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 152.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 268.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
269 Schedule 16, page 128, line 22, column 3, leave out 'Section 10' and insert:

'In section 1, the words "in manner hereinafter directed".

Sections 2 to 5. Sections 7 to 10.'

270Page 128, line 25, at end insert:

'3 & 4 Will 4 c. 70.

The Public Notaries Act 1833.

The whole Act.

6 & 7 Vict c. 90.

The Public Notaries Act 1843.

Sections 1 to 3. In section 6, the words "nor any service under this Act". Section 9.

In section 10, the words "and also in the Public Notaries Act 1833".'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 269 and 270. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 110.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 269 and 270. —(The Lord Chancellor.).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
271 Page 128, line 26, column 3, leave out 'Section 8' and insert `The whole Act.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 271. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 187.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 271.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
272 Page 128, line 39, at end insert:

'4 & 5 Geo 5 c. 91.

The Welsh Church Act 1914.

Section 37.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 272. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 110.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 272.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, if I may be allowed to interrupt, I have noticed that all the rest of the amendments are repeal amendments. I cannot believe there is anything to be said about any of them by anybody. Could they not be taken en bloc?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am delighted to accept that suggestion from the noble Lord. Let us see just how far we can go.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
273 Page 129, line 5, at end insert:

'4 & 5 Eliz. 2 c. 46.

The Administration of Justice Act 1956.

Section 37. Section 53'.

274 Page 129, line 17, at end insert:

'1969 c. 54.

The Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

In section 16(3), the words from "and the justice" to the end.'.

275 Page 129, line 17, at end insert:

'1969 c. 58.

The Administration of Justice Act 1969.

Section 29.'.

276 Page 129, line 20, column 3, at beginning insert:

'Section 17(6).'.

277 Page 129, line 31, column 3, at end insert:

'section 4.

section 5.'.

277 Page 129, line 31, column 3, at end insert:

'section 4.

section 5.'.

278 Page 129, line 31, column 3, at end insert:
'In Section 7(a), the words "or a judge acting for him under section 3(2).".'.
279 Page 129, line 38, column 3, at end insert:

'section 44A.'.

280 Page 129, line 40, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 43 and insert 'section 47A.'.
281 Page 129, line 45, column 3, at end insert:

'In Schedule 3.paragraph 7'

282 Page 129, line 45, at end insert:

'1975c. 14

The Social Security Act 1975

In Schedule 10, paragraph 1A(8).'.

283 Page 130, line 2, at beginning insert:

'1978c. 22

The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978.

Section 16(7).

Section 17(2).

Section 23(1).

Section 24.

Section 30(2)to(4).'.

284 Page 130, line 2, column 3, at beginning insert:

'Section 31(4)(b).'.,

285 Page 130, line 7, column 3, at end insert:
'In secion 53(1), the words "and of section 54 below".'.
286 Page 130, line 8, at end insert:

'1980c.30.

The Social Security Act 1980.

Section 13(4).'.

287 Page 130, line 8, at end insert:

'1980c.43.

The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

Section 65(1)(k).'.

288 Page 130, line 31, column 3, at end insert:

'Section 94.

Section 100(5).

Section 101(2).

Section 102(6)

Section 103(6).'.

289 Page 130, line 32, column 3, at beginning insert:

Section 10.'.

290 Page 130, line 42, column 3, at end insert:

'In Section 60, subsection (1), and in subsection(2) the words "not being a person entitled to address the court by virtue of subsection (1)" and "as if he were a person so entitled.".'.

291 Page 130, line 47, column 3, leave out ' "them" ' and insert ' "and prescribing" '.
292 Page 130, line 48, column 3, at end insert 'Section 105'.
293 Page 130, line 50, column 3, at end insert:

'Section 143(2).'.

294 Page 130, line 57, at end insert:

'1985 c.23

The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

Section 4(5). In section15(1), the definition of "solicitor", and the word "and" immediately preceding it.'.

295 Page 131, line 2, column 3, at beginning insert:

'Section 1.

Section 3.

In Section 9(8) the second "and". Section 26(3).'.

296 Page 131, line 3, column 3, at end insert:

'In Schedule 1,

paragraphs 4 and 11,

297 Page 131, line 4, column 3, leave out from '2' to end of line 10 and insert 'paragraph 4(2) (b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it and paragraphs 8, 15 and I9.'.
298 Page 131, line 10, column 3, at end insert:

'In Schedule 3,paragraph 8.'.

299 Page 131. line 11, column 3, at end insert:

'and in paragraph 5 the words "or under Section 47A".

300 Page 131, line 29, column 3, at beginning insert:

'and in paragraph 5 the words "or under Section 47A".

'In section 27(1), the words "or other person" and the words "or person".
'In section 42(1), the word "or" immediately preceding paragraph (b) and in paragraph (b) the word "other".'

'In section 42(1), the word "or" immediately preceding paragraph (b) and in paragraph (b) the word "other".'

301 Page 131, line 31, column 3, at beginning insert:

'In section 108(12),in the entry relating to Schedule 14,the word "18".

'In Schedule3,paragraph 7.'.

302 Page 131, line 38, column 3, at beginning insert:

'In Schedule 12,paragraph 25.'.

303 Page 131, line 39, column 3, leave out 'and 25' and insert:

'25 and 40.

In Schedule 14, in paragraph 15(1), the word "or" immediately preceding paragraph(g)

304 In the Title, line 13, leave out 'to amend the law relating to the limitation of actions;'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move the remaining amendments, Nos. 273 to 304, en bloc at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. The noble Lord has mentioned Amendment No. 292. That is a repeal amendment and I understood that the noble Lord wished to deal with all the amendments, including that one, when he talked of repeal amendments, and I will accede to that.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, very well.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments formally.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 273 to 304.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has been on or at the Woolsack for nearly seven and a half hours. I think that is something that has to go into the Guinness Book of Records. I should merely like to add that I greatly admire him for his endurance and that I am grateful to him for his attention.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, from these Benches I echo those remarks. The noble and learned Lord has, as always, shown great courtesy, great patience and great skill.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like to echo those sentiments, if I may. Perhaps I should add that the noble and learned Lord has sat on the Woolsack for 10 hours at one go and therefore this is not a record. I feel that I have made at least one contribution to altering the whole constitutional principle of going through amendments one by one.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton and to then
1516
noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, for the kind things they have said. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, for allowing me to take what was perhaps a slight short cut. I did not wish to do it off my own bat but I very much welcomed the suggestion when it came from somebody else. I did not wish to be accused of hurrying the matter unduly.
I should like to take the opportunity, since this is the last Question I shall put in relation to this Bill —at least I hope so—to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debates, both today and during the earlier stages. I believe the result is an even better Bill than the one which first arrived in your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 273 to 304.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten o'clock.

  CAMBODIA
  CAMBODIA
  STRATEGIC MINERAL STOCKPILE: DISPOSALS
  STRATEGIC MINERAL STOCKPILE: DISPOSALS
  ASYLUM SEEKERS: DETENTION
  ASYLUM SEEKERS: DETENTION
  Mr. HUSEYIN MAYBARSKAN
  Mr. HUSEYIN MAYBARSKAN
  SUPERCOMPUTING RESEARCH EXPENDITURE
  SUPERCOMPUTING RESEARCH EXPENDITURE
  REGISTERED UNEMPLOYED: FIGURES
  REGISTERED UNEMPLOYED: FIGURES