Sitting of 25 October 1990

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

    REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [24 October],
    That this House doth agree with Lords in their Amendment, to leave out Clause 6.
    Debate further adjourned till Tuesday 30 October.

    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],
    That the Bill be now considered.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 8 November.
    Mr. Speaker: As the four private Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, I propose to deal with them as a single group.

    VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 8 November.

    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [10 May],
    That the Bill he now read a Second time.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 8 November.

    KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 8 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the prospects for manufacturing output in 1990.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major): I shall be publishing a forecast of manufacturing output in 1990 with the autumn statement.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the Chancellor confirm that, according to his officials, the manufacturing side of the British economy is now in recession? Will the right hon. Gentleman also give up his previous habit of trying to alter the definitions of expressions such as "recession", renaming it "technical recession", which we understand is the current ministerial sales line, just as he has done with "inflation", renaming that "headline inflation", with "convergence of inflation" in the Madrid conditions becoming "divergence of disinflation"? Does he accept that what industry now wants from the Government is some leadership out of recession so that just entering the exchange rate mechanism is not seen as the answer, because on its own that can be no more than putting on a gas mask full of carbon monoxide?
    Mr. Major: I have rarely heard such a short point put at such length. I can certainly confirm that output is slowing and has been slowing over the past two or three months, as I have repeatedly said. Whether it is within the normal definition of "recession"—which is, of course, why my officials and subsequently I use that term—is a matter that we shall soon see. It is not entirely clear yet. It is conceivable that it is, but we must wait and see.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend remind the macho champions of manufacturing interests on the Opposition Benches—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that in the past decade, manufacturing output in Britain rose faster than in any other EEC country, according to OECD figures, and that during the period of the previous Labour Government, manufacturing output fell?
    Mr. Major: I can certainly confirm those OECD figures. I can also confirm that manufacturing investment has grown on an annual basis over the past decade, whereas that also fell during the period of the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Beith: Has the Chancellor noted the bleak report produced by the British chambers of commerce earlier this week? Recognising that the task of manufacturing industry will not be any easier in the early days of the ERM, will the right hon. Gentleman help it by seeing that we get more investment in skills and skill training and in transport for access to markets so that it can have some hope of increasing competitiveness?
    Mr. Major: I read that survey with some interest. It has, of course, been only a recent survey and has not yet passed through a complete economic cycle. There are signs that some of the observations in that survey were a little overdone, but we must wait and see what happens in the

    487
    next few months. It is certainly consistent with the slowing down in the economy that we are seeing. That is a necessary part of the cycle. It has been predicted, it is expected and it is here, and the sooner we have it, the sooner we shall be through it and back to low inflation and growth again.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that wage restraint is needed from the very top of industry, but that it is failing to give the right lead? If industry is to become profitable, it is no good having 6 per cent. wage increases in the German car industry while Rover and other workers are getting 13 per cent. That is the way to ruin and to losing jobs, not the way to prosperity.
    Mr. Major: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will recall that it was about a year ago, possibly in answer to one of his questions, that I first made the observation about pay affecting people at the top of industry as well as on the shop floor. That was true when we had that exchange a year ago, and it remains true today.

    Mortgage Repayments
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present number of people six to 12 months in arrears on their mortgage repayments.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): Figures published by the Council of Mortgage Lenders show that at end June 1990 there were 76,280 mortgage loans six to 12 months in arrears.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Is the Minister aware that in the past six months more than 400,000 people were two to three months in arrears and well over 14,000 had their homes repossessed? Does he think that his 1 per cent. cut in interest rates will make much of a dent in those figures?
    Mr. Maples: I am sure that any cut in interest rates will help people who, for that reason, are in trouble with their mortgages. While all of us feel a great deal of sympathy for people in difficulty with their mortgage payments, the problem should be kept in perspective. The level of repossessions in the year to 30 June was less than one third of 1 per cent. of all mortgages, and we should keep the problem in perspective.
    Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great tributes to the Government's economic performance has been that mortgages have been readily available to people at prices that they can afford, which has encouraged the responsibility of home ownership? Will he do what he can to use his good offices to encourage the building societies to help fund the excellent debt advice services currently run by the Advice Services Alliance?
    Mr. Maples: I shall take up my hon. Friend's second point first. As he probably knows, the Government already give a grant of £11 million to citizens advice bureaux. On his first point, it is worth recalling, when considering the figures, that during the past 11 years there have been 3·5 million additional home owners—more than ever before, and 3 million of whom have mortgages—and 900,000 additional mortgages have been taken out in the past two and a half years.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware of the number of people who, because they could not find rented
    488
    accommodation, decided to buy a house, and were actively encouraged to do so by the Government and building societies, but who now find themselves—certainly in the west midlands and my district—in tremendous difficulties? A number of my constituents face the repossession of their homes, with the local authorities not always being able to help. Is the Minister further aware that those and millions of other people who are just able to cope with paying their mortgages do not have the benefit of the tax havens mentioned in The Sunday Times last Sunday? When will that loophole be closed? Why is it that time and again the rich are rewarded with the advantages of loopholes that other people cannot use?
    Mr. Maples: If the hon. Gentleman is so worried about the unavailability of rented accommodation, perhaps he should not have had such a doctrinaire opposition to the various rent Acts and supported us when we tried to free that sector of the housing market. As for people having difficulties with their mortgages, as I said, that is certainly true and all hon. Members have a great deal of sympathy with such people. However, most arrears are sorted out and few short-term arrears turn into long-term arrears. The figures for repossession show that the total number of repossessions in the past 12 months has been 21,780, and in 1987 it was more, at 22,930. During the intervening period there have been nearly 1 million more mortgages. Perhaps the figures do not bear out what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend consider what the position would have been if interest rates had not gone up last year, when house prices were going up at a rate of 20 or 30 per cent., particularly in the south-east and south-west, and the first-time buyer was being completely taken out of the market? Has he noticed that during the past year, house prices, particularly for the first-time buyer, have gone down by 10 per cent. in those districts?
    Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. There was no way that house prices could continue to rise at the 20 per cent. a year at which they were rising, which was damaging for potential home owners. Some adjustment was long overdue.

    Child Poverty
    Mr. Leadbitter: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the Child Poverty Action Group to discuss the effects of the Government's policies on child poverty.
    Mr. Ted Garrett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the Child Poverty Action Group to discuss the effects of the Government's policies on child poverty.
    Mr. Major: I have not myself recently met representatives of the CPAG, although I am aware of their representations to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Will the Chancellor consider that between 1979 and 1987, 1·5 million more children were living in families on half the average income; and that from 1987 child benefit was frozen, so its value in real terms this year had fallen by £1·35? Has he got his priorities right,

    489
    taking into account the fact that people earning £70,000 a year have had tax cuts 200 times greater than families living on £5,000 a year?
    Mr. Major: There are two points in the hon. Gentleman's remarks to which I want to refer. It is relevant that the total amount of money now available for child benefit has risen from something under £2 billion 10 years ago to something over £4½ billion this year—a substantial amount.
    Of course, the missing element in the hon. Gentleman's equation about average income is important: the extent to which average incomes generally have risen dramatically and to which the impact of direct taxation has fallen correspondingly. On the greater level—this is what lies behind the hon. Gentleman's question about family benefits in total—expenditure has risen from well under £2 billion when we took office to well over £5 billion today.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is no longer acceptable to take tax from people who earn less than a third of the national average wage to give child benefit to the richest people in the country? How much money would be saved if only those earning under £20,000 a year received child benefit?
    Mr. Major: I cannot immediately give my hon. Friend an answer. It would certainly be a substantial amount, but child benefit is recognised as a universal benefit paid to the mother, and we have no intention of changing that arrangement.
    Mr. Boateng: Will the Chancellor explain how it is that a Government who purport to put the family at the heart of their policies have presided over an increase by more than a half of families living on or below the poverty line, who now number 6·2 million? How does that square with the party of the family? How does he explain a situation in which targeting the first-born is seen as some sort of a substitute for coherent family policy? There may be an historical precedent for that, but it did not do Pharaoh any good and it will not do the Prime Minister any either.
    Mr. Major: We return to the definitional point with which we commenced Question Time. What the hon. Gentleman refers to as the poverty line is the level at which social security benefits start. Because we have extended them much more dramatically than the previous Government, more people automatically fall within the statistics.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under the Conservatives payments to the family have risen by more than a quarter while under the previous Labour Government they fell by 8 per cent?
    Mr. Major: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, except that the figures are, I think, a little more favourable to the present Government than she said.

    Taxation
    Mr. Caborn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross earnings a married couple with one earner on average earnings, with two children, paid in tax, treating child benefit as negative income tax, in 1978–79 and in 1989–90.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): A one-earner couple, with two children, on average male earnings saw the proportion of gross earnings paid in income tax fall from 14·4 per cent. in 1978–79 to 12·3 per cent. in 1989–90.
    Mr. Caborn: I thank the Minister for that answer, but it would be good if he answered the question on the Order Paper. Does he agree that the information given by the Library shows clearly that in 1979 the tax referred to in the question that the Minister has not answered was 35·2 per cent. and is now 36·6 per cent. and that that represents for the average family an increase in taxation of £300 a year? Does not that underline what many are saying—that the Government are the Government of high taxation?
    Mr. Maude: I answered the hon. Gentleman's question. He may have asked the wrong question but I gave the right answer. The level of taxation for average households has fallen considerably. A further fact, of which he may not be aware but which is worth sharing with him, is that real net income for the average household has risen by 34 per cent.
    Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite massive reductions in income tax rates, we have seen over the past decade a massive increase in income tax yields? The top 10 per cent. of taxpayers now contribute nearly 30 per cent. of the yield as opposed to 24 per cent. when we came to power. That demonstrates that tax reductions help the country to find the money to spend on social services.
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend makes the point well. Very high tax rates provide no benefit at all for the country. They do not result in extra tax yields but drive successful people who are on high incomes overseas to be taxed elsewhere. That is of no benefit to anyone. The only other thing that they do is to appease socialist spite and envy.
    Mr. John Smith: The Minister must know that one person's tax dodge is another's tax burden. Is not it time that tax dodges by a wealthy minority, such as those publicised in The Sunday Times last Sunday, were brought to an end? That question was put to the Economic Secretary and, significantly, was not answered. Why do the Government permit the easy avoidance of tax by a wealthy few using offshore trusts while ordinary families have to pay every single penny that is imposed on them?
    Mr. Maude: The short point is that, above all, what creates tax avoidance and made the tax avoidance industry in the 1970s one of the most successful industries in the country is a high level of taxation and complicated tax laws. Of course, there may be a problem here and we are looking closely at it. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the right way to deal with such complicated international matters is to leap to instant conclusions, I am afraid that we part company with him.
    Mr. Conway: Is it the case that four out of five families with children of school age are direct tax payers? If that is so, will my hon. Friend tell the House how their family lot could possibly be improved by the high taxation policies of the Labour party?
    Mr. Maude: When a party proposes reckless increases in spending, as the Labour party has, the only ways in which that can he paid for is either by increasing taxation,

    491
    which would hit precisely the families to which my hon. Friend refers, or by borrowing. We all know the disastrous effects that that had in the 1970s.
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of non-oil gross domestic product he forecasts taxes and national insurance contributions will represent in 1990–91.
    Mr. Maude: My right hon. Friend will publish a forecast of tax receipts in the autumn statement.
    Mr. Michie: In view of the fact that last year, in 1989–90, the proportion of non-oil GDP taken in taxes and national insurance contributions was 36·75 per cent., which compares with 34 per cent. in 1978–79, whatever the Government say by huffing and puffing at the polls, will the Minister now admit that the Conservative party is the party of high taxation?
    Mr. Maude: That is an odd contention in view of the much lower levels of taxation that now prevail. The Government fund their spending honestly by taxation and not by borrowing. When the previous Labour Government left office they had a PSBR of no less than 5 per cent. of gross domestic product. We have chosen to reverse that and to raise honestly the money that the Government spend, by taxation. If Labour's tax regime had remained in force in the way that it was in 1979, the tax burden would now have increased by £12 billion a year.
    Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's promises on benefits and public spending mean that the proportion of taxation taken by any Labour Government would be vastly increased, to the detriment of ordinary taxpayers as well as the rich?
    Mr. Maude: That would be the inevitable consequence. Such reckless promises—of which the Labour Front Bench cannot even keep count—would have to be funded either by higher levels of taxation on everybody or by borrowing, which would be disastrous.
    Dr. Marek: The Financial Secretary is wrong if he believes that Labour is the party of low taxation—[Laughter.] Will he confirm that the percentage of GDP taken in taxation has been much higher during this Conservative Government's years in office compared with the halcyon days when Labour was in office—[Laughter.] Oh yes, the figures are there to prove that, and the Financial Secretary does the House no good by trying to deny them. When will he tighten up the offshore tax concessions that have proliferated during the past 10 years? When will he bring down taxation for the British people to what it was in the 1970s?
    Mr. Maude: It is good fun to be lectured by a member of the Labour Front Bench for being a party of high taxation, compared with the Labour party's wonderful history of low taxation—although under Labour taxation levels rose to 83 per cent. and 98 per cent. in the pound. If that is low taxation, thank heavens Labour never went in for high taxation.

    Government Expenditure
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for the share of gross domestic product to be taken by central Government expenditure.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): The forecast for the unadjusted ratio of general Government expenditure, excluding privatisation proceeds, to gross domestic product published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" is 39¾ per cent. The central Government component of that was 29¼ per cent. of gross domestic product.
    Mr. Carrington: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a substantial proportion of the gross domestic product taken by central Government is spent by local authorities, and that that spending has recently risen dramatically? Will he further confirm that it is an outrageous and unacceptable burden on ordinary people, which must not be allowed to continue?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. Local authorities in England this year increased their current spending by 13¼ per cent. That is quite unjustified. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made it clear that the Government intend to make vigorous use of their community charge capping powers if that continues.
    My hon. Friend will be aware that we have introduced a new local authority capital finance regime, which we believe will help to deal with the problem of overspending on capital. My hon. Friend was right to say that it is a serious problem.
    Mr. Douglas: To meet that expenditure, what percentage of revenue does the Minister expect to come from oil revenues? As there has been a dramatic rise in the price per barrel—it is touching $40—can we expect an increase in revenue that might, perhaps, touch £5 billion?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman takes a special interest in energy matters, so he will be aware that the revenue from North sea oil is a small proportion of total tax revenue. I speak from memory, but I think that it is about 2 or 3 per cent. The level of oil revenue would be affected if there were to be a sharp rise in the oil price, but it would not have a significant effect on total tax revenue.

    Inflation
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of inflation.
    Mr. Major: I expect there to be a substantial reduction over the coming year.
    Mr. MacKay: As there is a clear need for pay restraint, does my right hon. Friend agree that those chairmen and chief executives of major companies who received highly publicised and spectacular pay rises last year—which, by and large, were supported because they were linked to increased profits—must equally accept reductions in their salaries this year, which should be equally spectacular if their profits are suitably reduced?
    Mr. Major: As I said earlier, if there is a need for wage restraint throughout industry to ensure greater competitiveness, it must apply at the top as well as at the bottom. I am happy to reiterate that.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Does the Chancellor realise that we are now two years into the counter-inflationary strategy of relying on high interest rates? Does he realise that, by increasing the retail prices index—which is what high interest rates have done, through mortgage interest rates, quite apart from the other factors—the Government are now relying on exhortation, and that exhortation will not be enough as the RPI rises?
    Mr. Major: The right hon. Gentleman makes a better case against the way in which we measure prices than against the policy that will bring inflation down.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most sensitive guides to the direction that inflation is taking is not the latest RPI figure but the movement of monetary aggregates? Will he confirm that there has been a steady decline in monetary aggregates over the past six months—particularly in MO but also in M4? Does he agree that that is a good sign that he has got inflation under control and that the Government's policies are working at last?
    Mr. Major: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend's view. The reduction in MO has occurred over the past six months or so and the reduction in broad money has continued throughout this year in each and every month since January.
    Mr. Flannery: Like his predecessor, the Chancellor is constantly explaining to us that he is trying to bring down the rate of inflation. Why does he talk as though it was an act of God that caused inflation? Why does not he admit that the Government did it? Why is it that, with the bonus of North sea oil, which no other country in Europe has enjoyed, our inflation rate is higher than those of our European counterparts—in some cases twice as high?
    Mr. Major: At no stage have I placed the blame where the hon. Gentleman suggests I have. The problem that created inflation was excessive demand, as I have repeatedly stated. That is accepted by commentators and it is broadly accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. As a result of monetary policy, demand is falling away, and inflation will come down as well.

    Investment
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss levels of investment.
    Mr. Maples: My right hon. Friend meets the Governor regularly and discusses a range of issues.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm not only that investment in this country has risen by 40 per cent. in the past three years but that in the past 10, investment in the United Kingdom has risen faster than in any other industrialised country except for Japan? Will he also confirm that, on current trends, investment in the United Kingdom economy in 1990 will be no less than 40 per cent. greater. in real terms, than it was in the so-called halcyon days of the previous Labour Government?
    Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend is right. Business investment in the past three years has risen by 44 per cent., and in the 1980s, it rose faster than in any other G7 country except Japan.
    Mr. Cousins: When the Minister meets the Governor of the Bank of England, will he be reinforcing the view of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that there is a deal-making culture in the City that hurts industry and investment?
    Mr. Maples: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: When my hon. Friend meets the Governor of the Bank of England, will he discuss with him the fact that the greater proportion of foreign investment coming into the EEC comes to Britain, as opposed to the continental countries?
    Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend is right. Under this Government and over the past 10 years, Britain has proved an extremely attractive place for foreign investment.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the effect of high interest rates on the level of unemployment.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the effect of low output growth in 1990 on the level of unemployment.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: A period of high interest rates and slow output growth is necessary to defeat inflation. The precise effect of this on unemployment depends crucially on whether wages growth slows as well.
    Mr. Thompson: Is the Minister aware that the principal reason for the present large number of bankruptcies is high interest rates? What words of comfort can he give to firms teetering on the brink of collapse?
    Mr. Lamont: As my right hon. Friend has repeatedly made clear, a slowdown is necessary so that we can get on top of inflation, and continuing high inflation would do immense damage to all companies, and it is essential for their prospects that we get inflation down.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Harry Cohen. Is he here? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] The hon. Gentleman may not have heard the whole answer, but he may ask his supplementary question.
    Mr. Cohen: Does the Minister believe that the rise in unemployment—by 36,000, in the south-east alone—is a sign of a successful economic policy? Will not unemployment increase enormously in the next two years as a result of the Government's policy of slowing down growth and output because they had overheated the economy in the first place?[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It was not too bad.
    Mr. Lamont: I was going to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his quick thinking, but he has merely repeated what he has said many times before. It is noticeable that this is the first time for many months that Opposition Members have mentioned unemployment. They never mentioned it when we had 36 months of a

    495
    continuing fall in unemployment. They never acknowledge that we still have unemployment which is below the European Community average, that we have a good rate of growth in jobs and that our record compares well with those of other countries and with that of the Labour party.
    Mr. Gale: Is not it as true now as it was under the previous Labour Administration that one man's pay increase is another man's price increase, that unearned pay increases are a major contributing factor to inflation, and that that is the real cause of unemployment?
    Mr. Lamont: It is certainly true that excessive wage claims have a considerable bearing on unemployment. They can cause unemployment, and the unions must judge that. I think that they have to stand by the results of their decisions. They are not my words, but those of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith).
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our successful trade figures for several months now give the lie to the fact that we have poor upward growth and demonstrate that successful British companies are doing well? Is not that reinforced by the fact that Norton is taking over a West German company, and does not it show that British industry should not be written off, as it is by the Opposition?
    Mr. Lamont: In recent months exports have been growing faster than imports, and last month's trade figures were the best for three years. The slowdown in the economy is having a beneficial effect on the current pound, as well as being designed to bring about a reduction in the rate of inflation.

    Inflation
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many countries in the European Economic Community currently have a higher inflation rate than the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Maples: Two, Sir.
    Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister accept that the so-called Madrid conditions are a sham, especially in view of the Government's failure to get the rate of inflation down before entry into the exchange rate mechanism, and that the Madrid conditions were all abandoned in time for the Tory party conference? Is not it true that Britain has one of the highest rates of inflation in Europe because the Government are totally inept at running the economy? Without sound policies on investment and training, entry into the ERM alone will not undo the damage caused by the Government.
    Mr. Maples: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have made it perfectly clear that the Madrid conditions have been fulfilled—[Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Maples: I am going to Madrid the weekend after next, but I am happy to say that unless the Madrid conditions have been framed and put in the Prado I shall not be paying them any attention on that visit.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that high interest rates are highly inflationary, that they are particularly damaging to investment and that they are very damaging to manufacturing industry, which in my view is the sole non-inflationary creation of a sound economy? What does my hon. Friend intend to do to help manufacturing industry, which is so important?
    Mr. Maples: We have a battle on our hands against inflation. Raising interest rates is an essential ingredient of that battle. The way that this country calculates the retail prices index considerably distorts the figure. The underlying rate of inflation in the United Kingdom is 8·3 per cent. which has to be compared with the European average of 5·4 per cent. If we look at the average over the past seven years, we find that inflation in the EEC was 5·1 per cent. and that in the United Kingdom it was 5·9 per cent. The difference, therefore, is not all that great.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister recall that recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer told Brian Walden that he wished the Government to be judged on their record? Since the Government's record shows that they invented the tax and price index and then abandoned it, returned to the retail prices index and abandoned that, too, and adopted the underlying rate of inflation and then redefined it, is there any significance in the Government ceasing to refer to the underlying rate of inflation, or is there no significance in anything that they say?
    Mr. Maples: Whatever problems we may have with inflation, there is nothing that we can learn from the Labour party—[Interruption.] The Opposition do not like this bit. When they were in office the average rate of inflation was 15·4 per cent. and the lowest was 7·9 per cent. The average rate of inflation under this Government has been 7·9 per cent. Our average, therefore, is the same as their lowest. Over the past six years, the underlying rate of inflation in Britain was 4·9 per cent. The lowest rate of inflation under Labour was 7·9 per cent., so there is nothing that we can learn from the Opposition.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What would be the effect on inflation of the 182 promises made by the Labour party in "Meet the Challenge: Make the Change"?
    Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The answer is that inflation would increase dramatically. During the past few years the Opposition have constantly told us to cut interest rates when that was inappropriate and to raise public expenditure. In the not-so-recent past they urged us to run a substantial public sector borrowing requirement. Had we taken any of those measures, inflation would be far worse than it is today.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet representatives from the Building Societies Association to discuss the current level of interest rates.
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary met the Building Societies Association yesterday to discuss a number of issues.
    Mr. Grant: Will the Minister confirm that he will have to reduce the mortgage interest rate by another 1 per cent. if the large number of people whose mortgages are

    497
    assessed annually are to have any serious relief? Will he also confirm that unless there is expenditure on research, development and the infrastructure, any benefits that might be created by a reduction in interest rates will he lost? Does the Minister acknowledge that it is the result of his Government's ineptitude that home owners have to bear these massive mortgage increases?
    Mr. Maude: On the first point, it is for the lenders to decide when and how to reduce mortgage interest rates for borrowers. As for any further reductions in interest rates—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Minister please carry on?
    Mr. Maude: I am not used to this degree of acclamation, but I think that I could get used to it. As for future cuts in interest rates, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, there will be no further cuts until it is safe to do so.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is noticeable that most of today's questions, such as this one, from the Opposition relate either to inflation or to interest rates but never to both? Will my hon. Friend confirm that whether one is inside or outside the exchange rate mechanism there is no soft option for curbing inflation and that it is dishonest of the Opposition to try to pretend that there is?
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is entirely right. If we want to cure inflation, there is no alternative to keeping interest rates as high as are needed, getting demand down and keeping a downward pressure on demand. In that way we will secure the reduction in inflation that is essential if we are to return to the periods of sustained growth that we saw during the 1980s. We are confident that the Government's tough policy of maintaining interest rates uncomfortably high is working and will show its reward next year in a substantial fall in inflation.

    Investment
    Mr. Morley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest OECD forecasts for investment growth in the United Kingdom and Germany in 1990.
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest OECD forecasts for investment growth in the United Kingdom and Germany in 1990.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Over the past five years, total United Kingdom investment has increased by 40 per cent. double the rate seen in Germany. The OECD's latest forecast for fixed investment in 1990 was for a fall of 0·5 per cent. in the United Kingdom and a rise of 6·8 per cent. in Germany.
    Mr. Morley: Does the Minister agree that it is a disgrace that we are bottom of the league in terms of manufacturing investment and that we are seeing a fall of 1 per cent. while other European countries, such as socialist France, are seeing an increase of 6·5 per cent. in manufacturing investment? What does he intend to do about that?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to my reply, which showed that our investment
    498
    record compares well with those of other countries in Europe. Britain has enjoyed an investment boom. Our investment record compares extremely well with that of Germany. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman raised in his question. but he failed to take in the answer.
    Ms. Armstrong: The Minister knows that our investment in manufacturing fell by 6 per cent. between the first and second quarters. Is he going to ensure that manufacturing investment and investment on the supply side are a central part of the strategy of ensuring that our economy and inflation improve over the next few years? Areas such as mine need more manufacturing investment. What is he going to do to support them?
    Mr. Lamont: Any slowdown in investment that is likely to happen as a result of the general slowdown in the economy happens from a high base. As I have explained to the House, we have enjoyed strong growth in investment—far stronger than many of our European competitors.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Brown: While welcoming the release of a number of hostages from Iraq earlier this week, may I ask my right hon. Friend to make it clear that the Government's and the world's determination to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait remains undiminished?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly respond to my hon. Friend. Of course, we are glad to see more hostages home. We are glad for them and their families. Their return brings to 900 the total number of British nationals who have come back from Iraq and Kuwait so far. We are particularly concerned about those who are left—some 1,400—who have been taken totally contrary to international law. They and their families are suffering and for that we should totally and utterly condemn Saddam Hussein. We stand unequivocally by the United Nations decision that the whole of the territory should be restored to Kuwait, Saddam Hussein must withdraw, the legitimate Government must be restored, the hostages should be released and compensation should be paid to the people of Kuwait for the terrible damage done to their territory.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister join me in offering unreserved praise for the humanitarian efforts of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), especially when there are common objectives on both sides of the House and the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken his successful efforts without giving any comfort to Saddam Hussein but giving unending comfort to sick people and their loved ones?
    The Prime Minister: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had already heard me do that. We welcome the return of the hostages whose release was secured by my

    499
    right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath): their release brings the total number of those who have returned from Baghdad and Kuwait to some 900. We very much regret that more than 1,400 people are still there, as I am sure my right hon. Friend does, too.
    Mr. Marlow: Popular attitudes and aspirations change. Wise political leaders like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister respond to those changes. In the 1970s, she encapsulated them; in the 1980s, she gave effect to them. What is her assessment, her perception, of the aspirations and attitudes of the British people for the 1990s? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It may take a little time, but let us hear the Prime Minister's reply.
    The Prime Minister: To continue to rise to the responsibilities of defending freedom staunchly, as we have always done in the past; to carry on with the pound sterling, and maintain the current Parliament's powers with regard to the economy and monetary policy; and to continue with policies that have resulted in the creation of more jobs, more wealth and a higher standard than ever before—policies that enabled us yesterday to announce the distribution of a further £5 billion to families with young children and old people.
    Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: What action does the Prime Minister propose to halt the destruction of our countryside—especially in areas of outstanding beauty such as the Vale of Glamorgan, where developers propose to build no fewer than six golf courses, four large hotels, three new town settlements and a racing track? This madness must stop.
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, that is a matter for the local planning authorities. As he is also aware, we must try to find a balance between the beauties of the countryside and the importance of providing jobs for the people.
    Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right to give every encouragement to the strengthening of the rural economy, so that we can maintain the social stability and the fabric of the countryside as we all know it? In that context, does she also agree that farmers—as the managers of the countryside—have a specific responsibility, and that they will be unable to undertake that responsibility if real reductions in their income result? I am thinking particularly of hill farmers, and those in the beef and sheep sectors.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the preservation of both the rural countryside and the rural economy is vital. Much of the landscape that we seek to conserve, however, was created by farmers in the first place. There is nothing contradictory about wanting both to conserve the environment and to look after farmers.
    I agree with my hon. Friend that it is particularly important to look after the fortunes of hill farmers, and we have tried to do that. We pay hill livestock compensatory allowances of more than £125 million a year, and our total
    500
    support for the sheep and beef sectors is running at about £750 million to £800 million this year, compared with about £450 million last year. We are trying to make up for the very difficult time that many farmers have had this year.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Prime Minister aware that the £5 per week increase in income support payments to care home residents announced yesterday will do nothing to stem the tide of closures and evictions that are affecting vast numbers of elderly and handicapped people? Is the right hon. Lady further aware that the safety net once provided by local council homes is no longer available to many of those people because they, too, have been closed as a consequence of Government policy? Has not the Government's exercise in free market community care been a disaster for vast numbers of elderly and disabled people, who are among the most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in society?
    The Prime Minister: Yesterday's announcement represents a £5 billion increase in all, which is a fantastic amount—made possible by the Government's successful economic policies. As to residential care, the Government are spending, through the taxpayer, £100 for every £1 spent under Labour.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Hicks: In acknowledging, rightly, that only three out of 10 absent fathers pay maintenance, does my right hon. Friend think it disgraceful that seven out of 10 absent parents, usually fathers, make no contribution to their children's welfare, and in so doing impose an intolerable financial burden on the state and cause untold misery for their neglected families? Although I welcome the forthcoming White Paper designed to overcome that problem, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the pressure groups that ask for legislation do not cause those proposals to be watered down?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Fathers may sometimes walk out on their families, but they must not be allowed to walk out on their financial responsibilities. If they do, conscientious families have to meet not only the cost of looking after their own children but of caring for the children of those who have walked out on their responsibilities. We shall not water down the White Paper. The people in question must make some proper payment towards the cost of caring for the children whom they left behind.
    Dr. Thomas: Does the Prime Minister intend to meet today the farmers from all over the United Kingdom who have come to London to lobby? That demonstration began in Llanrwst in my constituency. The right hon. Lady has already answered a question on agricultural policy, but does she understand that as long as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Government policy

    501
    support a 30 per cent. reduction in farm support in the GATT talks, that will undermine any Government proposals for saving agriculture in the hills?
    The Prime Minister: I have already indicated some of the help given to hill farmers. We acknowledge that it is vital that they should stay farming in the hills. In addition to the support that I earlier described, we recently announced a higher rate of suckler cow premium for hill producers. Next year, we shall pay a special supplement to hill sheep farmers. The 30 per cent. reduction in subsidy in the Uruguay round is effective from 1986, so it takes into account much that has already been done. I believe that the hon. Gentleman would agree that where heavy subsidies are given to small. inefficient farms on the continent, that undermines the opportunities for our larger family farmers to be efficient and to secure a larger market. It is important that they should have a better chance of being very efficient, so that they may enjoy a bigger share of the food market.
    Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to study the Audit Commission report on day surgeries? She will note that it clearly demonstrates disparities in efficiency between authorities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that organisations spending billions of pounds of public money have a duty not only to determine best practice but to implement it?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Audit Commission has done an extremely good job on the education and health services. The report that came out today is particularly interesting. It shows that different district health authorities vary very much in the efficiency with which they use their resources, particularly with regard to day surgery. It points out that if all health authorities brought their day surgery up to the level of the best 25 per cent., 186,000 more patients could be treated at no extra cost. That would help enormously to reduce waiting lists. It would not require any more money, just better use of the money that they already have. Indeed, we have already given a great deal more money to the health service. In the
    502
    past three years, it has gone up from £24 billion to £26 billion to £29 billion—far better than the Labour party achieved during its time in government.
    Mrs. Heal: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Heal: As the Prime Minister has said that there are incontestable signs that the economy is working in the way in which the Government intended it to, does she gain any satisfaction from the comprehensive report published this week by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce which shows that industries everywhere, including the west midlands, are already in severe recession?
    The Prime Minister: Where we had inflation in the economy—where the extra money supply was going not into extra growth but into extra prices—it was vital that we squeezed it out. The report from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce shows that we were entirely justified in reducing the interest rate from 15 per cent. to 14 per cent. at the precise time when we did, and I should have thought that Opposition Members would have had the integrity to admit it.
    Mr. Fry: Will my right hon. Friend turn her attention to the plight of British agriculture and agree that, basically, it is the fault of the monstrous common agricultural policy, which was devised and is administered by the Commission in Brussels? Is not it time to point out to Mr. Delors that his proposal earlier this week that the unelected Commission will take over all tax, environmental and employment law will be totally rejected by her Government?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food battles nobly for British farmers. We object to discrimination in favour of small farmers on the continent, for many of whom farming is not their livelihood, and against British farmers, who have family farms much bigger than those on the continent and a high standard of efficiency. Those with a high standard of efficiency should have a bigger share of the market for food, and therefore should get bigger and better incomes.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Yes, Sir. The business of the House will be as follows:

MONDAY 29 OCTOBER AND TUESDAY 30 OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill.

WEDNESDAY 31 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on noise abatement and the environment, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

THURSDAY 1 NOVEMBER—It will be proposed that the House will meet for prorogation.

The House may be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received, and any other business as necessary.

Dr. Cunningham: As the Prime Minister is always anxious to address the House on European Community matters, may we have an assurance that she will make a statement on her return from the European summit next week?
Will the Leader of the House respond to requests from all parts of the House for the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to be ready to make a statement to the House before prorogation if at any time there are major changes in the serious situation in the Gulf?
May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy on the report of the Cullen inquiry into the Piper Alpha tragedy in the North sea? As that report will have important lessons for not only that tragedy but the continuing safety of operations in the North sea, and as we understand that it is now in the hands of the Secretary of State for Energy, can we have an oral statement to the House before prorogation?
On Monday and Tuesday next week, the House is being asked to consider no fewer than 436 amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill. That alone shows the mess that that legislation is in following its consideration in the House and in the other place. Can we at least be assured that the House will have an early opportunity to vote on two important issues in it? First, I again invite the Leader of the House to ensure that we can have a free vote on the dog registration scheme, so that the real will of the House of Commons can be expressed. Secondly, can we have a convenient vote on the proposals for the Nature Conservancy Council, which are also controversial?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, as he knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister generally makes a statement to the House on her return from such meetings, but I shall bring his request to her attention.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House yesterday, but I understand why the hon. Gentleman remains concerned about the matter, and I shall bring his request to my right hon. Friend's attention.
The Cullen report on Piper Alpha is in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I
504
understand that it is a substantial document. My right hon. Friend is arranging for it to be published and will make a statement in due course.
The hon. Gentleman draws an uncharacteristically misguided conclusion from the fact that there are 436 amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill for consideration—[Interruption.] It is a lot, but the amendments show the extent to which the Government, in their consideration of this matter in another place, have been willing to respond sensibly to sensible discussions.
I agree that the two items to which the hon. Gentleman referred, particularly dog registration, require consideration. If the House is able to handle the rest of the legislation reasonably expeditiously, it is obviously desirable that those matters be considered at a reasonable hour. I think that that issue can best be discussed further through the usual channels.
Sir Ian Lloyd: In his significant evidence to the inquiry by the Select Committee on Procedure into the workings of the Select Committee system, my right hon. and learned Friend made the significant proposal that Select Committees should, wherever possible, attempt to reach a conclusion. In response, the Select Committee concluded that the subject of science and technology was too important a matter to be absent from the agenda of the House of Commons.
The Select Committee made the interesting proposal that two Members of the House should be added to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology and that that Committee should be made into a Joint Committee on that subject. How soon does my right hon. and learned Friend expect to respond to that extraordinarily interesting and important suggestion? How soon may we expect to debate this equally interesting report?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I must admit that I approach with some hesitation a question that starts from the premise that I have been giving significant evidence about something. I have noticed this proposal in the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, but I have not yet had time to study it. I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter, and I shall study the report with all the more care because of that.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Leader of the House ascertain whether there will be time next week for a debate on what appears to be a totally novel development in the management of the health service? Hospitals—the name of the one announced was Guy's hospital in Southwark—are now sending their nurses and doctors, who have been trained for and paid for here and have been engaged here, to work in hospitals abroad during their time of contract to the NHS. In that case, they are being sent to a military hospital in Saudi Arabia.
Secondly, as we now know that there will be an Adjournment debate on Wednesday on an environmental subject, will the Leader of the House tell us whether that betokens a welcome change, in that there will be a regular annual occasion, on a more formal basis, for proper debates on the state of the environment? Shall we not have to rely on the occasional allocation of spare time because such debates will be a built-in part of our agenda?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the first point, I am afraid that I cannot comment on the substance of what the hon. Gentleman says and I cannot offer him the prospect of a debate on that topic in the few days remaining of this Session. However, I will bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
On the environmental matter, the hon. Gentleman should be content to count his blessings for the week ahead; we can see how we get on thereafter.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. and learned Friend feel that there is a hope of having a debate next week on the plight of the hostages in the middle east? I have a constituent who is in that unfortunate position, and who is not a guest, but a hostage of Iraq. When I read in the papers that the French are sending mail through the diplomatic bag and are allowing families to telephone French hostages on a freephone service to Iraq, I wonder whet her we are doing sufficient. Can my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate on that matter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs making a statement on that and other matters yesterday. He will have told the House, as is the position, that the welfare of British people in Iraq and in Kuwait, as well as the welfare of those still held hostage in the near east, is one of his first and continuing concerns. One must recollect that the plight of the hostages in Iraq and in Kuwait is the consequence of the gross misbehaviour of the Government of Iraq. I will bring my hon. Friend's specific concern to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 1453, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan).
[That this House applauds the Right honourable Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for helping to secure the release of some British hostages from Iraq; calls on the Prime Minister to publicly thank and congratulate her Right honourable Friend; and urges her to maximise diplomatic pressure on the Iraqi authorities for the release of all hostages, of whatever nationality.]
If the Government had made official representations on behalf of the very sick and the aged, Mr. Ron Duffy might still be alive. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister whether she believes in the statement made by Winston Churchill many years ago:
"To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war"?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is difficult to dissent from the quotation rightly attributed to Winston Churchill. One of its consequences is that unprovoked naked aggression such as that committed by the Government of Iraq is wholly to be condemned by either standard. On early-day motion 1453, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his statement yesterday made it clear that we welcome the release of the British nationals who have been released, and we look for more.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Could we have a debate shortly about a daft EC draft directive on birds? For many years, those of us who live in the countryside have known that there are three kinds of
506
birds: protected birds, game birds and pests. As the Italians and the French slaughter all their birds indiscriminately in what the French call "la chasse", the EC directive will prevent us from culling pests such as wood pigeons in a sensible way. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure all those in the countryside that we take these matters seriously, that this is an issue where national sovereignty should be paramount and that we will not allow ourselves to be run over by yet another daft EC directive?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend may seek to draw constitutional implications that are a shade wider than is deserved by the ornithological subtleties which he is discussing. However, I shall bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that he has decided to close down Parliament for this Session five hours before I got No. 1 to the Home Office? Is he aware that the question asked for free television licences for all old-age pensioners? I have a suggestion for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He reckons that he has power, and he is supposed to be the deputy Prime Minister. Why does not he get the proposal into the next Queen's Speech? We will guarantee to support it and to get it through in 24 hours.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Had I known that we were closing the House down five hours before the hon. Gentleman had a question to pose, it would have enhanced my enthusiasm for that proposition; nevertheless, he has taken the opportunity to bring this issue to the attention of the House. The answer to his argument is a familiar one—that the cost of any such concession would have to be borne by other licence holders. That is one of the questions which is never addressed by those who advance the argument for free licences.
Mr. John Bowis: On the announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport about the central London rail study, will my right hon. and learned Friend invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to come forward shortly with proposals on the public transport element of the London assessment studies, so that London south of the river can benefit from the same increased investment in public transport which is now happily being given to London north of the river.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will bring my hon. Friend's point, understandably put forward on behalf of his constituents, to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I cannot promise that he will respond in the course of the next few days.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House please arrange for an early debate on the extortionate rates of interest charged by many licensed moneylenders? In the Leicester area, and no doubt in other parts of the country, interest rates are pushing towards an annual percentage rate of an incredible 2,000 per cent. Is he aware that those moneylenders batten on to the very poor, usually the unemployed, and always on to people who cannot get loans from banks or building societies? Will the Government deal with this disgrace at once, or at least allow the House to debate it?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. and learned Gentleman has done a modest service to the cause he advocates by publicising it in the House today. He will know that that matter has preoccupied Governments for many years. I was responsible for introducing the Consumer Credit Act as long ago as 1973. I shall bring his up-to-date concern to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Could we have a statement on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights that purports to set aside the British system of parole? Does that institution serve any useful purpose? It seems to meddle a lot in our domestic affairs. As we are not willing to concede sovereignty to the European Community, why should we concede it to a bunch of unelected foreign lawyers?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall of course arrange for the particular point raised by my hon. Friend to be studied by those responsible. My hon. Friend might recollect that the jurisdiction of the court and the commission was established in the early 1950s largely on the basis of proposals put forward by Her Majesty's Government as part of our determination to establish respect for human rights throughout the continent, which still remembered vividly the deprivation of those human rights following Nazi activity during the war.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Last week, the Leader of the House suggested that he would hasten slowly on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland. In the light of the Precedure Committee report published today, is there any justifiable reason for continuing a delay that has extended from 1978 when the then Procedure Committee recommended such a Select Committee?
If a Select Committee on Northern Ireland was set up, it would deliver a message from this House to those trying to detach Northern Ireland from the kingdom. That Select Committee could deal with those affairs of Northern Ireland that would never be under the scrutiny of a devolved administration in Northern Ireland.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House is always mindful of the points advanced by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland, not least in the light of yesterday's particular tragedies. I do not want to sound in any sense dismissive of their deep concern, but my recollection of the report of the Select Committee is that it concluded that now is not a sensible time to establish a Select Committee on Northern Ireland. That is the recommendation, so it does not induce me to take a different view. I shall, of course, study the matter with the care that it deserves.
Mr. Toby Jessel: On noise, and having asked for it exactly a week ago, may I warmly welcome the decision of the Government to hold a debate on it next Wednesday? However, although the lead Department in this matter is obviously the Department of the Environment, may I draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to the fact that a large proportion of the matter with which the report on noise deals is transport noise, whether from aircraft, helicopters, lorries or trains? Therefore, could he consider how to draw into the debate Ministers from the Department of Transport as well who might listen to the debate and take account of the wishes of the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that my hon. Friend, having had years of practice speaking under the flight paths from Heathrow, has developed a powerful noise-emitting organ on his own part. I will draw the point he makes to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport. I hope that my hon. Friend will not conclude from the speed with which I responded to his request that I shall always do so with similar speed in future.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House take note of early-day motion 1446, "Retention of the Multi-fibre Arrangement":
[That this House welcomes the lobby of the textile workers and expresses strong opposition to the Government policy of phasing out the Muliti-Fibre Arrangement from 1991 without any safeguards yet in place and without any transition period to ensure preservation of a strong textile industry; and reminds. the Government that child labour, absence of health and safety laws and trade union rights, dumping, outward processing and fraudulent trade marks are the hallmark of some areas of so-called competition, and that without proper safeguards there will be further catastrophic job losses, in an industry already struggling against high interest rates and an over-valued pound and more members of a skilled and dedicated work force will be thrown on the scrap-heap.]
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that all this week, a Trades Union Congress delegation is lobbying Members of Parliament because of great concern over the fact that the Government are now admitting that they are accepting Common Market policy to phase out the multi-fibre arrangement without any provision for safeguards through the general agreement on tariffs and trade and no phasing-out period to ensure that we develop a soundly-based, confident textile industry? Many jobs are threatened in the textile and clothing industry, including in my constituency, where 14,000 jobs depend directly on the textile industry. What action will the Government take to reassure the industry? Will they retain the multi-fibre arrangement, which has served the industry well in the past and is needed for confidence in the future?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman speaks as though there is something surprising in what he says. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that we are firmly committed to the Community policy of phasing out the M FA after the present extension expires next year. But it is also clear that that should take place as an essential part of the general strengthening of GATT rules and disciplines and the lowering of trade barriers generally, which are at the heart of the objectives of the Uruguay round. The Uruguay round is intended to promote trade opportunities generally, including for those in the third world for whom the hon. Gentleman sometimes seeks to speak. It must all be put in the proper context, and there is no surprise about the policy to which he draws attention.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for the earliest possible debate on the management of the commuter rail services in Network SouthEast because, despite the record levels of capital investment from the Government going into British Rail, it seems that the managers persist in producing ill-timed trains and bad timetables for my constituents and others in south-west London?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Patronage Secretary and I, who sit alongside each other on the Front Bench, both represent constituencies in the same region, and I do not think that either of us would wish completely to repudiate on behalf of our constituents the points made by my hon. Friend. I would not go further than that in accepting the points he makes, but I shall bring them to the attention of those responsible for the management of the railway system.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The Leader of the House will he mindful that, just before the recess, he placed in the Library the document on privatisation recommendations and consultative matters. He and others will be fully apprised of the difficulties concerning private Bills. They become quite an embarrassment sometimes, and there are illogicalities in the procedures, some of which are serious. For example, this week we had the Third Reading of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill at a time when the Queen's Speech is likely to announce enabling measures for privatisation. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman announce, now or next week, the extent to which progress is being made to achieve some changes in the privatisation proposals?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Two points are intermingled there. The privatisation proposals are a separate policy question, and the hon. Gentleman will have to await the Queen's Speech before he learns the Government's intentions in that respect. Private Bills are an important topic, the management of which has been preoccupying myself and others for some time. We are still considering the way in which we should proceed in the light of my consultation document, and I hope that we shall be able to get ahead with it as quickly as possible.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the number of deaths prevented by the wearing of seat belts has been remarkable. However, when cars are fitted with rear seat belts but those belts are not worn, more injuries are being caused to rear seat passengers. At present, the law says that only children must wear rear seat belts. Will he find time in the near future for a debate on the compulsory wearing of rear seat belts?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and see how far we can consider it in the light of what he said.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to come to the Chamber and make a statement before the House rises on women's refuges and the way in which the change in the benefit laws has put more and more women at risk from personal violence because they are unable to claim support from the Department without disclosing their whereabouts? Individual refuges are suffering as a consequence.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise an early debate on that topic, but I shall bring the point to the attention of my right hon. Friends. The hon. Lady may have the opportunity of raising the matter during the debate on the Queen's Speech.
Mr.Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. and learned Friend try
510
to arrange a debate on the textile industry? When the textile mills ran into difficulties in the north-west, the workers did not get lucrative redundancy payments and a job at another mill somewhere else, as the miners did in another pit, but had to work hard, and the survivors are doing well. They will continue to do well as long as there is fair trading and no dumping into the United Kingdom. Can we impress on the Government that, when the new arrangements are made, they should bear that aspect in mind? We are fighting for the future of an industry on which this country was founded.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I certainly need no reminding of the importance of the textile industry, and I fully understand my hon. Friend's point, which is in the Government's mind as they seek to promote liberal but fair trading conditions. I shall bring that point to my colleagues' attention.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Does the Leader of the House agree that the reason that not one Scottish Tory is present in the Chamber this afternoon is because they have read the second report of the Select Committee on Procedure and are too ashamed to come here and admit that it put the finger on them as being primarily responsible for the fact that there is no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in Scotland we face problems in the steel industry and damp housing, and that there is low morale in education, yet we continue to be denied a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, the legitimate instrument to bring the Government to account.
Will the right hon. Gentleman talk to the man next to him, the Patronage Secretary—the Chief Whip—get hurl to bend a few arms up a few Tory backs, and ensure that, when we go into the new Session, Scottish Tories face up to their responsibility to the Scottish people and provide us with the instrument of investigation that every English Department has?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has a total misunderstanding of the gentle techniques of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary. I notice that the Select Committee's report urges the Leader of the House to continue to search for a solution to that problem, and that reaching such a solution may require compromises on all sides. I have tried to achieve that in the past. There a re ample opportunities for important Scottish matters to be debated in the House in a number of ways.
Mr. Chris Butler: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the contribution that United States bases such as Burtonwood and Warrington make, both to local economies and Anglo-American relations. Will he find time next week to arrange a debate to discuss the impact were any of those bases to close?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government have already announced this year that a total of four United States' facilities in Britain have been or are being returned to the control of the Ministry of Defence, but no further changes have yet been decided. The Ministry of Defence is in close contact with the United States authorities over any possible future changes. I cannot go beyond that now, but I shall certainly bring my hon. Friend's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Ms. Joan Walley: In a week when House of Commons chefs walked out because of salmonella scares, will the Leader of the House say when he intends to find time to debate the way in which this place is run? Will he have some regard for health and safety issues? When he walks around the corridors—not the main ones, but those outside—will he look at the totally unacceptable standards of cleanliness in this building and come forward with real proposals for food nutrition and food handling standards, bearing in mind that many thousands of people use the facilities of the Palace of Westminster?
Finally, when will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bring forward proposals to remove Crown immunity from the Palace of Westminster?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am afraid that I did not hear every component of the hon. Lady's question; but on the general point that she made, I would not accept such a far-ranging and comprehensive condemnation of every aspect of the House or of every aspect of the catering system, but I would readily agree that there is substantial room for improvement in many respects. That is one of the reasons that has prompted the Commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker to invite Sir Robin Ibbs to prepare a report on improving the management of the House, and the Commission will, I hope, be considering that report shortly. The hon. Lady will find that it is directly related to some of the management issues with which she is concerned.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have an early statement on the finding by a judge in the High Court this week that the former Ealing Labour council acted improperly in 1987 when granting planning permission to a small sect for a mosque and town houses on an industrial estate in Northolt? Could that matter be brought to the attention of the House and properly debated, since the council acted improperly, in total disregard of the feelings of local people and industry and everyone concerned with the matter—and especially since not a single member of the sect lives in Northolt?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is second to none in bringing to the attention of the House the shortcomings of the formerly Labour-controlled council that covers his constituency. I could not possibly accede to every request that he makes for these matters to be debated here, but he may take some comfort from the fact that the electors in Ealing passed their own judgment on that council at the last election.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have another debate on the exchange rate mechanism? Is it true that the Governor of the Bank of England commissioned a report from the economics division of the bank into the appropriate rate of entry for sterling? Is it also true that an interim report was produced but that the Governor expected a figure to be submitted to him—a figure which was not submitted in time for the Chancellor's statement, so that there is now some confusion in the Bank of England about why its views and all the work that it has done on the matter were completely ignored by the Government? Does not that show that entry was a political decision taken irrespective of its economic consequences?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Nobody is more adept than the hon. Gentleman at launching into proceedings of this sort a whole series of allegations at a time when they cannot be assessed or responded to. He had the opportunity to raise these points when the Chancellor was answering questions earlier this afternoon, and he might have taken that chance.
Mr. David Sumberg: May we have a debate next week on airport security? I ask that in the light of the report in today'sManchester Evening News by the paper's reporter Peter Spencer that, on Tuesday, officials of the Department of Trade and Industry went to Manchester airport on an inspection visit and discovered a serious security breach which involved the carrying of a gun and explosives through the security area. Had the officials been terrorists, they would have been allowed to get on an aircraft. That is very worrying for my constituents who use this airport, so will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to refer the matter to the Secretary of State for Transport and to ask him to make an urgent statement in the House on the matter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise either a debate or a statement on the matter. Of course, it does need to be taken seriously, and I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the somewhat sleazy appointments by the Prime Minister of some of the trustees of the boards of the national institutions, and in view of the conviction of Gerald Ronson, when can the House have a statement on what the Prime Minister intends to do to get that gentleman off the board of the natural history museum, to which she appointed him?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer any comment on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the Arts is lurking around the premises and I shall draw it to his attention when he joins me on the Bench.
Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the concern expressed in the House about the possible effects of the proposed European directive on traffic in live animals for slaughter. When he is looking into the business for the next Session, will he be good enough to seek an opportunity for the House to debate that directive before it becomes a fait accompli? As Chairman of the Select Committee on the Televising of Proceedings of the House, will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for that debate to be held not at 3 o'clock in the morning, but in prime time?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I find it hard enough to manage the affairs of the House and fit them into the hours that are available for general purposes. If I had also to take into account the need to meet my hon. Friend's ambitions to get the best television coverage, my task would be even more difficult. I shall certainly bring my hon. Friend's general point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Ms. Harriet Harman: As it is now widely recognised that the victims of medical accidents get a raw deal in the courts system, may we have an early debate on the setting up of a no-fault compensation scheme so that money can go to the victims and not to the lawyers?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise a debate on that topic in the limited time available before the House is prorogued at the end of this Session. Of course, the hon. Lady will have many opportunities in future to draw the matter to the attention of the House.
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the prospect, and encourage a White Paper on the whole question, of economic and monetary union, and will he follow it with a debate? Does he agree that the idea that economic and monetary union attached to the principle of subsidiarity is a one-way ticket to a federal train and a central bank of the kind outlined not necessarily by Mr. Delors but by Mr. Christophersen in the European Commission?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Even given the relative simplicity of my hon. Friend's question, I would be unwise to attempt an answer during business questions.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does the Leader of the House recall that my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) and I went to Iraq last month on a peace mission? Therefore, may we have a debate on early-day motion 1453 so that the whole House may have an opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) on having the courage to follow in our footsteps and on helping to secure the release of some of the British hostages?
[That this House applauds the Right honourable Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for helping to secure the release of some British hostages from Iraq; calls on the Prime Minister to publicly thank and congratulate her Right honourable Friend; and urges her to maximise diplomatic pressure on the Iraqi authorities for the release of all hostages, of whatever nationality.]
Does the Leader of the House accept that the plight of the hostages is far too important simply to be left to a few Back Benchers and a former Prime Minister, and that it is up to the Government to accept their responsibilities and do everything possible to maximise the diplomatic pressure on Saddam Hussein for the release of all the hostages of whatever nationality, because he has no moral right and no right under international law to hold any of them?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hesitate to follow the hon. Gentleman into an assessment of the comparative courage of himself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). It is important that, on humanitarian grounds, we should welcome, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs did yesterday, the release of British nationals. That is welcomed by us all. I was glad that the hon. Gentleman went on to agree with the Government by saying that the fundamental cause of this problem is the brutal illegality of the action taken by the Government of Iraq. We must all continue to devote our united efforts to that issue.
Mr. David Trimble: I regret that there is no provision next week for a debate on security in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that statements of the sort that we had yesterday are unsatisfactory, not only because they involve invidious choices about which incident one responds to, but because the brief time available for discussion after such a
514
statement and the limited range of questions that can be asked do not allow for a proper exploration of all the issues. Will he arrange for a proper debate in which, perhaps, the Government could take some steps to resolve the constitutional uncertainty which is the root cause of the terrorism from which we suffer?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not begin to underestimate the importance of both aspects of the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall certainly remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of the continuing wish not just of those who represent that part of the United Kingdom to have the matter under continuous and serious scrutiny in the House.
Mr. Trimble: And properly discussed.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes, and properly discussed. Nevertheless, it must take its place among the many other matters for which the House is responsible. I understand why the hon. Gentleman feels that yesterday's statement and subsequent questions were not sufficient to exhaust the topic.
Mr. Trimble: It was scarcely enough to deal with the matter.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It represented what it was meant to represent—an instant response by the House and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the deep concern about those incidents. In fact, we accommodated the statement alongside two other statements in a very crowded parliamentary afternoon. That is a sign of the extent to which the House is concerned about the very points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I shall certainly bear in mind the way in which he put them.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: As it is generally accepted that lone parents have had a raw deal on income during recent years—not least because of the change in 1987 that made it more difficult for them to work and retain benefit—will the House give two cheers for the White Paper that is due to be published next week? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange for a statement on the day that it is published so that hon. Members will have an opportunity to question the Government about the proposed quango? The point must be made that, during the past seven years, the Government have cut by one third the number of staff in the "liable relative" section of local social security offices—yet the National Audit Office says that those staff made benefit savings for the taxpayer and gained extra benefits for parents totalling eight times as much as their wages. Are those savings from staff cuts now to be used to create another quango, while lone parents remain the losers? It is crucial that a statement is made, so that the issue can be clarified before we debate the White Paper.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Contrary to the impression given by the hon. Gentleman, Government policies have been directed towards the maintenance of and an improvement in the way that lone parents are treated. On a less contentious point, I welcome his two cheers for 'the prospective White Paper. I shall draw his request for a statement to accompany the publication of the White Paper to the attention of my right hon. Friend 'the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have an early debate on the enormous difference in constituency work load carried by individual Members? Some Members—they include some Conservative Members—are struggling with constituency caseloads that are actually breaking their backs, while for other Members—they are mostly on the Conservative Benches—the only problem appears to be working out which garden fete to open on a Saturday. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform the House of any other occupation that would have such a disparity in work loads, but still allocate exactly the same resources to each individual?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman so often raises a point that deserves reasonable consideration but overloads it with tendentious and critical points that devalue his contribution to the discussion. A maximum figure is set for office costs, allowances and other matters, and various Members take up that allowance to differing degrees. The House will no doubt have another opportunity, in due course, to consider the matter more widely.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Can we have an early statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the European Community's seventh directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund? I understand that the directive, which will come into force on 1 January 1981, contains a paragraph inserted by the European Commission to the effect that shipyard communities in what was the German Democratic Republic should be given additional financial aid. Although that aid should rightly and properly be given to those communities, there are shipbuilding communities on the Clyde, on Merseyside and elsewhere that require and demand the same sympathetic consideration by the European Community and the Government.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise a statement on that point, despite its importance to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Max Madden: May I join others in urging the Leader of the House to organise an early debate on the textile and clothing industry? A textile lobby consisting of textile workers from Yorkshire and other parts of the country has this week warned all hon. Members of the danger of recession returning to the industry, which is being crucified by high interest rates and unfair trade.
As the negotiations are being conducted by the EEC, it is only right that the House should give its advice to the negotiators concerning the vital importance of ensuring that proper safeguards are retained for the textile and clothing industry. I urge the Leader of the House to give proper prominence to the industry, which is the fourth largest manufacturing industry in Britain, as well as the fifth largest employer and one of our major exporters. Surely we deserve more than a half-hour Adjournment debate at the fag end of the Session, which is what we got last July. We need a full debate to ensure that Ministers stoop oozing complacency about the problems of the industry and do something to safeguard it.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no question of complacency about the problems and opportunities facing the textile industry. The House and the Government are
516
aware of its importance. The Government have made a substantial contribution to the formulation of Community policy on this matter. We are keeping a close eye on it in the management of the Uruguay round and we shall continue to do so. I shall see whether there is an opportunity, when the new Session begins, for a debate on the Floor of the House, although I can give no promise in that respect. The House should not underestimate the importance that the Government attach to the health and prosperity of the industry.
Mr. John McAllion: May we have an early debate on the Government's attitude to re-emerging trade unionism at GCHQ? The House needs to know whether the staff federation will be allowed to form links with other trade unions, whether the Government support the certification of the staff federation as an independent trade union and whether we are now witnessing the beginning of the end of the unjust, undemocratic and unjustifiable ban on trade unions at GCHQ.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is probably not possible to say much that is new about the topic to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. There are no formal links between the General Communications Staff Federation and any other trade union. It was made clear to the GCSF from the outset, by the management of GCHQ, that affiliation to any outside bodies was not acceptable, and that remains the position.
Mr. Harry Barnes: In view of the recent terrible events in Northern Ireland, may the House have an opportunity to pay tribute to those brave people in Northern Ireland who stand up for peace? I am referring to people such as Nancy Gracy, who runs a group that opposes intimidation and terrorism, and to those who are associated with the peace train that will be running from Portadown to Dublin this weekend.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment on the cases to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but the whole House has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to, and support of, those who are trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland in place of trouble, and takes with the utmost seriousness tragic disasters of the kind that happened yesterday.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Leader of the House assure us that there will be another full debate on the crisis in the Gulf and on the middle east before any decision is made by the Government to deploy troops against Iraq? Will he give us the opportunity to have a serious debate not only on the plight of hostages from Britain, France and other countries who are held in Iraq but on the plight of the Bangladeshi people in Jordan and in Turkey, where they are incarcerated in a camp? Will he also allow us a full discussion of the plight of the largest unrecognised nation in the region—the Kurdish people, who number 30 million and who have been abominably treated by Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria over the years?
It is important that we should recognise that peace in the region can come only when the rights of the Palestinian and Kurdish people, and the right to democracy in every country, are recognised. The deployment of troops will not solve the problem: it will merely delay its solution for much longer.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not mean to be frivolous, but the length of the hon. Gentleman's question almost amounts to a contribution to a debate on such a scale that we need not have the debate. There will he an opportunity during the debate on the Queen's Speech, when no doubt there will be a day devoted—in the ordinary way—to foreign affairs. I cannot make any promises beyond that. Of course, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will keep the House informed of developments, as he has done heretofore.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: We cannot wait for the Queen's Speech. When persons sitting on green Benches take decisions that will send young men and women to a war of doubtful outcome in deserts, should not there be an urgent, specific parliamentary debate? Does the Leader of the House realise that those of us who attended the Adjournment debate at 2.30 in the morning—heaven knows why a debate on hostages takes half an hour at 2.30 while we spend three hours on Redbridge market; what sort of priority is that—were absolutely chilled by the Minister of State's statement?
Before there is any sneering, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman noticed that, among the most cautious are the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who have distinguished—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It was very late at night, but we are not debating the matter again now. Could the hon. Member please ask a question?
Mr. Dalyell: Quite simply, unlike some hon. Members who have been rather casual about the military options, there are those of us who have been tank crew and worn the Queen's uniform. Are we to be dismissed? Are we not to have a parliamentary debate? It is a scandal.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must judge the extent to which we attach importance to Parliament's role in this matter by the fact that we arranged, to general welcome, a special debate during the recess on this important topic and that there was a long period devoted to a statement by the Foreign Secretary yesterday, which started off with a reaffirmation by the shadow Foreign Secretary of the essential unity of the position of both major parties on this matter.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Would the Leader of the House reflect upon the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) and note that today there has been a further insult to Scottish hon. Members: the Secretary of State making a statement on the testing of primary school pupils in Scotland and not to the House, in respose to a written question put by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)? I crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), because he has a feel for matters historical.
Could you—and perhaps the Leader of the House—in your procession through the House note that one disparaged leader of the Labour party, Ramsay MacDonald has been put on a pedestal in a place of prominence, whereas the bust of a revered and honoured leader of the Labour party, James Keir Hardie, is skulking about under a display cabinet? Is there any political significance in that denigration of Keir Hardie?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I fancy that the question extends beyond my responsibility in answering business questions. I hesitate to throw in the additional fact that Ramsay MacDonald, unlke Keir Hardie, for a time had the advantage of representing my home constituency of Aberavon and that may be the reason.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Could my right ho.. and learned Friend arrange for a statement at the earliest possible time next week on the all-day closure of the M1 last Tuesday due to a spillage of dangerous chemicals? The spillage seemed to display the inadequacy of the response by the authorities in providing for vehicles coming onto and getting off the motorway. The whole M1 was brought to a halt because they were ill prepared and there was no way for the public to know that the road was totally closed. It caused delays of seven, eight and nine hours to people who had no advance notice that they were going to be stuck on the motorway. No provision was made for them to exit at an earlier stage. I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend could arrange for such a statement next week on that matter and on the implications of potentially dangerous chemical transport in this country.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the matter is indeed on the scale suggested by my hon. Friend it certainly deserves to be brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I cannot promise a debate about it, but I can certainly bring the topic to his attention.

Business of the House
  BILLS PRESENTED
    COMPENSATION FOR MEDICAL INJURY
    Ms. Harriet Harman presented a Bill to provide that persons injured as a result of mishap during treatment by the National Health Service may be awarded compensation without having to prove negligence on the part of the National Health Service; to define eligibility for compensation; to establish a Medical Injury Compensation Board and to make other provision for the assessment of eligibility and payment of compensation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]
    LICENSING REFORM
    Mr. Anthony Coombs, supported by Mr. Denis Howell, Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Roger King, Mr. David Gilroy Bevan, Mr. John Bowis and Mr. Simon Burns, presented a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964 to make new provision with respect to licensing justices and to the grounds upon which applications for liquor licences may be refused; to require a statement of reasons for any refusal; to set a time limit on the consideration of applications; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 206.]
  BROADCASTING BILL

    [Ways and Means] (No. 2)
    Resolved,
    That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Broadcasting Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise the inclusion of—

    519
    (1) provisions by virtue of which holders of licences granted under the Act for the provision of Channel 3 or Channel 5 services may be required to make payments to the Independent Television Commission as contributions towards the expenses of the body nominated under the Act in connection with the maintenance of a national television archive;
    (2) provisions under which financial penalties imposed on bodies holding licences granted under the Act may be recovered from persons controlling such bodies, and provision for sums so recovered to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day

  Broadcasting Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Lords Amendments to the Broadcasting Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 22, 35, 46 to 48, 111, 399 to 406, 466 to 499, 1 to 21, 23 to 34, 36 to 45, 49 to 110, 112 to 398, 407 to 465 and 500 to 676.—[Mr. Chapman.]

  Broadcasting Bill
    Clause 6

      GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AS TO LICENSED SERVICES
      Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 6, line 38, at end insert—
      ("(4A) The rules specified in the code referred to in subsection (3) shall, in particular, take account of the following matters—

      (a) that due impartiality should be preserved on the part of the person providing a licensed service as respects major matters falling within subsection (1)(c) as well as matters falling within that provision taken as a whole; and

      (b) the need to determine what constitutes a series of programmes for the purposes of subsection (2).

      (4B) The rules so specified shall, in addition, indicate to such extent as the Commission consider appropriate—

      (a) what due impartiality does and does not require, either generally or in relation to particular circumstances;

      (b) the ways in which due impartiality may be achieved in connection with programmes of particular descriptions;

      (c) the period within which a programme should be included in a licensed service if its inclusion is intended to secure that due impartiality is achieved for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) in connection with that programme and any programme previously included in that service taken together; and

      (d) in relation to any inclusion in a licensed service of a series of programmes which is of a description specified in the rules—

      (i) that the dates and times of the other programmes comprised in the series should be announced at the time when the first programme so comprised is included in that service, or

      (ii) if that is not practicable, that advance notice should be given by other means of subsequent programmes so comprised which include material intended to secure, or assist in securing, that due impartiality is achieved in connection with the series as a whole;

      and those rules shall, in particular, indicate that due impartiality does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.")
      4.25 pm
      The Minister for the Arts (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords amendments: Nos. 15, 17 to 20, 135, 136, 170, 172, 174, 175, 252, 253, 255 and 257 to 260.
      Mr. Mellor: I should like to begin by saying that it is with a very real sense of loss that I record my deep regret at the passing of our late colleague Norman Buchan. I had a lot to do with Norman during my 10 years in the House.

      521
      On some occasions we agreed; on others we did not. However, I was never in any doubt about the calibre of the man and his commitment to a whole range of issues that were well worth being committed to—not least the arts. Even if one disagreed with him, one did so cordially and with humour, as was so evident in Committee. One could always have a chat outside the Committee Room with him in the utmost amity.
      I respected and liked Norman. I am deeply distressed that he is not with us today. Our debates will not be the same without him. It came as a shock to me yesterday to read of his passing. I am sure that the whole House joins me when I say that we feel a real sense of loss at his passing.
      If I may refer to another preliminary matter, this is the first group of amendments to be dealt with after the Bill's return to us from another place. About 700 amendments were made in the other place. l should like to express my gratitude to the Opposition for their co-operation in ensuring that we can manage the debates in a way that will allow any remaining controversial issues to be dealt with early. I am also grateful for the assistance given by all parties in the House, but particularly by the official Opposition, which has led to a grouping of the amendments that will, I hope, enable us to have sensible debates.
      I make no apology for the fact that there is a large number of amendments. We shall almost immediately discover that some are a little controversial, but most represent the Government giving effect to agreements reached in the Commons as a result of the open debate that we had. They also reflect our continuing commitment to listen to points made in debate. When, after debate, a point appears to have such force that it should not he impeded by Government obstruction, we have been only too willing to concede it. Lord Ferrers, the Minister of State, was particularly effective in conducting the Bill through the other place. He gave way gracefully and without ill will. I refer in particular to the moratorium on takeovers. We were able to meet what seemed to be the unanimous view on Second Reading in the other place that something ought to be done.
      A document extending to four and a half pages includes the changes that were made in the other place. Some of them reflect our willingness to recognise the strength of feeling in the Lords—for example, in relation to the disabled and the indexation of cash bids. All those changes make it a better Bill, as do a large number—I am sorry that it is such a large number—of technical amendments that reflect the continued combing through of the Bill by the draftsmen to ensure that any minor problems were ironed out. As we know, the odd injudicious comma or the wrong word, even if it does not amount to a matter of policy, can sometimes skew meaning in a way that raises problems later. Therefore, I apologise for burdening the House with so many amendments, but I believe that for the most part they are in a good cause.
      I shall deal immediately with a group of amendments that I suspect some will not think are in such a good cause. That controversial set of amendments relates to impartiality and it is right that they should be dealt with first. I shall set out my stall on the matter and then listen with care to what is said on both sides of the House and, I hope, respond later.
      Since the Bill left the House, not as much has changed as some contributors to the debate in the other place
      522
      suggested—and I suspect from the look of jovial good humour on the face of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) he might also want to suggest that there have been many changes.
      As a result of a small wobble over the word "current", the substantive law on impartiality in the Bill is precisely the same as it has been since 1954. That is important. We made one addition in the House in recognition of the fact that the Independent Broadcasting Authority is the broadcaster and the Independent Television Commission is the regulator. We added to the Bill a requirement for a code, making clear that the code was not one approved by Parliament because that would blur the arm's length relationship in regulations to which I and many others attach importance. The code will deal with what we know to be some of the problems. It is recognised that there were problems about what constitutes a series of programmes and about other aspects of the regulations. That will always be a difficult and sensitive area. That is why, to general acclamation—no one dissented—we made provision for a code. It will enable broadcasters to know where they stand because, if the regulators are to have the right to intervene, the broadcasters should know on what basis they may do so. Also, the public should know where they stand. All manner of folk, from time to time, take issue with what is contained in television programmes and it would probably assist if one had clear guidance as to what the ground rules were.
      4.30 pm
      I want to restate the principle with as much clarity as I can muster that it is the right of Parliament—it has been so for four decades—to insist that there is due impartiality on matters of current political or industrial controversy and so on. However, it is not for us to usurp the function of the regulators and state exactly what the detailed rules should be. We are not doing that in the amendments. I say that with sincerity amidst the mutterings of scepticism from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who has lifted his head from correcting the proofs of "War and Peace" or whatever he is doing. I had not expected that to be a universally acclaimed sentiment, although it is a true one.
      It was necessary—and it was welcomed—for the Government to take account of the strong expressions of view in the House during the passage of the Bill. It also seemed to be eminently right that we should take account of the strong expressions of view in the other place, although not to the extent—I make no apologies for this—of accepting the precise amendments tabled by the noble Lord Wyatt and others, but to recognise their concern. That concern has been reflected in an early-day motion in the House. There was concern that the rules would need to be clear after the Bill had finished in the House. However, insights come to people at many different times. St. Paul gained his insight rather late, so I dare say that everyone else is entitled to gain theirs rather late as well. But there was still time, and we considered it right to add to the Bill a series of points that the code should cover—points that I believe to be a matter of common sense.
      It is crucial for hon. Members to understand that we did not specify what the code should say about those points; we merely provided for the ITC, in drawing up its code, to take account of them. I still believe that that was a legitimate way of dealing with the sentiments that were

      523
      expressed so strongly in the other place, and that it does not blur the crucial matter of principle to which I have adhered throughout.
      I shall reserve my more detailed comments until later. Let me say now, however, that I was intrigued by the allegation made persistently in the other place and elsewhere that this would be a lawyers' picnic. As I have said before, I am well aware of—and subscribe to—Ogden Nash's view of professional men:
      "Professional people have no cares,
      Whatever happens, they get theirs."
      I am certainly not anxious that my former profession should benefit unduly from any act of generosity performed late in the day. Everyone can come to this party, with their lawyers; it is not only those who take exception to some of the legislation who will have the benefit of legal advice. We have the benefit of that advice, and so has the ITC.
      The Bill will not open the way for any legal challenge that is not in any case inherent in the concept of due impartiality, and the need for the regulatory body to flesh out a bare rule and make its own judgment about how that rule should be applied in complex and difficult circumstances. Provided that the ITC draws up its code in a reasonable manner, there will be no scope for judicial intervention or extensive litigation, because the normal rules of scrutiny will apply: a decision made by a public body cannot be overturned in the courts unless that body has acted unreasonably. It is no more likely that the ITC would act unreasonably when faced with a limited or skeleton framework for its code than that it would err in drawing up a code seeking to give effect to a basic principle that Parliament has set out for nearly 40 years.
      I place some reliance on that. In the other place, as one or two speakers in that debate pointed out, there was a tendency for arguments about the legalities of the matter to apply not so much to the limited amendments that the Government were seeking to make as to the whole principle of the due impartiality provision itself—which, as I said, has been part of our law for nearly 40 years. Someone who had arrived the previous day from Mars—or, in the case of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), from Australia or some equally far-flung place—would assume that the argument did not concern some minor adjustments to the code proposals; he would assume that exception was being taken to the very idea of a due impartiality provision. That was where many of the more telling—or, depending on one's view, not particularly telling—legal points took us.
      Let me state categorically that, if I thought for a moment that they would result in a legal picnic, I should not commend the amendments to the House; nor should I do so if I thought for a moment that they blurred the key distinction that strikes me as fundamental. Parliament has a right and a duty to prescribe due impartiality in what is still a relatively scarce service, in television. The concept of due impartiality does not exist in the written word, but I still believe that it is necessary to retain it in respect of the principal television services. It is right for us to tell those responsible that they should regulate that rule and, so that everyone knows where they stand, for there to be a code dealing with certain issues rather than avoiding them.
      However, it would be wrong to dictate the way in which those issues should be dealt with, and none of the amendments does so. That is the bedrock of principle on which they are founded.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan rose——
      Mr. Mellor: I was about to subside into my seat for good, but I shall do so only temporarily instead.
      Mr. Maclennan: I understand why the Minister prefers to reserve his detailed responses until a subsequent intervention. However, as he is advocating a change of considerable controversy and of great importance to broadcasters, as he admits, his initial speech should discharge the onus of proof for change—particularly as the Minister himself earlier made it abundantly clear that the thought that the language in use since 1954 is still adequate.
      What is the mischief? Are we speaking only of the views of Lord Wyatt and of one or two other rare birds in another place, or is there a more general problem? The number of complaints made about impartiality has been minuscule.
      Mr. Mellor: The Television Act 1954 prescribed the basic law, which will remain unchanged by the Bill, but instead of there being a bare requirement for a code—with which I should have been perfectly content, if it had been left to me—the question arose, as expressed in the concerns of their Lordships and in an early-day motion of this House, as to whether that bare requirement would of itself be adequate, and of whether we should perform the additional task of making it clear that the code dealt also with controversial areas.
      The amendment sets out several areas which some would argue any self-respecting code would anyway be bound to cover, and which the ITC of its own volition would have chosen to cover. I should have rested perfectly content with such a provision, but as their Lordships took the view that it would be possible to achieve a broader consensus, it seemed perfectly proper to flesh out the requirements for a code by setting out certain heads that it should cover.
      Such a provision could only distort the intentions of the 1954 Act if it added to the requirement for due impartiality that has always been part of the law since the creation of the independent television system. I can state categorically—and this is the belief also of the ITC—that it will not do so but will merely set out points that the ITC should take into account when drawing up its code. The amendment will not alter the substantive law but will introduce only an element of consolation for those concerned that the code might fall short in certain respects, that it will cover certain key areas. Nevertheless, the amendment does not dictate how the ITC should discharge that function.
      Despite some of the huff and puff that we have heard, a much more minor amendment would make people think. Just as I have given considerable thought to whether to advance the amendments—all of which passed through my office in their drafting—and to making sure that we did not blur the principle to which I attach importance, others should be certain that they are not—as appeared to be the case from one or two speeches in another place—arguing against the principle of due impartiality, or merely wanting a good old ding-dong about what is admittedly a highly attractive subject for a good old ding-dong, without relating it to the substance of the debate.
      The Government showed their good faith by reflecting on all those matters and tabling a draft amendment, albeit that it was found wanting in certain respects.
      Mr. Roy Hattersley: And sometimes described as defeated in Committee.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Mellor: No, it was not defeated. The right hon. Gentleman could not have been following the Bill's progress with his customary attention. The water was tested, and certain views were ex pressed that seemed to me appropriate to take into account. That was done, and a new draft emerged that was entirely satisfactory to the ITC. After all, it is that organisation that will have to perform the duty of regulation. The ITC would not have given its approval to the amendment if it achieved only one half or one quarter of the things that those who cannot reconcile themselves to the amendment say that it will. That is the case for the amendment, and I shall let it rest at that.
      Mr. Hattersley: I begin by thanking the Minister for the tribute that he paid to my late hon. Friend and colleague, Mr. Norman Buchan. Had he been with us today, Norman Buchan would have contributed to this debate with great passion and authority. We shall miss him for more than this afternoon, because he was a genuinely interesting man who took a real interest in a variety of matters in the House and outside it. I am grateful for the Minister's remarks. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends would want me to emphasise the great loss which we feel and which the Minister was kind enough to mention.
      It is difficult to follow the passion with which the Minister defended the proposed new clause. He proceeded with what is, in his new mood, his usual emollience, saying that he will listen with care and interest to all that is said. That would be enormously comforting if only we could believe that, having listened to all that we say, the Minister is likely to take any notice of it.
      We know very well that the clause will be added to the Bill, although, judging from the right and hon. Gentleman's closing remarks, that will happen without the slightest enthusiasm from the Minister who pilots the Bill. He said that, to his mind, the Bill was perfectly satisfactory when it left the House and that he would have been perfectly content if it had remained as it was. He spoke of others taking a different view without identifying them.
      Mr. Mellor: I made it clear that the others to whom I was referring were certain of their Lordships and hon. Members who had expressed a view in an early-day motion in this House. It is perfectly proper that I should listen to them, as I do to Opposition Members. I did so many times, and then changed the Bill as a result.
      Mr. Hattersley: I do not want to argue that point at great length, but if the Minister had simply been willing to listen to their Lordships' views, he would have abandoned his attempt to introduce such a clause when it became clear from the outset that their Lordships did not want it to proceed. The Minister tells the House that the clause is of no consequence, and no doubt he would like the country to hear that remark—yet it is of such importance to someone that three attempts were made to devise a draft acceptable to another place, and enormous pressure was placed on the stalwarts who support the Government there to turn up and ensure that it was passed.
      Somebody liked the clause and regarded it as important. I accept that that somebody is not the Minister, because his reply to the hon. Member for Caithness and
      526
      Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) gave every impression of a man swimming in treacle. He was making the heaviest possible weather of defending what he had to defend. I at least propose to set out in the clearest terms within my capability why we are wholly opposed to it and to make it absolutely clear that when the Labour Government are elected we shall repeal this clause, which we regard as intimidatory and inconsistent with broadcasting in a free society.
      There is general agreement among the parties, broadcasters and, I believe, the viewing public about the importance of impartiality in television. It is essential to a democracy, particularly in a society that increasingly obtains its information from television. For that reason, successive Broadcasting Acts have charged the ITA, the IBA and, soon, the Independent Broadcasting Commission with the duty of ensuring that proper impartiality and balance are preserved. From the inception of independent broadcasting to the passage of the Bill through all its stages in the House, it has been generally agreed that the judgment on how impartiality was to be maintained should be left to the body that was required to regulate independent television. It should be left to its judgment alone.
      That was the view because there was a general wish, which I hope and believe is shared on both sides of the House, that the preservation of impartiality and balance should be carried out in a way that is not oppressive and is not likely to result in a deterioration of programme standards. The Government's proposal has both those disadvantages. It is oppressive in effect and will lead to reductions in the standards of certain programmes.
      I have no doubt that the proposal will intimidate some programme makers, and I go further: I believe that it is intended to do so. Anyone who doubts that intention should read the speech by Lord Wyatt of Weeford, the only true begetter of the new clause in the House of Lords last Monday. He proposed that, before beginning their work, programme makers should be required to sign a declaration saying that they understand, respect and will observe the code of impartiality. The idea that programme makers should be required to sign a document accepting anything except the law of the land as it stands—the Minister was careful to tell us this is not the law of the land—is not consistent with a free society.
      Before I describe the consequences of the clause, I want, partly as a result of the extraordinary activities of Lord Wyatt, to remind the House of its origins. By understanding its origins, we understand its purpose. When the Government drafted the Bill, no such clause was thought necessary. All who heard the Minister's speech will agree that it was clear that he does not regard it as necessary even today. No such clause was added or even contemplated by the Government in Committee. The idea is the product of the paranoia about broadcasting which Lord Wyatt has deployed time after time in the articles that he writes in The Times and in the articles, if that is the right description of them, that he writes in the News of the World.
      We all know—it is almost a matter of public record—that Lord Wyatt, who has a special entrée to No. 10 Downing street, convinced the Prime Minister that to expose the independent television companies to the threat of continual litigation would severely restrict their willingness to make the controversial programmes that many of us regard as the life-blood of broadcasting in a

      527
      free society. I doubt that the Prime Minister needed much convincing, but we know that she insisted on the inclusion of the clause. I doubt that the Home Secretary has read it. It is clear from last Monday's debate in the other place that the Minister of State did not understand and, as we knew before today but which was confirmed a moment ago, the Minister for the Arts certainly does not agree with it.
      The Minister for the Arts told the Royal Television Society, as late as 4 September:
      "Due impartiality is not a matter which can be reduced to some simple mathematical formula, nor can its achievement be guaranteed through any mechanistic statutory requirement."
      On 4 September he was against a mechanistic statutory requirement. Let us examine what he advocates today. I describe it in the words of the Minister of State, as he spelt out the clause in the House of Lords last Monday:
      "Paragraph (a) of new subsection (4A) relates to due impartiality being achieved for each major matter of political or industrial controversy … Paragraph (b) of subsection (4A) requires the code to take account of the need to define what is meant by a series of programmes. Paragraph (a) of subsection (4B) requires the code to indicate what due impartiality requires in particular circumstances. Paragraph (b) of subsection (4B) sets out that the code should indicate the manner in which impartiality is to be achieved for different programme types. Paragraph (c) of subsection (4B) requires the code to indicate the timescale within which programmes must be included if impartiality is to be achieved over a series. Paragraph (d) of subsection 4(B) requires the code to indicate the means by which the audience is informed that impartiality".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 1990; Vol. 522, c. 1144.]
      That is being advocated by a Minister who is, root and branch, against mechanistic statutory requirements.
      I hope that the Minister will not suggest that what his colleague in the House of Lords said cannot be described as "mechanistic or statutory", for were he to attempt to do so I should be grieved to discover that, even in this Government, the least literate this century, the Minister for the Arts has only a passing acquaintance with the English language. It is clear that what he has developed and is now advocating imposes statutory duties on the new commission to define in some particulars what objectivity and impartiality is, and is wholly mechanistic in its application.
      The real question is not whether the Minister changed his position but why he has appeared to change his mind. I have no doubt that it is because pressure was put on him to produce and to create a new chain, a new limitation and a new burden on the independent television companies in the hope and intention that they will reduce the number of controversial documentary programmes that they produce.
      The Minister said again today that the new Independent Television Commission is to draw up a code to ensure impartiality. He repeats time after time that the commission is responsible for the code. I shall read, at perhaps intelligible speed, what the Minister of State described as the new obligations in the House of Lords, from which the House will realise that, although it is the duty of the ITC to draw up the code, the Government are telling it what the code must contain. They are telling it the nature of the code, its provisions, its scope and in some particulars its contents. The contents are to be specified in
      528
      law and, by specifying its contents, the House, if it supports the clause, will be imposing on the television industry a series of adverse consequences.
      Mr. Mellor: If the right hon. Gentleman were the ITC and were faced with a bald requirement from Parliament to have a code, I do not see how he would find it possible to discharge that duty without setting out in the code—I quote from paragraph (a) of the amendment—
      "what due impartiality does and does not require, either generally or in relation to particular circumstances; (b) the ways in which due impartiality may be achieved in connection with programmes of particular descriptions".
      What is the point of having a code if it does not deal with those matters, and what is the harm in setting out clearly what a code should deal with?
      Mr. Hattersley: The Minister for the Arts was perfectly happy to proceed in the way that he now derides throughout the passage of the Bill.
      Mr. Mellor indicated dissent.
      Mr. Hattersley: He does not deride it; he seemed to be doing so. He seemed happy not to have these specifications in the code until they were imposed by the Prime Minister. There was no mention of them when we debated the code before, no suggestion of them in Committee and no inclusion of them in the original draft. Since 1954, the concept of objectivity and impartiality has been left entirely to the Independent Broadcasting Authority or its successors.
      Mr. Roger Gale: The right hon. Gentleman has said a couple of times that these measures were imposed on my right hon. and learned Friend by the Prime Minister, but they were brought before the House by the other place. If the Opposition in the other place were so passionately opposed to them, why did they manage to muster only a fraction of their strength to vote against them? Could it be that their Lordships, in their wisdom, realised public concern in this matter?
      Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman talks about public concern. He can talk about it, but he cannot demonstrate it because there is virtually no public concern on record. The Government have added to the number of institutions that exist to encourage, monitor and publish details on the amount of public concern, but the number of complaints received is minuscule. I propose to deal with the large number of complaints from Conservative Members, but they must not think that they speak for the British public—a fact that they will discover to their discomfort over the next 18 months.
      I wish to go through, one by one, the detriments that will be the inevitable result of the clause being passed into law. They show why I was astonished at the words of the Minister of State in another place and even more astonished by the support given to this notion by the Minister for the Arts. They are why almost everyone who has judged these matters with authority believes that the clause will result in constant litigation.
      5 pm
      The chairman of the Bar Council and the professor of law at the University of Oxford predict constant litigation. That is certainly the fear of the television companies, which naturally are apprehensive about it. They fear, and we believe that they are right to fear, that every group of

      529
      right-wing loonies will take them to court—perhaps frivolously, perhaps contentiously, perhaps with the intention of making a point rather than with winning a case—by arguing that a programme should be covered by the impartiality guidelines, as covered by subsection (4B)(a); by arguing that a programme should have carried a warning that it was controversial, as covered by subsection (4B)(d); or by arguing that balance has not been achieved by an alternative programme putting a different point of view and being broadcast in the required period, as required by subsection (4B)(c).
      Mr. Robert Adley rose——
      Mr. Mellor rose——
      Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), who was bobbing up and down earlier, and then gave way to the Minister.
      Mr. Adley: The best speech in the other place, for brevity and content, was by Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I have a philosophical question for the right hon. Gentleman—perhaps I should be careful about asking it and he should be careful about answering it. He referred to right-wing loonies. Does he agree that political proselytes can often be dangerous people?
      Mr. Hattersley: Of course they can. It is rather like loving one's mother and not kicking dogs. We can all agree with that. The brave and interesting point comes when we start defining who those people are, and I propose to do so. First, I shall give way to the Minister for the Arts.
      Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is good of him to give way to me again, and I shall try not to make a habit of intervening. The right hon. Gentleman is making some important technical points, and I believe that it would be useful to all of us if we had a chance to explore one of his contentions.
      The nub of the point seems to be that the provision will lead to constant litigation because it is an intimidatory device to be used by the Government to compel the ITC to do something for which various loonies can then hold it to account. On the right hon. Gentleman's partial reading of the clause, that does not strike me as being exactly what the clause will permit.
      The right hon. Gentleman read us chunks from Lords amendment No. 22, but he did riot quote these words from subsection (4B):
      "The rules so specified shall in addition"—
      here are the crucial words—
      "indicate to such extent as the Commission consider appropriate".
      In other words, it is for the commission to judge whether it considers that it is appropriate to do the things set out therein. It would be extremely difficult for a judge—although not impossible, and it would not be impossible to have masses of litigation about other matters—to say that it was wholly unreasonable for the ITC to have determined whether it was appropriate to do certain things, when the statute indicates that that was left to its discretion.
      Mr. Hattersley: That point was made not by the Minister of State in another place but by one of his supporters—I took specific advice on that. The answer relates to the words that the right hon. Gentleman used in his intervention and several times in his speech—"as long as the ITC behaves reasonably". I have no doubt that the
      530
      ITC will behave reasonably, but the television companies are afraid that the group to which I referred will insist on testing the nature of reason in court and that it will say, "In this particular, the ITC did not behave reasonably. In allocating this programme under one heading while not considering it under another, impartial or not impartial, the ITC behaved not reasonably but unreasonably." The television companies are particularly concerned about the concept of "reasonable".
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the ITC should be totally unaccountable and that no group of citizens should be entitled to challenge whether it has acted reasonably?
      Mr. Hattersley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was here at the beginning of my speech, but if he was, he was not listening. I made it clear that I want impartiality to be preserved and that the ITC should have an unfettered right to make sure that that happens. I want the ITC to have the right that it has enjoyed since 1954, not least because, on the general judgment of the British public—who do not complain about partiality—the present system operates perfectly successfully. We have not heard a word today from the Minister about why a change is necessary because, despite all his debating skills, he cannot produce such an argument.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: If the right hon. Gentleman is right in assuming that the ITC will behave reasonably—which is what my right hon. Friend the Minister and I think—why do we need the amendment?
      Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman must not ask me. I shall not answer Home Office questions for another year or so, so the right hon. Gentleman must put his point to the Minister. I agree 100 per cent. with him—there is no justification for this change. The Minister has not even attempted to justify it. We have not yet heard any reason for making the change.
      The fear of litigation is very much related to those groups that the broadcasters rightly suspect will take contentious actions, testing the concept of reasonableness with the intention of intimidating. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) almost challenged me to suggest who those people might be. Everyone knows that the Freedom Association takes such cases to make a point rather than to win a legal battle. Everyone has heard of Lord Chalfont's media monitoring unit. The television companies are rightly apprehensive about how such groups will behave.
      Let us have no doubt about the outcome of that apprehension. Programme makers will choose the bland and the anodyne because they believe that the bland and the anodyne are safe, yet the bland and the anodyne are the last things that should characterise some programmes—in particular, the documentary programmes against which the clause is directed. The amendment will result in, and is intended to result in, a reduction in controversy, yet controversy is often the life-blood of good broadcasting.
      Let me put it in simple terms. Throughout the debate in the other place, several programmes were cited as the new target for these impartiality rules—for example, "Death on the Rock", "Who Bombed Birmingham?" and Harold Pinter's programme on Nicaragua. We were repeatedly told that, because of these new rules, after such a

      531
      programme was broadcast there would be a Government health warning saying that that programme was not impartial and that, within a specified period, a programme would appear putting the contrary argument. I do not believe for a moment that that would be the outcome. The outcome will be that programmes such as "Who Bombed Birmingham?" and "Death on the Rock" will not be produced at all. I have no doubt that that is the intention of many of the proponents of the clause. That is what they want and I fear that that is what they will get if the clause is passed.
      For that reason, the clause is repressive, and that is why I repeat that the next Labour Government will repeal it. We shall expect impartiality, but we shall have the sense to know that impartiality cannot be precisely defined and that the commission—and the commission alone—acting under the general law, has the duty to see that balance is preserved, not in relation to any one programme but over time. The idea that a programme's imbalance and impartiality are put right over time is wholly consistent not simply with the free society in which we live, but with the idea of plurality of broadcasting on which the Broadcasting Bill is supposed to be based. When we heard the talk of the brave new world of new broadcasting with multiple channels, the argument was always that different opinions would cancel each other out.
      That argument was put before Lord Wyatt thought that he could do his worst with some programmes of which he disapproved, before he approached the Prime Minister and before the Prime Minister instructed the Minister for the Arts on what he had to do. It was put when the Broadcasting Bill was in the hands of the Home Office, not in the hands of No. 10 Downing street.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is not my right hon. Friend being unduly unkind to the Minister for the Arts? After all, since he has rewritten two thirds of the Bill, is not it understandable that the Prime Minister would like to have the odd bit that relates to the original legislation?
      Mr. Hattersley: I take my hon. Friend's point. However, I understand that most of the rewriting was done by the Home Office. The fact that this proposal was imposed on the Home Office illustrates its basic purpose—to intimidate broadcasters. The result will be a reduction in high-quality broadcasting, a reduction in tolerance and a reduction in freedom—a reduction of the values that we want to see in our society. I repeat, for the third time, that we will repeal the clause at the first opportunity and, for that reason, we shall tonight vote against its incorporation in the Bill.
      Mr. Julian Critchley: What on earth is all the fuss about? We left for our summer hols in July happy in the knowledge that we had persuaded the Minister of State that, at long last, he was on the right lines, only to find in October that he has been shunted into a siding. That is due to an unholy alliance between Lord Wyatt and an early-day motion signed by 100 Conservative Back Benchers—one sage and a hundred onions.[Laughter.] I am not getting paid for this.
      Some of us remember Lord Wyatt—Mr. Woodrow Wyatt as he then was—when he was a Member of the House of Commons. Once heard, never forgotten. The
      532
      most accurate description of him then would probably have been "crypto-socialist". In more recent and happier times, he is the author of a column in the News of the World entitled, believe it or not, "The Voice of Reason". He is even better known as a man of views; he has more views than a dog has fleas. How suitable it is that he should have devoted his remaining energies to emasculating his media rivals elsewhere.
      Why is it that many hon. Members—I was going to say "of my great party", but that would be presumptuous—of our great party believe that we have the best newspapers in the world and the worst broadcasting, when all the evidence suggests that it is the other way round? Could it be because youthful left wingers are persuaded to join the media, while youthful right wingers go into the City, become estate agents or manage, for a time, the Scottish Conservative party?
      5.15 pm
      Perhaps, in the dog days of summer, I should have tabled an amendment that would have put the BBC and ITV firmly under the control of Conservative central office. Let us suppose that we had passed such an amendment. I should like to offer an example of some of the programmes that we might have been enjoying this winter. We might have had "Thought for the Day" by Mr. J. Archer and "Listen with Mother" with Mrs. Angela Rumbold. "The Weather" would be the province of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) with "England fog-bound; the continent isolated." There would have been a new series of "Dr. Finlay's Casebook" in which those two loveable Scots, Dr. Finlay and Dr. Cameron, would be played by Messrs. Forth and Forsyth. We might have had "Last of the Summer Wine" starring Sir Marcus Fox and "The Money Programme" fronted by a series of "friends of the family".
      I can assure the House that no old films would be shown over bank holidays and the Christmas period. We should no longer have to watch "The Guns of Navarone" for the umpteenth time. Bank holidays would be filled by extracts from the Prime Minister's speeches at party conferences ranging over the past nine or 10 years. Such a regime would not be without its entertainment and its quiz shows. There would be a quiz show entitled "Standing Ovation" in which Young Conservatives were encouraged to make speeches and in which the one who got the longest applause would be awarded shares in the electricity industry.
      Would not my clause have solved, once and for all, the problem of bias? Many of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches would have been able to boast of Britain's good fortune in possessing not only newspapers such as the Sun, the News of the World, the Sunday Sport and The People, but the fairest, cleanest and best broadcasting in the world. Sadly, we have missed yet another opportunity.
      Mr. Maclennan: The late Norman Buchan would have enjoyed that speech. His presence in this debate is felt by all of us; that is why we thank the Minister for paying a well-deserved tribute to him. He inspired not only the interest of which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) properly spoke, but something pretty close to affection among hon. Members of all parties. He would have cared about this debate.
      In all fairness to him, I must say that the Minister did not attempt to discharge the onus of proof which I

      533
      suggested, in the concluding moments of his speech, that he might do, because it is not possible to demonstrate widespread public dissatisfaction about impartiality in broadcasting. Tens of millions of viewers watch controversial and less controversial current affairs, news and documentary programmes, but the number of complaints on the ground of partiality is very small.
      In the year ending March 1990, there were only 245 complaints from the public to the Independent Broadcasting Authority about impartiality. The IBA's own annual survey in 1990 on public opinion showed a pattern similar to previous years. Between 76 per cent. and 78 per cent. of the public thought that no favouritism towards any party was shown either by ITV or Channel 4. In 1988–89 the Broadcasting Complaints Commission adjudicated on only 19 complaints relating to unfairness or unjustified invasions of privacy. Six complaints were upheld wholly, five were upheld in part and eight were not upheld. In the light of those figures, it is hard to see why we should weigh in the balance Lord Wyatt and the 100 onions and allow the Government to amend the Bill in such a significant fashion at this last gasp.
      In my intervention I reminded the Minister that he made his views clear not only in his speech to the Royal Television Society, to which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred, but rather more fully in Committee on 30 January when he said:
      "When I was presented with the opportunity to reflect on whether we should make changes to the impartiality requirement it occurred to me that a Government of any stripe are always the last group to be credited with impartiality. I decided that it was better to leave well alone. That is what I have done. We have not fiddled around with the impartiality arrangements. We felt that it was better to leave goalposts where they were."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 30 January 1990; c. 411.]
      I understand the ways of politics and the pressures that Ministers can be put under by other Ministers, sometimes senior ones. I do not find it in any way disreputable that the Minister should have deployed the argument that he has deployed this afternoon with his customary skill. His position today is in stark contrast to what he has said publicly and in the House on a number of occasions.
      Mr. Mellor: I reject that imputation, however courteously put, because it is not so. The burden of what I was trying to say to the House earlier is that the law on impartiality, the requirement that there should be due impartiality on matters of current industrial and political controversy and so on, is precisely the law as it was in 1954. I was not prepared to make that change. What I said in January stands and what I said in September was said in the clear knowledge that we were going to do what we have subsequently done.
      Mr. Robin Corbett: Oh!
      Mr. Mellor: Oh yes, absolutely.
      In September I dealt with some of the solutions put forward by Lord Wyatt which I thought, and have successfully been able to persuade others, were not workable. We have not moved the goalposts. Everyone agreed that the referee should have a proper rule book so that the players knew what rules they were playing to. We are simply saying that that rule book should contain rules to be determined as to those particular aspects of the game and not by us.
      534
      I am prepared to be criticised for making a change that some people see as purely cosmetic, but that change does not go to the root of the impartiality law, which is exactly as it was.
      Mr. Maclennan: The Minister says that in his speech to the Royal Television Society he knew exactly what was going to happen, but the proposals have changed three or four times since then and we are now dealing with a proposition that is quite different from that first put forward in the other place.
      I admire the Minister's dexterity in a purely rhetorical sense as he has tried to reconcile the irreconcilable. Neither he nor I, nor the public, are interested in the thought processes that led him to arrive at his stand—we are more interested in the effect of what has been done.
      Mr. Mellor: I respect the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the Bill and I want to pose to him this question: what will be the difference that television companies will face today, as against what they have faced for nearly 40 years, apart from the fact that there will be a code about which everyone agreed anyway? What substantive change wreaks the mischief complained of?
      Mr. Maclennan: As I said in my earlier intervention, I believe that the onus of proof on the mischief lies with the Minister. I do not believe that he has discharged it. As to what will be the consequence of this, who am I to put myself in the shoes of many broadcasters who have cast doubts upon the appropriateness of the clause as amended? There is not one broadcasting company that has not expressed its grave reservations about this change. They have all taken endless legal advice. Some of us have received the authorative opinion of Mr. Anthony Scrivener, chairman of the Bar Council. He has spoken of continuing litigation that will be necessary to sort out the consequences of the amended clause.
      It is plainly not possible for me to answer the question posed by the Minister, any more than it is for the broadcasters to answer it. That is the nub of the problem. The clause will leave us with a vast uncertainty that cannot be resolved by debate across the Floor, but by a whole series of cases in the courts. It will not be solved by one case as the judges themselves may disagree. Those cases will be pursued by people who have a desire to obstruct the freedom of expression that the Minister and I are at one in seeking to preserve.
      Mr. Mellor: The requirement on broadcasters today is that they should adhere to due impartiality on matters of current industrial and political controversy. That is almost exactly the same as the rule that they will face under the Bill. As far as I am aware, that requirement has not been the subject of frequent legal challenges in the past 40 years, and I doubt that it will be during the next 40. The substantive law, the requirement to observe due impartiality, is precisely the same in the Bill as it is in today's law.
      Mr. Maclennan: If we were debating precisely the same provisions as the substantive law set out in the 1954 Act I do not imagine that we would have had a long debate or any debate. The Minister knows that the Government are imposing upon the ITC an obligation to prepare a code with specific, new, substantive requirements. That code

      535
      will create uncertainty and that uncertainty will cause problems for broadcasters and make the mischief of which I complain.
      We are fortunate to have television and radio stations that are not afraid to make controversial programmes. Broadcasters are entitled to put out such programmes. Hon. Members have already mentioned Harold Pinter's programme on Nicaragua, and what about Norman Stone on Poland? Those programmes contain different views held by very different individuals on important current events. No one believes that the views expressed are those of the broadcaster—clearly they are the views of those participating in the programme. That very independence is at risk. Companies competing in an ever-hostile commercial climate will be frightened of making such programmes if there is a risk of organisations such as the Freedom Association—there are plenty of such well-heeled organisations—taking those companies to court.
      I do not regard the opinion of any single lawyer on this matter as conclusive. It is the multiplicity of views that have been expressed by lawyers that could be regarded as giving rise to concern. There is no doubt that the balance of legal opinion on this is in line with that expressed by Lord Goodman, to which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred. He believes that it will create a legal picnic. We managed at an earlier stage of the Bill to persuade the Minister of the undesirability of that in the context of the quality threshold. He showed himself then to be sensitive to the undesirability of dragging these matters, which should be handled by the regulators, to the regulation of the courts, or to the establishment of precedents with one test case after another. They will not all follow in line, for the sort of subject matter that could be challenged, particularly in considering whether a matter is major, as required by the measure, will be extremely difficult.
      5.30 pm
      The Minister has won his spurs in the House. Indeed, he has won recognition in the Government, in view of his elevation to his important post, as a result of the manner in which he handled the Bill, listened to opinion and weighed it up. He did not favour a particular view but weighed the argument.
      The argument deployed in the other place in favour of the clause as drafted was of the strength of gossamer. If the Minister has any scope for manoeuvre, I urge him to drop this worthless and dangerous clause. The previous three chairmen of the IBA wrote a powerful letter to The Times warning of the dangers of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind. I read with interest what Mr. Glyn Mathias, an experienced programme maker and broadcaster for ITN, and a man known to most of us, said on the subject. He commented:
      "The application of due impartiality can vary depending on the number of differing views on any one issue. It is rarely just a question of a right-wing view versus a left-wing view. The result of the amendment will be to neuter the news and to impede our ability to cover events as we have in the past."
      Coming from a man such as Glyn Mathias, that is serious, for he weighs his words with care.
      I have also paid attention to what has been said by the IBA and the shadow ITC. They were not persuaded of the
      536
      need for what is proposed by anything the Minister or anyone else said. On 3 July they issued a briefing on the question of impartiality in which they said:
      "In our view, the Bill as drafted offers appropriate safeguards for impartiality."
      That is why there was no debate on the issue on Report and why there was no serious lengthy debate about impartiality in Committee, for we are united in recognising that impartiality is the bedrock of television and we are satisfied that it has been adequately secured in the past.
      I conclude with an appeal not in my words but in the words of a leader writer in The Daily Telegraph. Perhaps it was written by Mr. Max Hastings, who in matters of freedom is a voice to be listened to. I should not attribute it to him because I cannot be certain that he wrote it, but the writer stated:
      "A classic test of any government is how far it seeks superintendence over matters left to good sense. The amendment … takes intervention well beyond what should be acceptable to Conservatives."
      I hope that Conservative Members will heed that and will vote tonight with my hon. Friends and Her Majesty's Opposition.
      Mr. Graham Riddick: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) on a highly entertaining speech. I hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will forgive me if I do not express the same congratulations on his remarks. My hon. Friend achieved his laughs, not for the first time, at the expense of some of his colleagues. He complained that he was not paid for his performance here this afternoon. Perhaps he should look for a forum where he will be suitably rewarded, because he is assuredly good enough to be paid. I fear that he will never need to worry about the ITC getting at him about being partial or biased over a major matter.
      I strongly support the amendments on impartiality, particularly No. 22. The broadcasters have only themselves to blame for the amendments. I suggest that the original amendments in the other place were introduced in frustration at the arrogance of a minority of broadcasters, in the ITV companies and in the BBC, who have abused their positions of influence by producing programmes that peddle their political viewpoints——
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Name them.
      Mr. Riddick: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall refer to a few programmes.
      The hysterical response to the impartiality amendments has brought no credit to some of the broadcasters concerned. Many of their claims have been highly misleading, while some have been merely abusive. Michael Grade, chief executive of Channel 4, said that Tory Members of Parliament were employing "McCarthyite tactics" and claimed that
      "this campaigning has been orchestrated by a small right-wing lobby."
      Was he referring to Lord Wyatt, to the Media Monitoring Unit, to the Freedom Association or to the 113 hon. Members who signed the early-day motion? I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot that they are not all Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland will be pleased to hear that they include a Liberal, and there are a few Ulster Unionists. At any rate,

      537
      the 113 hon. Members who signed the early-day motion represent not a small but a substantial lobby that is not without influence.
      The most misleading claim that broadcasters have made is that the amendments introduce a new concept into broadcasting law. That is not true, and I was pleased that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) did not try to put forward that argument.
      Due impartiality has been a requirement since the 1950s, and the requirement in the Bill referring to due impartiality is word for word the same as the requirement for due impartiality in the Broadcasting Act 1981. In other words, due impartiality is not a new concept.
      The wording is specific, saying that due impartiality must be achieved on matters of industrial and political concern and that that balance should be achieved within a series. Indeed, the IBA has incorporated the requirement to balance over a series in its guidelines.
      The trouble is that the broadcasters have been ignoring those requirements and the IBA has proved itself unable or unwilling to enforce its own rules. That is why the amendments are necessary and why it is important that the basic outlines of what is meant by due impartiality, how it is to be achieved and the time limits within which balancing programmes are to be shown should be clearly spelt out in the Bill. That way, there can be no misunderstanding or ignoring of the impartiality rules by broadcasters and the ITC will not simply be able to turn a blind eye to abuses. The forces of law will he solidly behind the new ITC code.
      There is no doubt that there has been a clear flouting of existing impartiality rules. In some cases that can be put down to sheer ignorance on the part of the broadcasters. I talked to some broadcasters who did not realise that they had a responsibility to be impartial in the way that they presented things. They simply were not aware of the current state of the law.
      Mr. Corbett: Name them.
      Mr. Riddick: I have talked to individual broadcasters—for example, people who have interviewed me have been unaware of such matters. However, the majority of cases in which the impartiality rules have been flouted have been deliberate.
      Recently, there was a highly revealing article in The Guardian. It was written by Paul Bonner, the founder programme controller at Channel 4 and now the director of programme planning at the ITV Association. He wrote quite openly:
      "to do justice to difficult and unpopular arguments has meant that balance might only be reached in terms of two or three years, rather than within any series."
      He says that balance can be achieved over two or three years, which may be all very well for him. But the law says that balance should be achieved over a series. He is clearly flouting that and seems to be doing so with impunity.
      In a radio discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), Mr. Michael Grade, to whom I have already referred, actually admitted that "Oh Superman", a highly partisan and one-sided programme attacking American foreign policy and presented by Harold Pinter, was not balanced or impartial. He said that a balance to the programme was provided in a "Right to Reply" programme by an unknown individual, who was given two or three minutes to put the counter argument.
      538
      One might say, "So what—it does not matter." But the current law—the Broadcasting Act 1981—states that impartiality must be achieved.
      There is proof elsewhere that some television series are one-sided and unbalanced. I make no apology for referring to the Media Monitoring Unit, which has shown that some television series, notably "World in Action" and "Open Space", are consistently biased to the left.
      Mr. Corbett: Give an example.
      Mr. Riddick: The hon. Gentleman asks me to give an example. I have mentioned "World in Action" and "Open Space". I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman has actually taken the trouble to read any of the material produced by the Media Monitoring Unit. Were he to have done so, he would have seen clearly to which specific programmes the unit was referring.
      Some people might say that Tories and right-wing people would have a go at "Panorama". It is interesting that the last report by the Media Monitoring Unit found that the "Panorama" programme's output during the series in question was extremely balanced and there was little bias towards either left or right.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend think that the reason why the "Panorama" programme was found to be balanced was that it had faced a couple of libel actions successfully brought by hon. Members?
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend makes a telling point, but there is another issue. My hon. Friend knows only too well the difficulties of taking legal action against broadcasters. We have heard that it will be a lawyers' paradise, that they will have a field day and will be taking the television companies to court every five minutes. That is absolute nonsense. For a start, the amendments will not result in that, but even if they were to make litigation easier, the cost of taking such legal action is prohibitive. Therefore, to suggest that the amendments will produce much more litigation is absolute nonsense.
      I am not just concerned about party political bias: I am equally worried about a more general anti-free market., anti-big business, anti-capitalism and pro-Government: intervention approach that seems to pervade so much of British broadcasting.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give an example? I hate to interrupt this tide of nonsense. Will he give us examples of producers, directors and programmes that have shown the malevolence, bias and lack of impartiality of which he accuses them all?
      Mr. Riddick: I have no intention of starting to name. lots of names.
      I have been involved in a television programme made by one of the respectable current affairs teams, which was quite clearly biased. When I met the programme's producer and presenter it was interesting to find that they quite clearly had a specific view about the programme that they were making.
      Mr. Corbett: Like the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Riddick: Yes, of course it was like me. The reason why I was being interviewed was that I had a certain view.

      539
      I should have thought that producers and presenters would be interested in presenting programmes that were balanced and impartial.
      Mr. Hattersley: I would hardly believe that the hon. Gentleman said it, but he did so twice, so I must ask him the question again. His complaint is that producers have a specific view. Does he believe that television programmes should or could possibly be made without the producers having a specific view or did he just make a couple of slips of the tongue?
      Mr. Riddick: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to be clever, but the producers' and presenters' views should not be peddled in the programmes that they make. Of course, everyone has a perfect right to a view, but they should attempt to present a balanced approach in the programmes that they make.
      One radio programme that I regularly listen to is a classic example of the sort of thing that we get. It is "Start the Week" on Radio 4 on Monday mornings, presented by Melvyn Bragg—[Interruption.] That programme is one of the more notable but subtle exponents of the sort of thing about which I have been talking—[Laughter.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Barracking from sedentary positions does nothing to improve the quality of debate in the House.
      Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Opposition Members have been talking about intolerance. They are demonstrating enormous intolerance simply because I am putting a counter view.
      One of the interesting comments made in the debate in the Lords on Monday was made by Lord Annan, a respected commentator on broadcasting matters who chaired the Committee on the future of broadcasting 13 years ago. In Monday's debate he said:
      "Two distinguished broadcasters in current affairs on television told us that there ran through the output a strain that was anti-establishment, anti-institution, anti-free enterprise and anti-American."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 1990; Vol. 522, c. 1160.]
      I fear that that strain has not entirely disappeared.
      The other day, Barbara Amiel, writing in The Times under the rather extraordinary headline
      "Bias makes for better television",
      said:
      "Good documentary makers almost always have a point of view, and in my 20 years of working in the medium I found few who could be said to have sound Tory views."
      That does not prove anything, but it suggests that a large number of people working in the media have a left-wing perspective on life. I do not object to that, but I object when they peddle their left-wing views in the programmes that they make.
      Most hon. Members will have heard of Christopher Dunkley, the respected television reporter of the Financial Times. Back in July he questioned why the BBC was so enthusiastically preaching one point of view on environmental matters. He went on to ask:
      "When does the BBC intend to give equal time to other political attitudes on the environment?"
      So, several people are worried about what is going on in television. There is clear evidence of bias in certain radio programmes on the BBC——
      Mr. Hugh Dykes: Would it be possible to give a specific example from "Start the Week", because I understand that it is enjoyed by a large audience of all sorts of people, including large numbers of bourgeois ladies whose favourite subversive habit is flower arranging?
      Mr. Riddick: As it happens, it is my misfortune to listen to "Start the Week" most mornings on my way to the station. The other day my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was on the programme talking about bias on television. It was interesting to hear how Mr. Bragg interrupted my hon. Friend far more than his other guests—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend is perfectly capable of looking after herself, but it was clear that Mr. Bragg thoroughly disapproved of what she was saying and made sure that the other point of view was put—and that is not always his practice.
      For as long as broadcasting plays such a vital and integral role in the British way of life, due impartiality will be a key component of it. I congratulate all who are responsible for these amendments, in this House, the other House and outside Parliament, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister on coming forward with the amendments. I look forward to the day when similar impartiality requirements apply to the BBC, but in the meantime I am happy to support the Lords amendments.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I thoroughly enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), but I am a bit worried because he was not nearly as funny as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick).
      When I became a young councillor, I joined a local authority in Devon, which was wholly controlled by so-called independents. One of the first things that I was told was that they had no politics there: they were all above that sort of thing. I discovered that that meant, "We do not have any Labour party politics." All the councillors were happily Conservative and had always voted for and propagated Conservative ideas on the council.
      Listening to the hon. Member for Colne Valley I had a tremendous sensation of deja vu. Here is a party which happily and consistently supports newspapers which quite a few people would think had about as much independence of view and lack of bias as Mrs. Whitehouse; yet that party claims that the journalists who work in broadcasting are not to be trusted to be independent.
      But the Lords amendment is rather different. Those of us who sat through the Committee and watched the Minister for the Arts reshaping the legislation, so that it became by the end completely different from what had been intended by the people who wrote the line on the back of the envelope on which it was based, know that the fact that he has now had to give way at this very late stage to an amendment as bigoted, unimaginative and stupid as this one must show that he is acting on the instructions of his mistress.
      The House should realise that the amendment encapsulates a dangerous attack on freedom of speech. I am a very partial person, so I believe strongly in impartiality. All my life, I have had a definite view on a number of subjects about which I have not hesitated to express my opinions, but I accept the right of others to disagree with me, publicly and in writing. I expect people

      541
      to have a contrary point of view and to express it, and I believe that our broadcasting would assume a much sadder and more dangerous form if we changed this set of values.
      Democracy depends on the ability of people who have a vote to listen to differing points of view. Why do we offer ourselves for election if we do not believe in the right of every person in the country to listen to differing points of view? Why do we protect so strongly the privileges of the House of Commons which allow us openly to attack other institutions and ideas? It is because we believe in the right of free speech——
      Mr. Gale rose——
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I want to develop my idea a little further. I heard the hon. Gentleman express his views at considerable length in Committee, and learned there of his expertise in "Blue Peter".
      It is vital that we understand that there must be diversity and the expression of a wide variety of views in broadcasting. We need to maintain codes of control, in the sense that we expect people to present balanced views. All of us, having seen programmes with which we disagree, demand some sort of balance for the other point of view; but we who are not involved in broadcasting must not sit down and draw up rigid rules which appear to tell the broadcasters they are not to be trusted to do their own jobs responsibly.
      It is noticeable that we do not do this with newspapers. We allow journalists who work on newspapers to be as bigoted, ignorant and lazy about doing their research as they want to be—and from time to time they are helped by people who are as bigoted as they are——
      Mrs. Edwina Currie(Derbyshire, South: As a totally bigoted journalist in my other life, I put it to the hon. Lady that there are nevertheless hon. Members who think that the Lords amendment as it stands is worth having; that there are problems; and that it is appropriate and right that broadcasters be reminded of their duties.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I have no objection to broadcasters being reminded of their duties. That is the responsibility of those to whom we have given powers under the Bill to do precisely that. Why did the Government come here with a Bill that gave them those powers? Why do we have codes of conduct in existing broadcasting legislation? The Government gave those powers not because they thought it amusing to do so but because they expect those charged with them to carry out their duties. Those who have any doubt about the reasoning behind the amendment should listen carefully to the hon. Member for Colne Valley. The hon. Gentleman's one distinction is that he actually says what many Conservatives believe but are much too tactful and clever to put into words.
      I think that only a small number of Conservative Members will vote against the amendment, although the commitment of Conservatives to freedom of speech is no less than the commitment of some Opposition Members. If the amendment is accepted, we shall be underlining not the need for impartiality but a call for bigotry, for political control by a Government who feel themselves under attack and who want to restrict the opportunities for broadcasters to put different points of view before the public. That is a dangerous form of paranoia and in the final analysis it is extremely restrictive.
      542
      6 pm
      I frequently argue with the broadcasting authorities and often wish that they would show greater impartiality in their handling of some subjects. But I reserve my right to go on protesting to them through their existing machinery, raising points on which I think they are wrong and winning or losing my case on the basis of my evidence. I do not accept and hon. Members should never accept a deliberate, bigoted, small-minded and unacceptable attempt to restrict the freedom of broadcasters to produce open debate. Such debate is the life-blood of democracy, and for 10 years the Government have sought to restrict it. They must not be allowed to get away with it.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I was always schooled to believe not to add to a construction anything that would not improve it. That has legislative wisdom, which is why I am slightly puzzled because the burden of the argument advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State was that the Lords amendments add nothing to the Bill. Under questioning, that was expressed once or twice. Why are we adding something that is unnecessary? I wish that my right hon. and learned Friend would look more carefully at that proposition, because some people suspect that the amendments add something that the Minister does not want. My right hon. and learned Friend would have been better advised to stand by his original position that the Bill had integrity as it was and that any additional information added by the clause was superfluous. That suspicion, that contesting of the proposition, means that he may find that he has agreed to something that he does not want.
      The Minister was right to say that some of us do not like the impartiality rules. That is an important element in the argument. It is wholly appropriate that there should be an impartiality rule when the public fund, effectively through taxation, the licence fee, a public service broadcasting system. I had hoped that, in the advancement of broadcasting, we were moving to sufficient diversity so that competing views and ideas in the system were such that we did not have to worry about each jot and particular of everyone's view.
      The past 11 years have unhappily concentrated our minds on the history of broadcasting. At one time, presses were licensed because we feared that their contrary views might undermine good government. We used to license the theatre and some productions there, because we feared that they might be insidious and seditious. The remarkable stability of this country over three centuries does not, by and large, bear that out by contrast with the experience of other countries. I thought that, by getting rid of the Lord Chamberlain, we had made a great leap forward.
      As a Conservative, I do not like the concept that one man's views on a programme or what I should read or see are better than my own ability to judge. In amendments such as the one we are discussing, the detailing is a manifestation of the old-fashioned nanny state, which says that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister and I and other hon. Members are not able as free citizens to say, "This is nonsense." It is like saying that we cannot judge, and that, because we are unable to make a judgment ourselves, specious bodies of the great and good have to be set up to do it for us. As I say, I thought that we had got rid of the Lord Chamberlain and his remit for the theatre. However, we now have Lord Rees-Mogg who has a better

      543
      view on these matters than we because he is judged by the Government somehow to sum up the nation's propriety in these affairs.
      My hon. Friends have expressed agitation about how awful and frightful some programmes are. I agree that some are motivated and some are particular, but the smashing thing about this country is that this clash of ideas is what we have always been about. We have advanced, and the freedom of speech and expression, which mean that I and my hon. Friends may be particular, are vital.
      There is a fear of broadcasting through television. We are going back to the old licensing of the presses. It is said that there are too few of them and that, if they fall into the wrong hands, our dull electorate—Mrs. Smith of Aldridge or Mrs. Brown from somewhere else—will be incapable of recognising a prejudiced programme. Wise dissertations in the newspapers argue that visual images are somehow so captivating to our intelligence that they render us incapable of saying that something is wrong.
      I advance my next argument because it is relevant. We banned the direct broadcasting of members of certain organisations in Northern Ireland. Among other things, that was a denial of people's right to hear even the unacceptable and it is therefore a denial of our freedoms. I have been trying to say for a couple of years that my party above all ought to be mindful of the fact that we are strong and free. I said that in the debate on the IRA. As free citizens in a free country, we are the final arbiters.
      That may be seen as a slight digression, so I shall return to the proposition advanced by the Minister. The amendment adds nothing and should therefore be dropped. The Minister has secured that which he and other hon. Members think appropriate. It is over the top, and the Bill as it was before it went to the House of Lords should be allowed to stand. We should say that the amendment is unnecessary and drop it.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is a remarkable Member of Parliament. On many issues, bucking the party system—which also happens on our side—enlightens a subject. The benefit of this place is not the two sides of the House, although that is necessary to get business through. It is that there are hon. Members in all parts of the House who buck the system and put forward their own ideas. I should like to see that inside and outside the House. I have not participated in debates on the Bill but, like the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I should like to ask what the amendments are about. I have read reports of the debates and read about proceedings in the Lords.
      The Minister has told us that the amendment will not make a big change. A problem arose from an early-day motion signed by 100 people and by some people in the other place with ideas about the problems, especially with independent companies. It was therefore thought that a little should be done to make those people feel that the subject was important when in fact it is not. However "better" it is than the original idea, there are some problems that I should like to investigate. I shall discuss partiality and impartiality and the legal challenge. It is a long time since I was Home Secretary but I should like to
      544
      look at the problems that a Home Secretary might face if a legal challenge, or judicial review, were taken out. Judicial review seems to be becoming more common.
      I shall look first at impartiality. People think that the Home Office runs broadcasting—which was certainly not the case when I was Home Secretary and I hope that it is not the case now—and on a controversial subject half the letters that used to pour in were in favour and half were against. On another subject, a different half might be in favour and another half against. It is surprising how subjective are the views of those who want particular programmes.
      What is impartial? There is a newspaper in Fermanagh, Northern Ireland, called The Impartial Reporter. That is a curious use of the word "impartial", but perhaps it is the typical use of the word. People believe that they are impartial even when they are partial. For example, I shall be watching the televisoion on Saturday when the British rugby league team are playing the Australians. Unfortunately, I cannot go to the game. I hope that the commentators will be very partial because that is what I want. It does not matter because the Australian commentators will also be partial. I am only sad that I shall not be there.
      Of course, I am not saying that all is well with British broadcasting. The way in which the Home Office used to run it—I hope that it still is running it—was correct. I remember a member of the Cabinet berating the BBC and threatening it with a reduction in its licence if it continued to behave in a certain way. I wrote to all my colleagues saying that it was neither their business nor mine. I said that if any individual member of the Cabinet felt strongly about any matter, he should write and complain as an individual, as large numbers of people used to do. Broadcasting is not under the control of the Government, the Cabinet or the House of Commons, and nor should it be. That does not mean that I do not have complaints about the BBC, but there is a code of practice for the BBC as well as for the IBA.
      Of course, the BBC makes mistakes. I wrote to Sir Ian Trethowan at the time of Airey Neave's death. In the interests of impartiality, the BBC interviewed someone who said that his organisation had killed Airey Neave. In my letter—which appears in print in my book—I said:
      "As a minister, I never attempted to dictate or interfere in BBC programmes. Indeed, it is my view that the BBC has a duty to allow a wide spectrum of political opinions to be voiced. Ideas and opinions will never subvert our society."
      But I argued that it was a grave error of judgment to interview that man at that time. I was entitled to my view, but it did not mean that I wanted to control what the BBC was doing.
      At the time of the Ulster workers' strike—this is an important point that should have been picked up before—Lord Fitt, then a Northern Ireland politician, came to me in high dudgeon and said that the BBC was the voice of the loyalist paramilitaries. He called the BBC "Radio Free Belfast", and said that it was the mouthpiece of the organisers of the Ulster workers' strike. The BBC argued that it required the declaration of an emergency to make it act in a different way. It does not worry me that the existing system does not mean impartiality in the true sense because it entitles me to complain if I wish to do so.
      Despite all the weaknesses of the BBC and the IBA, I believe in the present system and in the distancing of Ministers and the House of Commons from the running of

      545
      broadcasting. It is vital that that should be so. That is why I am against a Ministry of Broadcasting. Broadcasting is better off under the Home Office because it pays so little attention to it. Indeed, it is vital that it does not. Imagine a Minister of Broadcasting going to his office every day, taking his coat off and saying, "I run broadcasting; it is my fiefdom." That would be wrong. Just imagine what would happen if broadcasting was put under the control of the Department of Trade and Industry because it controls the spectrum, or something like that. Please let us not do that.
      Currently, it is left to the Home Secretary, through the Queen and others, to appoint the governor and the members of the board of the BBC. It should be possible not to appoint supporters of the Government in power. The only time that I was in a position to appoint a chairman of the BBC, I rang Edward Boyle and offered him the post. He had been a Conservative Minister, but I had the highest admiration for him. He declined, and one reason that he gave was that he loved his job at the University of Leeds. What I did not know was that he was dying. The appointment of chairmen or governors should be done out of respect for their intelligence and ability, not because of party support. That might not be perfect, but it is important to keep a distance. The code of practice in the Bill is an interference in freedom.
      6.15 pm
      How will the legal aspects affect the Government? I recognise the Minister's experience as a lawyer; he said that there would be no problem and that the Government would not end up in the courts. However, Lord Boston—who is the chairman of Television South, a former Minister with responsibility for broadcasting when I was Home Secretary, and a Queen's counsel—in another place called in aid legal opinion. Indeed, he dismissed legal opinion that I would not have lightly dismissed when I was Home Secretary. For example, he called in aid Mr. Anthony Scrivener, an eminent silk, who questioned the replacement of the words "make provision" by "take account of". He said that it was an improvement, but not a matter of great significance. He also referred to the words "major matters" replacing "individual issues". One person's major matter is another's minor matter. Lord Boston also quoted Lord Goodman, another eminent lawyer, who took a different view from that of the Minister.
      Mr. Mellor: If the right hon. Gentleman had been advised by his lawyers and by the lawyers to the regulatory body that this was not a lawyer's picnic, he might have felt the same degree of fortitude that I feel when facing such comments. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been present when I said earlier that, although it has been suggested that the term "major matters" would lead to difficulty, in fact for 40 years the law has contained the word "matters", which would be just as likely to lead to difficulties. If someone wished to make a fuss about "major matters", he would be as likely to make a fuss about "matters". However, there has been no litigation in that respect during those 40 years. Many of the lawyers' arguments appear to be arguments against the original proposition, not the amendment.
      Mr. Rees: Why put it in the Bill? The BBC and the IBA have had codes of practice for many years, but they are not in the Bill. Eminent lawyers take a different view from the Minister. He argues that there have been no court cases,
      546
      but I warrant that there will be—especially in view of the strong views expressed by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and others. Those who wanted change have been conned. The Government believe that they are adopting a policy of damage limitation, but they are wrong.
      There should not be the slightest question of broadcasting being under the control of the Government or Parliament. Let us have a statute for the ITC and a charter for the BBC and appoint the right sort of people as governors. Of course, mistakes are made, but I am proud of the BBC and the IBA none the less. We have the best broadcasting system in the world. It is not often that we praise anything in this country. In this place, we are here to run things down; to us, everything is wrong.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Speak for yourselves.
      Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman has not been here long enough. When he comes to sit on the Opposition Benches, he will say that whatever the Labour Government do is wrong.
      Mr. Tony Banks: He will not be here.
      Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend says that the hon. Gentleman will not be here. If that is the case, we shall all be happy.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman should not confuse criticism of a Labour Government with criticism of the country. We do not run this country down. That is the prerogative of Labour Members.
      Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman will never be a Minister at the Home Office and he will never have anything to do with broadcasting. He is typical of the sort of man who wants thought control and who believes that The Sun is the best newspaper in the world. I get angry about this talk of the country and political parties. It explains why politicians are held in such low esteem.
      Do not put politicians in charge of broadcasting because that is wrong. The Government have made a mistake. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has it right. This country must be free, even if that involves making mistakes from time to time.
      This is a silly Bill. We shall lose tonight, because that is the way things are, but it will be a sad day for broadcasting when we do.
      Mr. Gale: In introducing the amendment, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the Arts said that the 1954 Act makes provision for due impartiality. He told the House that those of us who served on the Committee felt that that provision was probably adequate and that he would probably have settled for that.
      Those in the other place felt otherwise and they chose to table an amendment that would place greater emphasis on impartiality. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that those in the other place did not want the amendment. If they had not wanted it, presumably they would not have voted it through by a two to one majority. If they had chosen to seek to defeat it, presumably there would have been more than 100 or so Labour peers present.

      547
      Sometimes this House and the other place are not entirely in touch with public opinion. It is interesting to note that, when the Lords defeat a Government measure, the Opposition say how wise they are.
      Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gale: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish, I shall, of course, give way. As he knows, I have a high regard for the comments that he has made throughout our proceedings on the Bill. When the Lords introduce an amendment that none of us has discussed in Committee or on Report, it is suddenly wrong.
      Mr. Maclennan: I always listen to the hon. Gentleman with interest because of his knowledge of broadcasting. He did not see fit to represent the so-called views of the public, as embodied in the amendment, at any stage in the Bill's proceedings. I imagine that, as a man interested in broadcasting, he is usually very much in touch with public opinion. Why was he not on this occasion?
      Mr. Gale: I am perfectly prepared to concede that, on occasion, other people have better ideas than me. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister conceded exactly that this evening. I think that it has been generally accepted that, since the Bill entered its Committee stage, it has been improved considerably following non-partisan discussion. The hon. Gentleman contributed a considerable amount to that process, as did many other Opposition Members. Indeed, I meant to start my speech by saying how very much those of us on the Back Benches who served on the Committee will miss the amusing wisdom of Norman Buchan, who played such an important part in our proceedings. Opposition Members contributed a great deal, but none of us in the House has a monopoly of wisdom, and I genuinely believe that, in this case, their Lordships have brought to our attention a matter that we should have considered earlier.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that the amendment represented an effort to intimidate and that, if it reached the statute book, the programmes that would result would be bland and anodyne. I do not believe that. The general public want, and generally believe that they get, and generally do get, impartial programming. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that she wanted to see and hear both sides of the argument. That is what impartiality is about and the amendment has been drafted precisely to achieve that end: it represents a genuine and fair attempt to write impartiality into the Bill in terms that most reasonable people will be able to understand.
      I am, by trade, a journalist and a broadcaster, and I find nothing frightening about the amendment. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, I used to make "Blue Peter," and I find no shame in that. But I spent two thirds of my career with the BBC making current affairs programmes. People of all political views were involved in making the programmes, but it was our proud boast then that our personal political opinions did not interfere in our programme making.
      Mr. Corbett: What, even on "Blue Peter"?
      Mr. Gale: People say that the old jokes are the best, but although I am in favour of the environment and recycling, I think that it would be nice to hear a new joke from time to time.
      The amendment is being treated by some as an attack on freedom of information. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who has been a staunch defender of freedom of information, introduced the IRA argument. As a current affairs producer and director, I shared with my colleagues of whatever political persuasion the clear understanding that we should never give air time to terrorists or convicted criminals. It was only as a result of the breakdown of that understanding among broadcasters that the Government found it necessary to impose that regulation. Undoubtedly, the best form of regulation is self-regulation.
      I see no cause for fear in the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) will be seeking to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that he will put another point of view. My hon. Friend and I do not always agree. Sometimes my post is misdirected to him and he courteously forwards it, and sometimes it is the other way round, so we know each other's constituents' views. We know that, out there, there are a lot of people who are genuinely concerned about the standards of broadcasting and about impartiality. They are not only Conservative supporters; there are most certainly Labour supporters among them.
      The public want security. They want to feel that, broadly speaking, what they see on the screen—over a reasonable period—is balanced. That is what their Lordships have sought to write into the Bill. They had three attempts at it before getting it right. That, in itself, says a lot for the way in which that House works. The amendment was not forced through the other place in an imperfect form. Their Lordships considered it as they often consider matters—perhaps with greater wisdom and depth than we do in this place. I think that they got it right and I see nothing whatever to fear from the amendment.
      I hope and believe that the House will accept that, in this instance, the other place has made a significant contribution to freedom and democracy in broadcasting. One side will never be impartial, fair and democratic. The public want the opportunity generally, consistently and all the time to hear both sides of the argument. That is what the amendment would ensure and I hope that, on consideration, hon. Members on both sides of the House will feel able to support it.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I also pay tribute to our dear, late colleague, Norman Buchan; one of the few poet politicians that we have—or had—in this country. Opposition Members will miss him greatly, and I know that he will be missed by many Conservative Members who criticised him in the past, but who always recognised the sincerity of his views.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) on his skilfully crafted vignette. I know that we shall be reading about it for the next six months in the various publications that he writes for. He was able to speak with all the freedom of a man never likely to be tempted by political office.

      549
      6.30 pm
      The code of practice for broadcasting put before us by the Lords has all the hallmarks of the Prime Minister's paranoia—she who actually believes that any form of opposition or criticism of her or her Government's policies is tantamount to treason. I am afraid that she is supported by many intolerant people on the Conservative Benches.
      The code would have been unacceptable to me wherever it had originated, and whoever initiated it. Even if it had come from the Minister for the Arts—the most acceptable face of Tory extremism on the Front Bench today—-I should have opposed it. The fact that its genesis was in the vile and bilious views of that odious bigot Lord Wyatt makes it doubly repellant. As far as I can tell, he wants the unrestricted freedom to write what he wants in a newspaper such as the News of the World, and to restrict broadcasters from making programmes with which he happens to disagree. What hypocrisy that amounts to. What double standards.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman is not being altogether fair to Lord Wyatt because 40 years ago he was on the extreme left and now he is on the extreme right. Surely that demonstrates due impartiality.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul. Dean): Order. Before the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) deals with that, I am sure that he will recognise, on reflection, that we should refer to members of the other place with some respect.
      Mr. Banks: It is very difficult to have any respect for Lord Wyatt, to be perfectly honest, and I am not prepared to accord him any. I shall not mention him again—that is the easiest way in which to pay him any respect. Anyone who can write the sort of article that he writes in the News of the World does not deserve serious consideration when he expresses views about impartiality in broadcasting, and it is as simple as that. He wants to turn broadcasters and broadcasting into as unbiased a medium as the News of the World or The Sun.
      When the Minister for the Arts was speaking about the code of practice, he said that there was no impartiality in the written word. That is certainly true of the extreme right-wing bias of our great national newspapers. Surely, if the written word is central to and underpins the democratic process, as so many journalists constantly tell us, we should require balance from the written word, from journalists and from newspapers. We already require balance from broadcasters, through the IBA and the charter. Balance is written into that, and there are statutory rights and requirements with regard to it.
      What is so unsatisfactory about the present situation? We should like to see a statutory right of reply as regards the written word, but when that case has been argued, the Government and journalists have always rebutted it. We are asking broadcasters to go much further than journalists. As I have said, broadcasters already impose upon themselves, and adhere to, an acceptable balance. The public do not require us to change the rules as they currently apply to broadcasting.
      Mrs. Currie rose——
      Mr. Banks: I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady so that she can get a story to use in her next newspaper article.
      Mrs. Currie: Where, in the hon. Gentleman's paeori of praise for balance and in his attitude to newspapers, lies the refusal by the Leader of the Opposition to talk to The Times, or the refusal by Derbyshire county council and other council leaders to put advertisements in The Times Educational Supplement because of articles that appear in The Sunday Times? What about the views of a headmaster—who happens to be a Labour councillor in east Staffordshire—who believes that all satellite television dishes should be banned, along with The Sun?
      Mr. Banks: I certainly do not think that the anecdotal approach to politics, which the hon. Lady specialises in, is the way to treat the matter at a serious level, which is how one would expect it to be treated.
      Any hon. Member is entitled to say that he or she does not wish to speak to a particular newspaper. Even if an Opposition Member told some newspapers everything—the whole truth—they would never print it, because it is the function of a number of newspapers to do the dirt on the Labour party. I remember talking to a journalist from the Daily Mail whose specific instructions had been to do the dirt on the Labour party. If an Opposition Member does not want to talk to a newspaper, surely that is his or her right.
      I do not agree with banning newspapers from libraries, which means that I do not agree with some of the decisions taken in local government, by councils controlled by the Labour party. The hon. Lady knows that because of our exchanges in Committee. There is no way in which she can catch me out in such an obvious and predictable fashion.
      I am worried that, when the justification for the code was advanced in another place, it was said that broadcasting existed as a protective monopoly. Up to 30 channels can be obtained by people with cable television. That does not seem to me to be a definition of a monopoly. If a programme on one channel puts a view that another one disagrees with, or if it has its facts wrong, there is ample opportunity for another television station to put it right. Newspapers do that from time to time when they attack each other.
      If the code is passed, it will be largely unenforceable, but that is not its real danger, and we should not reject it merely because of that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) got it right: the code is there to intimidate broadcasters. It will result in self-censorship, because broadcasters will be so worried about what might happen that they simply will not make certain programmes, on the ground that it could get them into difficulties with the authorities. It is the self-censorship element of the code that worries me most.
      To so many Tory politicians, impartiality merely means agreeing with their views. In recent months and years broadcasters have embarrassed the Government. That is one of their prime functions.
      The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) knows about the broadcasters' ability to criticise Government and call Ministers to account. It might detract from Ministers' dignity of office, but, frankly, that is what the public expect broadcasters and journalists to do. Unfortunately, it is a lamentable fact that few journalists and broadcasters are prepared to do that today. There is far too much deference given to Ministers by the broadcasters whom I listen to on the radio or the journalists whose articles I read in the newspapers.

      551
      The code is part of a long-running campaign by Conservative Members against broadcasters and against the BBC in particular. The people have made no demands for such a code to be imposed upon broadcasters. When it is only the politicians who are complaining, I am convinced that they have got it totally wrong. If I had received a large number of letters telling me that there is bias in broadcasting and giving me details, I might be more concerned. I have received no letters to argue that case. I have received dozens of complaints in letters—I am sure that many other hon. Members have, too—from people with the opposite point of view. They are worried about the implications of the code and of the Bill in general.
      The code and the proposals in the Bill come from a dangerously authoritarian Government, led by an intolerant Prime Minister, who uses the language of freedom while always acting to limit it. I greatly welcome the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook that when he is Home Secretary the code will be repealed. I am sorry that the Minister for the Arts supports it.
      Mr. George Walden: Although I do not necessarily share some of the darker insinuations about repression that have been made by some Opposition Members, it is legitimate for certain Conservative Members to be tentatively puzzled, to put it mildly, about why we have got to where we are tonight. In the past few months, we have moved from the position where we did not feel it necessary to legislate further on these matters to the position where we were going to legislate on individual issues, and then to the position where we would legislate on major matters. In a short time we have moved from the non-defined to the over-defined and then to the ill-defined. We have moved from arm's length to hands on and then to one hand on. At the very least, that suggests uncertainty of intent.
      When Members on both sides of the House mention the possibility of litigation, it reminds me of a phrase that featured in the Lords debate. A legal expert from Oxford was quoted as having said that the phrase "major matters" was
      "elusive of meaning and pregnant with ambiguity."
      That sounds like the House debating earlier this week economic and monetary union.
      Leaving that aside, that seems to me, as a non-lawyer listening to lawyers—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) and lawyers in another place—to be a worrying prospect. I believe that, on television, there is bias of four kinds. The first sort, which occasionally I think that I see with my slightly biased eye, is blatant anti-Tory bias. But what do I say to myself? I say, "I can rely, above all else, on my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to act not only as a bias detector but also as a bias corrector in his own right."
      I have to remind myself also that I read studies which show that large numbers of people in the country believe that much of the television output is biased in favour of the Tory party. I need also to take note of the stark, simple fact that, although this medium is caricatured as a thoroughgoing anti-Tory medium, and although it is alleged to have enormous influence over people's opinions, the Conservative party keeps winning elections. Although,
      552
      therefore, I see aspects of anti-Tory bias, and sometimes what seem to be blatant examples of anti-Tory bias, on television, I try to put them into a common-sense context.
      The second sort of bias that we see on television is anti-Government bias—indeed, anti-any-old-Government bias. What that means is simple: that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health hands out another few million or billion pounds, television will show a picture of someone on a long waiting list who needs an operation. I can guarantee that, if ever the Opposition come to power, they will not solve the waiting list problem in a hurry and that television will do a programme saying, "You said six months ago that you were going to solve the problem, but here is the same person in the same queue." There is nothing that one can do about that second form of bias. Moreover, if one thinks about it, it is a healthy form of bias.
      The third form of bias that I see, according to my own eye, is cultural bias. There is not a great deal that we can do about it, but I believe that it is a damaging bias. I am political about it. As a whole, the BBC is a little too anti-enterprise for my taste. It is a little too conservative. It has not caught up with some of the new thinking that I personally and some of my colleagues wish to see disseminated.
      I sympathise with the description about a year ago at the Edinburgh television festival by Mr. Rupert Murdoch of that sort of cultural bias by the BBC, but then I say to myself, "What can we do about it? What we see on the box is a reflection of the state of our society." In my view, it is an inert and over-conservative society that does not respond as quickly as I personally would like to some of the policies that the Government want to pursue. We have to remember, however, that Mr. Rupert Murdoch's cure for that form of bias would be far worse than the disease. We should be screaming for a return of the bias after we had had a dose of Mr. Rupert Murdoch on the BBC.
      6.45 pm
      The fourth form of bias is the most difficult of all. It is ontological bias. I know that that is an awful word, but I think that it is the one that I mean, if I have got it right. It means that bias is built into the nature of the medium. It means that, if there is a spectacular picture, no matter who is at the controls behind the machine there will be an enormous compulsion to show it. Nine times out of 10, that picture will be damaging to authority, order and reasoned assumptions. However, there is nothing that we can do about it. That is the nature of television film. One could write philosophical treatises about it, but there is nothing that we can do about it.
      That reinforces the other form of bias, the inbuilt anti-Government bias of the medium. There is nothing that can or should be done about it. Moreover, we should be grown up about it.
      What concerns me about the Bill has nothing to do with oppression and some of the other exaggerated words that have been used by the Opposition. My belief is that the amendment, even in its watered-down form, springs more from instinct than from intelligence. If a little more thought had been given to the nature of the broadcasting medium in general, and television in particular, I should not have been put in this sad and silly position of having to vote, as I shall do tonight, against something, not

      553
      because I think that it will do immense damage to the country, or that it will seriously curtail freedom of speech, but because I believe that it is a sad and silly amendment.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I have to declare an interest as the presenter of a political programme for Sky Television. It might be seen as an attenuated interest, given what I read in Private Eye, but it is there, none the less.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) on his speech. He suffers in his party from an unfortunate handicap—that he can think. If more Conservative Members suffered from it, we should not be debating the amendment. I do not intend to follow the attempt by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) to be humorous about this sad and sorry affair, but he could have devised something worse than putting Central Office in charge of television. It would almost certainly do for the viewing figures what it did for the vote in Eastbourne. However, that could do radio, for which both the hon. Member for Aldershot and I have made programmes, a great deal of good. It could, by contrast with some regimes, be enlightened. I think of the news coming from a lectern in Downing street and of a nice little programme about Downing street called "Neighbours", with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) playing Kylie Minogue's role and the Minister for the Arts playing the Jason Donovan of the series. It could be an interesting programme.
      What is even more important, if television were put under the control of Central Office we should not have the saturation bombing of the BBC by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) from which we have suffered in the past. It could be more enlightened than the regime under which the Lords amendment would put it. That would lead to much influence in television being given to a body that would be less enlightened, more partisan, prejudiced and ideological than even Central Office. It would pass it to the judges and the courts. If such a requirement, framed in that way, is written into the law, we shall turn the whole matter over to the courts. It is a sensitive question. Moreover, it is a question on which a large collection of people, with strong prejudices and large amounts of money, are prepared to go to law. We have many wealthy lunatics in this country who will almost certainly want to take up the opportunity that is offered to them to wreak a sort of indirect revenge on the broadcasting system for all the prejudices that we have heard about today. It creates an opening for any lunatic with any prejudice and enough money to push the issue into the courts.
      The debate is a sad reflection of the way in which the Government function and how decisions are taken. The Bill's progress has been a steady dilution of the Prime Minister's very real prejudices. She wants to bring a touch of discipline into television. She does not like it, is prejudiced against it and wants to put the frighteners on it by legislation. Throughout the months in Committee and in the House, we have seen a steady dilution of that impact. The Minister has done the job, on which we have all congratulated him, of diluting those prejudices. He will earn plaudits from the media, the Opposition and the House. Yet now, after the Bill has been to the House of Lords, the Prime Minister is wreaking her revenge through her representatives in the geriatric ward up there. Lord Wyatt proposed this amendment, which is known to echo her instincts, attitudes and views. We now have the
      554
      spectacle of that nice Minister who has told us one thing being forced to say something else because of the process in the House of Lords.
      Mr. Tony Banks: What I find most distressing about the debate—perhaps my hon. Friend will agree—is that the majority of hon. Members on both sides who have spoken have disagreed with the code. What is acutely depressing is that we can win the debate and then lose the vote. That is a very sad mark of our parliamentary democracy.
      Mr. Mitchell: Yes, it is a sad mark. In fact, the Minister's own words go against the proposal. lin Committee, the Minister said:
      "When I was presented with the opportunity to reflect: on whether we should make changes to the impartiality requirement, it occurred to me that a Government of any stripe are almost the last group to be credited with impartiality. I decided that it was better to leave well alone. That is what I have done … The Government deserve some credit in this matter. We have not fiddled around with impartiality arrangements. We felt that it was better to leave the goalposts where they were. Grief has not been turned away entirely, but may be more difficult to detect among the clouds of suspicion inevitably generated—rightly or wrongly—about these matters."
      He went on to enlarge on that and said:
      "I am indebted to the hon. Member for Erdington, as he has put his finger on an issue that has caused me concern. My inclination was to leave the impartiality provisions as they were on the basis that our impartiality would not be readily accepted by some, and thus it would be better to leave matters well alone unless there was a compelling reason for changing them … The problem with removing it is that, as with many of these matters, it is easy to have a well intentioned stab at an alternative, and easy to find a reason why that well intentioned stab is not as good as what one has."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 30 January 1990; c. 411–17.]
      That was in January and now, in October, all those words have to be eaten. It is like running against one's own video tape in an election campaign. The Minister's case then was strong and telling and he should be putting it now.
      Mr. Mellor: I am sorry to intervene because I know that there are some who want to draw the debate to a close. If what I am doing today required me to eat those words, I should not be here doing it. I want to make that clear. I have stood up for what I believe about the Bill on several occasions. The fact that I am commending the amendment is not in any sense a violation of what I said in January. What I said then related to the basic law on impartiality. We are talking about subsidiary matters to the code. The law is precisely as it was. When I spoke those words in January, there was a provision for a code. What has happened in the House of Lords is not that what Lord Wyatt said should be in the Bill has been put in the Bill, but certain matters were added to the requirement for a code to assert that the ITC should have regard to certain areas which, if it saw fit, a code should cover. That is different from changing the law on impartiality which, I shall say with the same force as I did in January, we are advised to leave well alone. My advice has been taken on that point.
      Mr. Mitchell: The Minister doth protest too much. I am happy to allow him a long intervention but his position must be ambiguous if the intervention had to be that long to explain it. In January, he was arguing about leaving the requirement as it is. He is now arguing in favour of writing something into the Bill in the terms suggested by the House of Lords. That is an entirely different position. I accept

      555
      what he said about the other changes to the Bill, but he cannot have it both ways on this matter. That is the problem.
      To enlarge the field of attack, the fact that the ITC has tacitly sanctioned the provision—albeit under duress—is a betrayal of its responsibilty. It has let down the television industry. The television industry feels that the ITC caved in far too easily.
      We are left with a folly. The legal opinions gathered by the various television organisations make a telling case against the amendment, which throws everything into the courts. That is the wrong forum for airing such issues.
      Professor J. M. Finnis for the Independent Television Association said:
      "There can be no doubt that the phrase 'take account of has an unsatisfactory elusiveness. It could be interpreted by a court as requiring that the ITC's rule conform to some judicially conceived standard about what matters are and are not major, and/or about what is and is not a due standard of impartiality … Such an interpretation … might be supported by pointing to the fact that whereas (4B) expressly provides that the rules need comply with the requirements of (4B) only 'to such extent as the Commission consider appropriate', there is no such leeway expressed in the face of (4A)".
      Christopher Beaumont, the Queen's counsel for ITN, said:
      "If the word 'major' is used it would raise formidable problems of drafing and definition. There would probably have to be a catch-all provision … I think that as the latest Third reading amendments stand there could be a risk of the Courts being asked to rule on the criteria used by editors in compiling their programmes."
      That is a further argument against the amendment.
      Anthony Scrivener, Queen's counsel for Channel 4, said:
      "The words 'major matters' involve making a judgemental decision in a context where there is and can be no guidance as to how the words should be defined. It is obvious that what one person may consider to be a 'major matter' would be considered by another to be a matter of little importance."
      Lord Goodman said that the amendment proposed is "virtually legally unworkable." He went on to say:
      "Quite apart from the legal difficulties (including applications for injunctions before transmission, applications to the Divisional Court, and post transmission complaints and litigation) the practical difficulties are insuperable."
      He goes on to put the point that I have already made about defining the words "major matters". That is the mess in which we are left. This is a sensitive area and people have strong feelings. People with money have prejudices that they want to pursue and the issue will be pushed into the courts.
      This matter is central to the regulation and self-discipline of broadcasting and we are taking it out of the hands of the regulators, saying, "We have no confidence in you because we are going to throw it into the courts." That is a failure of the principle of regulation that has been the essence of our system until now.
      The matter is one for doubt, hesitation and pain. We cannot compromise with this amendment. There is no way of taking out its teeth, diluting it or modifying it. It has to go. If it does not, we shall be in uncharted waters and enormous difficulties will be caused.
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: We have, effectively, been reviewing the question of impartiality since 1954—in the Broadcasting Act 1981, for instance.
      556
      The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) kept circumventing the main point. His objection to the amendment concerns the use of the code. An impartiality code relating to the BBC and the IBA has operated for many years, and, as far as we can establish, has prompted no litigation in the past 36 years. Why should it suddenly start now?
      The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) made a good point: he said that we should allow the regulators to operate at arm's length from the Government, who, he said, should not be involved. Careful scrutiny of the amendment, however, reveals that that is precisely what the Government have set out to achieve. They do not suggest that the code that will govern future broadcasting is written in the Bill; the code will be written and implemented by the ITC. The amendment lays down what the code should include to ensure impartiality, but it does not say how that should be done.
      7 pm
      No Conservative Member is setting out to censor, say, a series of television programmes. The director, or producer, must have the right to present his argument. The code is intended to ensure a proper balance: the aim is to prevent a director from presenting a series of programmes—the amendment refers specifically to a series—in which only one party or point of view is represented, and no attempt is made to balance that with opposing views.
      Since the introduction of the Television Act 1954, the power of the media has vastly increased. How many of us receive letters from constituents who have been moved to write to their Member of Parliament about a television programme? Surely we should be trying to ensure that, when an argument is presented to the public by such a powerful medium, the opposing argument is presented as well. We are not trying to tell broadcasters what they should be doing; we are asking them to do what they have been required to do since 1954.
      Let me deal—as a former practising barrister—with the question of litigation. We are being asked to judge whether the code will prompt extensive litigation before it has even been written, which is nonsense. Lawyers in the other place have passed judgment on something that is not yet in existence, adducing the few scintillas of evidence available to them in relation to the ITC's guidelines. Should we not pay more attention to the experience of the past 36 years than to a few lawyers in the other place and outside the House who are gazing into their crystal balls?
      The ITC will view the code in a common-sense way, remaining at arm's length from the Government, political parties and specific points of view. The ITC will be the regulator. As a member of the governing party of this country—the Conservative party—I do not wish to be involved in broadcasting; I merely want the regulators to ensure that impartiality is exercised. I am sure that the ITC will not produce a code that obliges the Leader of the Opposition, for instance, to follow any speech by the Prime Minister about a news item with his own comments. Surely everyone recognises that that would be absurd.
      Given the current power of the media, we must provide guidelines, and give the authority to implement them to people who operate at arm's length from the House of Commons.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: What about the press?
      Mr. Hind: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is possible to buy a whole range of newspapers and to choose which political point of view to absorb. That choice is not possible when one particular point of view is being expressed on one particular television channel.
      Some may consider that this proposal is going in the wrong direction, but it is based on 36 years' experience, and—in view of the growing power of the broadcasting media—makes good sense. Those who say that it will change the face of broadcasting are living in cloud cuckoo land. It will not do that; what it will do is provide a sensible framework for the future.
      Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I am prompted to speak by something that was said by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). He based part of this argument against the amendment on the fact that the IRA and its supporters were not allowed to broadcast freely.
      I am afraid that, as a Northern Ireland Member, I cannot accept that the sickening spectacle of supporters of terrorism—and, on occasion, the terrorists themselves—should appear in people's living rooms after the atrocities such as have been perpetrated this week and in the past. That cannot be used as an argument for freedom.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. We were talking about proscribed organisations and the form that they take. I said that we were being denied the freedom to judge such organisations for what they are. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that their members are evil and godless people, I entirely agree, but I believe that, as an honourable citizen, I am able to judge their evil and godlessness for myself.
      Mr. Forsythe: If someone who had just killed a child in a forest was interviewed by the BBC or Ulster Television, I do not think that any hon. Member would wish to take part, believing that that constituted freedom. We in Northern Ireland, who suffer such terrorist incidents daily—who witness them from our living rooms—support freedom as much as anyone in the United Kingdom. We are in favour of democratic freedom and freedom of expression. Sometimes, however, we are not given the freedom to live. I hope that the House will not accept the argument of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills in deciding whether or not to support the amendment.
      I accept the argument that television should be impartial, and in Northern Ireland, Ulster Television is very good in that respect. Unfortunately, the BBC—although it will not be affected by the Bill—cannot be said to show the same impartiality.
      Mr. David Trimble: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in respect of both Ulster Television and BBC Northern Ireland, the local broadcasters in Belfast behave responsibly, and that irresponsible behaviour is usually associated with broadcasters based in London—whose conduct in the past makes a strong case for the proposed new clause?
      Mr. Forsythe: My hon. Friend makes the point very well.
      Years ago, I was a professional footballer. We all knew the rules—including the referee—and did not try to change them while we were on the pitch. Even the professional footballers of today who are paid enormous sums of money do not attempt to change the rules of the game. I
      558
      do not understand why there should be any objection to guidelines that could easily be observed, or why there is such fear of them among the television companies. Is it their intention to broadcast programmes that would break those rules? It occurs to me that we are anticipating a situation that may never arise, but certainly my hon. Friends and I support the amendment.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) is right to say that there is nothing in the Lords amendments to which anyone could take serious exception. The interesting question is whether the amendments are necessary, but to debate that would require passing judgment on the proceedings in another place.
      I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who was the first to be alert to some of the dangers in the original Bill. He has not been sufficiently credited with helping to make possible the return of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) to the Home Office to get a grip on the Bill and to put it in such a form that allows all right hon. and hon. Members to support its provisions.
      The broader issue is that television must be interesting, and that producers and editors should be allowed to choose the subjects that they cover. By all means argue, but they should choose—and the BBC and independent companies should devise their own codes and guidelines by which their programmes are made. I hope that other organisations will spend £5 on buying "BBC Guidelines for factual programmes," which on pages 21 and 21—which shows how numerate is the BBC—presents the corporation's code. Given the length of this debate already, I shall not quote even the extracts in bold type. Nevertheless, those who have grounds to complain—given the vast range of programmes produced, there should be scope to make complaints, and whether or not they are upheld by the BBC itself or others does not matter—ought to be able to do so, when the programmes that are the subject of such complaints can be judged against the broadcasters' own criteria.
      Past controversies proved that broadcasters have not lived up to their own codes, which is only natural. There must be scope for human error and for differences of judgment. However, I follow the analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham in saying that much of what is newsworthy and broadcast is anti-Government. It is not anti-Government in the sense that The Guardian is—and which, because it thinks that the Opposition are so feeble, regards itself as a one-newspaper opposition to the Government, and always tests the Government rather better than the Labour party.The Guardian is anti-Government in terms of challenging the Government and providing a forum for debate of a kind that cannot always fully take place in this House.
      The House should support the Government in their reluctance to say that nothing can be done if it might be the subject of a genuine complaint. That is a potential danger in journalism in respect of press freedom, and Calcutt arid the new criminal law affecting journalists begs full debate and preferably delay. One thinks also of the privacy Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Knight) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who together managed to stop it making too much progress last Session. There is also the

      559
      question of the statutory right of reply. We must be big enough to say that we will not stop being broadcast anything against which a complaint might be lodged.
      My recommendation is that people should take the bigger attitude, and recognise that one can sometimes succeed with a complaint, as one should—but that on other occasions simply a row can help. Most of the time, it is worth considering the variety of programmes and ways in which people can put across their views, and accept that broadcasting and the press are a bit like this House, in that they can say what they think, but must accept the consequences.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Jonathan Aitken: My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister is a parliamentarian with a deft sense of humour, and he will need it when he comes to winding up this debate on the so-called impartiality amendments. I liked his style when he opened the debate. To my satisfaction, it lacked the messianic fervour exhibited by Lord Wyatt or even by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). My right hon. and learned Friend affected instead the manner of a cynical head waiter who finds himself serving a dish when he does not really like the chef's cooking.
      I did not find my right hon. and learned Friend totally convincing, but he was more convincing than the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who over-egged his pudding. He seemed to be using a sledgehammer rather than a stiletto, and made our flesh creep not only with talk of lawyers' picnics—although I did not infer that he was all that averse to them—but with words such as "intimidatory" and "offensiveness". He conjured up a vision of a new Woodrow Wyatt wing being built on to Brixton prison to accommodate erring broadcasters.
      Let us return to the point at which the Bill left this House in July. What happened since serves as a cautionary tale of a lordly rake's progress. The Bill was in good shape when it left this House. There was no discontent about its provisions and no amendments concerning impartiality or the lack of it had been tabled at any stage. As my right hon. and learned Friend honestly admitted, the Government felt no concern about the lack of impartiality clauses.
      When the Bill reached the other place, enter the voice of the people in the rather surprising shape of the patrician Lord Wyatt of Weeford, who claimed to speak for an army of discontented listeners and viewers who complained of major bias. There is no use pretending that constituency does not exist. It was echoed in our own debates, particularly in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley.
      What response should one make to that angry if sometimes contradictory discontent? My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley directed most of his fire at a programme entitled "Start the Week". Apart from the fact that it is not covered by the Bill, it is one seen by many listeners who genuinely enjoy it and cannot find anything to be cross about. That shows that one man's negative bias is very often another man's positive political enjoyment or prejudice.
      560
      Such contradictions did not deter Lord Wyatt, who, like Prince Rupert of the Rhine, went riding off on a charger in all directions. He did not mind where he went, and he probably would not have achieved anything, except the decent obscurity of a Division defeat, if the principal opposition had not come from Lord Thomson of Monifieth, formerly head of the IBA. I watched those two ancient gladiators clash over programme after programme, and found it difficult to decide which of them was talking greater nonsense.
      Lord Wyatt seemed to believe that civilisation was under threat because of terrible bias and lack of impartiality, whereas Lord Thomson appeared to be arguing that under the IBA, all British broadcasting was pure, holy and impartial, for ever and ever, amen—and that all broadcasters abided by the spirit of the Television Act 1954 and the code that goes with it. The truth of the matter is that only a minority of British broadcasters have even heard of that code, let alone abided by it. Above all, Lord Thomson seemed to be saying that Lord Wyatt's suggestions were a terrible threat to free speech.
      I simply could not swallow either proposition, but then Lord Whitelaw got in on the act, firing his blunderbuss in the air in confusing directions. One week he was opposed to Lord Wyatt's amendments, but then, for no discernible reason, he was in favour of them. I was not surprised that the Bill was passed by the House of Lords. I do not pretend to understand the proceedings of the other place, but after much confusing debate the Wyatt amendments were made.
      What difference have the amendments made to the Bill? It is not massively different from before. There always was a code on impartiality for broadcasters, with statutory backing under the 1954 Act. It is perhaps regrettable that so few broadcasters have heard of the code or of the statuory backing, but having been in television in various guises from reporter to, rather briefly, chief executive, may I say that I had not heard of it until Lord Wyatt mentioned it.
      I am not surprised that the old code was more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Perhaps it is no bad thing that broadcasters should be aware of the code. Declaratory legislation shows that concepts such as fairness and impartiality cannot be effectively codified because they are matters of editorial judgment. Good broadcasting and good journalism will come not from codes or laws but from the morality, ethics and good judgment of editors, producers and senior managers.
      Against that background, does it matter whether the amendment is made or not? I heard the voices of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who will vote against the Bill because he thinks that the amendments are too silly, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who thinks that they offend the libertarian spirit of this country. I hold a different view from the two extremes that have been taken—that the amendments are a denial of free speech and that they will cause a new era in the impartiality of our broadcasting systems. The amendment will make a marginal difference. It is a matter of judgment whether it will make a positive or negative difference. I do not think that the existence of the signposts or headings will make any difference because the code has the kind of headlines that any sensible code would have.
      British broadcasting needs not more impartiality but more professionalism. To illustrate that point, one need

      561
      only go back to the Alasdair Milne era of the BBC, when things were going wrong not because of wild bias and lack of impartiality but because of a sheer lack of professionalism. That changed under the new editor-in-chief.
      We want not so much less bias as more freedom of choice. We want more peer pressure, not necessarily more pressure from peers, but these are matters of editorial judgment. By a tiny margin, the judgment of editors will be positively strengthened by the code—and by drawing attention to it rather than diminishing it and making it negative. It is not a big deal either way. It is a little bit silly, but I shall vote in favour of the amendments.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Were Conservative Members a television company, we would have fully met all the requirements on impartiality. My hon. Friends have admirably represented both sides of the case—my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), with his typically robust and vigorous defence of freedom, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), with his great insight, and my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), who put a more robust point of view in defence of the amendments. I cannot say the same for the Opposition, who were rather biased and who encompassed only one view. At least Conservative Members encompassed several views.
      We were all particularly delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) managed to drag himself away from the garrison town to share with us, in the intimacy of the House, his next newspaper article, for which undoubtedly he will be paid. He was the light entertainment for the House.
      It is perfectly clear that due impartiality is what the public expect from their television broadcasting. It was universally agreed that, when there was a duopoly, it was absolutely vital. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills asked whether, as we have a multiplicity of television channels, there is a need for the same requirements of impartiality to be imposed. I believe that it still needs to be imposed. Although the parallel has been drawn with newspapers, we all recognise that the power of newspapers is not as great as that of television. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister rightly said that this is still a scarce resource, and it is therefore right and proper that this most powerful medium should continue to be governed by the impartiality rules.
      I want to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley in giving a couple of examples. Opposition Members find it difficult to understand why we feel exercised about these matters, so I shall cite two examples. The first is the broadcast by the BBC in May 1988 of the television drama "Tumbledown", the dramatised account of events at the battle on Mount Tumbledown during the Falklands war. The BBC argued that the film was non-political, but in a widely publicised account of the preview of it, its director, Richard Eyre, was reported as having said:
      "I would feel the film a failure if it's not deeply political …
      I don't think the film is balanced, and I hope that's considered one of its advantages, its virtues."
      The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is nodding. He agrees with that, and so would I if another side of the Falklands campaign had been shown. There was another side—"The Falklands Play", which was commissioned by Alasdair Milne, the former director-general of the BBC, and written by a celebrated
      562
      playwright, Ian Curteis. Alasdair Milne described it as a terrific story and a play that had enriched the BBC. Unfortunately, he felt that he could not screen it because we were in the run-up to a general election.
      That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said, Conservative Members believe that there has been a lack of professionalism. That was acknowledged by Michael Checkland, the new director-general of the BBC, last year. He said:
      "I think there was a point in the BBC when we kind of missed what was going on, the fact that the country had moved over in the last decade to the right"
      and that there had been a Conservative Government for 11 years.
      Opposition Members attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley for not producing examples, but it is important for the House to have examples. Clearly the director-general's prescriptions had not extended to Scotland, where there is a new twist in the concept of balance. Radio Scotland's editor of news and current affairs said in a letter in August last year to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth):
      "I do not believe you are right when you accuse us of lack of balance. The Scottish body politic is out of kilter, and that will inevitably be reflected in our programmes."
      If that were the rule on impartiality in television, there would be no case for Labour representation in the south of England, and clearly Labour Members would not believe that to be right. I hope that, in clarifying those arguments and giving those examples, I have been able to show the Opposition that there are justifications for the provision.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Howarth: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman had a good shout, and I recognise that the House wants to move on.
      The argument is not about impartiality—that is set out clearly in clause 6(1)(b). The minds of many people have been exercised by the imprecise nature of that provision. That is why my noble Friends felt that they had to pursue this matter and why they fought vigorously to incorporate the amendment in the Bill. I salute their endeavours.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South said that there are plenty of guidelines, and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) gave some examples. In the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and myself, it was not that the guidelines did not exist, but that they were flagrantly breached. There was a lack of professionalism. Clearly we cannot legislate for professionalism in broadcasting. This is not a draconian amendment. It will spell out to the ITC firmly and clearly Parliament's intention in seeking to ensure that there is proper impartiality. The amendment is not prescriptive. It creates a framework, and Parliament is entitled to draw up that framework.
      I will conclude—[Hots. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—for my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot has probably cast me in the role of the epilogue. I warmly welcome the Government's stand on this matter. It is up to the ITC to continue a long-established tradition of political impartiality. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is on dangerous ground when he would deny the public the right to challenge the ITC's decisions. I am sure that he does not believe that members of the

      563
      public should not have that right, and that the commissioners should have the last word. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not that much of a dirigiste that he would deny members of the public that right.
      It is extraordinary to suggest that there will be a plethora of legal actions. Some of us know how costly they are—one cannot mount a legal action unless one has the necessary resources. The only people with anything to fear from the amendment are those broadcasters who are contemptuous of the traditional concerns for impartiality which have long been regarded as worth while in this country. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Hattersley: I simply want to ask the Minister two specific questions and make one point before the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes, I hope, a good deal of time describing why the clause is necessary. He normally addresses the House with great courtesy and often with great persuasiveness. He owes the House something that we have not yet had—a description of why he believes the clause is necessary. In the hope that I can provoke him into doing that, I want to ask him two questions.
      The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) seemed to be labouring under the illusion that the clause applied to the BBC.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth indicated dissent.
      Mr. Hattersley: It appears that he is not under that illusion, but all his examples of partiality were taken from the BBC. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) did the same. The Minister for the Arts should put those hon. Gentlemen and us out our misery by telling us why, if it is imperative to have such a code with legal backing and all that that implies for independent television, it is not necessary to have such a code for the BBC. Why is this necessity so great for the independent channels and not for the public corporation? I should be grateful for an explicit answer on why this decision has been taken.
      I return to a crucial question. I hope that the Minister will tell us exactly why he regards the clause as necessary—not why he regards it as trivial, superficial, or cosmetic, not why he thinks that it will do less damage than we fear, not why he thinks that it will do more good than others suspect, but why he regards it as necessary in the first place. As I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will answer that question, I shall give one specific, brief example of why I regard the clause as dangerous.
      Were it the clause of the emollient Minister for the Arts, we would regard it as a little triviality that added to the gaiety of parliamentary life, but the real motive behind the clause was expressed in specific terms by the hon. Member for Colne Valley. The hon. Gentleman was very close to saying that programmes that do not accept the established view of the Government of the day have to be treated as suspect and probably suppressed. The hon. Gentleman made a speech which was wholly ridiculous and which will be regarded with complete derision by sensible people, but the fact that his speech was ridiculous does not mean that there is not, underneath the absurdity, a vein of deeply disturbing and sinister attitudes towards a free society. That is the real motive behind the clause.
      Mr. Riddick: That is not what I said. Broadcasters have every right to have whatever political view they wish; I am saying that they should not reflect their personal political viewpoint in their programmes. What is wrong with that? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree?
      Mr. Hattersley: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what is wrong with that. I do not want to offend the hon. Gentleman's neighbours by overstating my criticism, but it is wrong because, first, it is not consistent with free broadcasting and, secondly, it is not consistent with good broadcasts. I shall give an example. Professor Minogue of the London School of Economics produced a series, which looked like a factual description of history, which was devoted to the concept that socialism was a disaster and had failed wherever it had been tried. The hon. Member for Colne Valley may be surprised to hear that I do not share that view. But the idea that Professor Minogue should have been prevented from making his series is preposterous.
      I want to see a diversity of programmes. I do not want broadcasters to be bullied, forcing them to look over their shoulders in case Members like the hon. Member for Colne Valley are doing through the clause what they want to do, even though that may not be the intention of the Minister for the Arts. But we are to hear what the Minister's intentions are. We shall hear for the first time in the debate why he thinks that the amendment is necessary and why he has commended it to the House.
      Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was less than fair to my previous effusion, which I thought set out matters with great clarity. I shall give a shortened version, so that those who wish to proceed to a vote may do so. I sensed during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) that there were those who wished to do so, so I shall not run the risk of wearying people too much.
      I am genuinely sorry that, a number of controversial matters having been resolved during the Bill's passage, we have not succeeded in moving much closer together on this issue. I should like briefly to restate the purpose of the amendment and to set it in its context.
      The first point to make absolutely clear, following a series of speeches—most recently that of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—is that, when I said in January that I did not think that there was a case for any substantive change in the law on impartiality, I meant every word, and I have stuck by every word. The fruits of that are to be seen in clause 6(1)(c), dealing with requirements placed on the commission:
      "due impartiality is preserved on the part of the person providing the service as respects matters of current political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy".
      That is precisely the formulation that has appeared in every broadcasting statute pertaining to independent television since 1954—not a word of it has changed. That is a commendation of the Bill, not a criticism of it.
      One thing has changed, for good reason. There is now a statutory requirement for a code instead of guidelines. My hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) made speeches that expressed my views on many of these matters.[Interruption.] I am glad that my commendation of my hon. Friends has gone down so well. Perhaps I will commend a few more, in the hope that mass popularity

      565
      will follow. The IBA had guidelines and associated powers of pre-vetting and so on. As the ITC is a regulator, but not the broadcaster, it seemed appropriate that the guidance that it should give should be formalised into a code so that both the broadcasters and the public knew where they stood.
      The debate has grown like Topsy. People have begun, in their enthusiasm for the fight, to take issue with points that were perfectly accepted all along. I do not mean it cynically when I say that I always enjoy the contributions of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who speaks with great authority. It may have been a slip of the tongue, but he seemed in the end to take issue with the very idea of a code. When the Bill was last debated in this House, everyone was happy about having a code; it was not a controversial element.
      Mr. Rees: Not a statutory code.
      Mr. Mellor: It was a statutory code. For the first time, the code was provided for in statute. The Bill then went to the House of Lords, where, perfectly properly, their Lordships debated the Bill vigorously. Lord Wyatt put forward various amendments, such as the proposal that, when a biased programme was shown, a balancing programme had to be shown within one month and he wanted that provision to be on the face of the statute. That drew forth my remark in September to the Royal Television Society that I thought such an approach was unwarrantedly mechanistic and would not be successful. The original proposal was rejected and we ended up with an element of reassurance.[Interruption.]
      I know that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook can hardly contain himself. However, I am now coming to the point that he wanted me to address. Although the Labour party is terribly relaxed about all this impartiality stuff at the moment, it was not very relaxed about it when it was last in office. I dare swear that, if Labour were ever to regain office, the state of relaxation would soon change into a nastier turn of mind. We hope that this legislation will last a long time, so it has to encompass all manner of possible responses.
      Mr. Corbett: You had better not do it then.
      Mr. Mellor: That is the best argument against that I have heard all evening. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be as persuasive for the rest of the night so that we can have an earlier bath than most of us expect.
      Some people were concerned that the code should address issues, and they wanted the answer to those matters contained in the statute. We rejected that for the reasons of principle that I have explained. However, in the interests as it then seemed—unwarrantedly, as it now appears—of spreading a bit of sweetness and light on the matter, there seemed no harm in deciding that, even if we could not give people the resolution of the problems on the face of the Bill because it would be wrong in principle, we could offer the reassurance that the code would address certain key elements.
      Once again, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) that no self-respecting code could fail to address such matters. However, not everyone is as trusting as I am. It may be felt that it is better and makes reassurance doubly sure that we should
      566
      put on the face of the Bill areas that the code should cover. There is nothing wrong with that in principle, as long as we do not say how the code should say it.
      I cannot bring myself to say that this is the most fundamentally significant reform that has ever been brought before the House or even that it is the most fundamentally significant reform that I have embraced this week, today, or even in the past 25 minutes. However, it is one of 700 Lords amendments which has been plucked out of its obscurity because other people have chosen to get excited about it. I can say only that it is of benefit that the code, which we have all decided is useful, should cover issues that will properly go to the heart of the matter.
      The ITC believes that the proposal is helpful and workable, and that it does not infringe any of the broadcaster's prerogatives. I am sorry that that is not as enthusiastic an endorsement as I could muster for other issues, but it is an endorsement with which I hope to carry my hon. Friends into the Lobby with me tonight.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 181.

      Division No. 342]

      [7.43 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Coombs, Simon(Swindon)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Amess, David

      Curry, David

      Arbuthnot, James

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

      Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)

      Davis, David(Boothferry)

      Ashby, David

      Day, Stephen

      Atkinson, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Baker, Nicholas(Dorset N)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Baldry, Tony

      Dicks, Terry

      Banks, Robert(Harrogate)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bellingham, Henry

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dover, Den

      Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)

      Dunn, Bob

      Benyon, W.

      Durant, Tony

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Eggar, Tim

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Body, Sir Richard

      Evans, David(Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Evennett, David

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Boswell, Tim

      Fallon, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter

      Favell, Tony

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bowden, A(Brighton K'pto'n)

      Field, Barry(Isle of Wight)

      Bowden, Gerald(Dulwich)

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Bowis, John

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Bright, Graham

      Forman, Nigel

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

      Forsyth, Michael(Stirling)

      Browne, John(Winchester)

      Forsythe, Clifford(Antrim S)

      Bruce, Ian(Dorset South)

      Forth, Eric

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Freeman, Roger

      Burns, Simon

      French, Douglas

      Burt, Alistair

      Fry, Peter

      Butcher, John

      Gale, Roger

      Butler, Chris

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Butterfill, John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Carlisle, John,(Luton N)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gorst, John

      Carttiss, Michael

      Grant, Sir Anthony(CambsSW)

      Cash, William

      Greenway, Harry(Ealing N)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Greenway, John(Ryedale)

      Churchill, Mr

      Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)

      Clark, Dr Michael(Rochford)

      Grist, Ian

      Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

      Hague, William

      Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)

      Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Conway, Derek

      Hannam, John

      Coombs, Anthony(Wyre F'rest)

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

      567

      Hargreaves, Ken(Hyndburn)

      Needham, Richard

      Harris, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Neubert, Michael

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hayes, Jerry

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Nicholson, David(Taunton)

      Hayward, Robert

      Nicholson, Emma(Devon West)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Norris, Steve

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen(Wolv' NE)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hicks, Robert(Cornwall SE)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Page, Richard

      Hill, James

      Paice, James

      Hind, Kenneth

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Patnick, Irvine

      Howarth, G.(Cannock & B'wd)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Pawsey, James

      Howell, Rt Hon David(G'dford)

      Porter, David(Waveney)

      Howell, Ralph(North Norfolk)

      Powell, William(Corby)

      Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)

      Price, Sir David

      Hunt, David(Wirral W)

      Raffan, Keith

      Hunt, Sir John(Ravensbourne)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Redwood, John

      Irvine, Michael

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Jack, Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Jackson, Robert

      Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)

      Janman, Tim

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jessel, Toby

      Rost, Peter

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rowe, Andrew

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Ryder, Richard

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Key, Robert

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Kilfedder, James

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shaw, David(Dover)

      Knapman, Roger

      Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)

      Knight, Greg(Derby North)

      Shelton, Sir William

      Knight, Dame Jill(Edgbaston)

      Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)

      Knowles, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Shersby, Michael

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lee, John(Pendle)

      Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lightbown, David

      Speed, Keith

      Lloyd, Sir Ian(Havant)

      Speller, Tony

      Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

      Spicer, Sir Jim(Dorset W)

      Lord, Michael

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Steen, Anthony

      MacKay, Andrew(E Berkshire)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Maclean, David

      Stewart, Allan(Eastwood)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Stewart, Rt Hon Ian(Herts N)

      Madel, David

      Stokes, Sir John

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Sumberg, David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mans, Keith

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Maples, John

      Taylor, Ian(Esher)

      Marland, Paul

      Taylor, John M(Solihull)

      Marlow, Tony

      Taylor, Teddy(S'end E)

      Marshall, John(Hendon S)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Martin, David(Portsmouth S)

      Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)

      Mates, Michael

      Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Thurnham, Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Tracey, Richard

      Mellor, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Mills, Iain

      Trimble, David

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Trippier, David

      Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)

      Trotter, Neville

      Moate, Roger

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Viggers, Peter

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Morris, M(N'hampton S)

      Walker, Bill(T'side North)

      Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)

      Wardle, Charles(Bexhill)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Watts, John

      Mudd, David

      Wells, Bowen

      Neale, Gerrard

      Wheeler, Sir John

      568

      Whitney, Ray

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike.

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Yeo, Tim

      Wilkinson, John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sir George Young and

      Wood, Timothy

      Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

      Allen, Graham

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Hinchliffe, David

      Barnes, Harry(Derbyshire NE)

      Hoey, Ms Kate(Vauxhall)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie(Greenwich)

      Hogg, N.(C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Barron, Kevin

      Home Robertson, John

      Battle, John

      Hood, Jimmy

      Beckett, Margaret

      Howell, Rt Hon D.(S'heath)

      Beith, A. J.

      Howells, Geraint

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hughes, John(Coventry NE)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      lllsley, Eric

      Boateng, Paul

      Ingram, Adam

      Boyes, Roland

      Jones, Barry(Alyn & Deeside)

      Bradley, Keith

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Leighton, Ron

      Brown, Gordon(D'mline E)

      Lestor, Joan(Eccles)

      Brown, Nicholas(Newcastle E)

      Lewis, Terry

      Bruce, Malcolm(Gordon)

      Litherland, Robert

      Buckley, George J.

      Livingstone, Ken

      Caborn, Richard

      Livsey, Richard

      Callaghan, Jim

      Lloyd, Tony(Stretford)

      Campbell, Ron(Blyth Valley)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      McAllion, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Carlile, Alex(Mont'g)

      McCartney, Ian

      Clark, Dr David(S Shields)

      McFall, John

      Clarke, Tom(Monklands W)

      McKay, Allen(Barnsley West)

      Clay, Bob

      McKelvey, William

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McLeish, Henry

      Cook, Robin(Livingston)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Corbett, Robin

      McNamara, Kevin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McWilliam, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Madden, Max

      Critchley, Julian

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Crowther, Stan

      Marek, Dr John

      Cryer, Bob

      Marshall, David(Shettleston)

      Cummings, John

      Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

      Darling, Alistair

      Meacher, Michael

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(Llanelli)

      Meale, Alan

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

      Michael, Alun

      Dewar, Donald

      Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)

      Dixon, Don

      Michie, Mrs Ray(Arg'l & Bute)

      Dobson, Frank

      Mitchell, Austin(G't Grimsby)

      Doran, Frank

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Eastham, Ken

      Morley, Elliot

      Evans, John(St Helens N)

      Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Fearn, Ronald

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Field, Frank(Birkenhead)

      Mullin, Chris

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

      Murphy, Paul

      Fisher, Mark

      Nellist, Dave

      Flannery, Martin

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Flynn, Paul

      O'Hara, Edward

      Foster, Derek

      O'Neill, Martin

      Fraser, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Fyfe, Maria

      Parry, Robert

      Garrett, John(Norwich South)

      Patchett, Terry

      Garrett, Ted(Wallsend)

      Pendry, Tom

      George, Bruce

      Pike, Peter L.

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Radice, Giles

      Gordon, Mildred

      Randall, Stuart

      Gould, Bryan

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Graham, Thomas

      Richardson, Jo

      Grant, Bernie(Tottenham)

      Robertson, George

      Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      569

      Rogers, Allan

      Taylor, Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Thompson, Jack(Wansbeck)

      Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

      Turner, Dennis

      Rowlands, Ted

      Vaz, Keith

      Ruddock, Joan

      Walden, George

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Waller, Gary

      Sheerman, Barry

      Walley, Joan

      Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Watson, Mike(Glasgow, C)

      Short, Clare

      Welsh, Michael(Doncaster N)

      Sillars, Jim

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Andrew(Oxford E)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

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

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, J. P.(Vale of Glam)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Snape, Peter

      Young, David(Bolton SE)

      Soley, Clive

      Spearing, Nigel

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Ray Powell.

      Stott, Roger

      Strang, Gavin

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 15

      APPLICATIONS FOR CHANNEL 3 LICENCES
      Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 13, line 2, after ("the") insert ("programming and other").
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords amendments: No. 46 and the Government motion to disagree; No. 47 and amendments (a) and (b) and the Government motion to disagree; and amendment No. 48 and the Government motion to disagree.
      Mr. Mellor: I am considerably reluctant to seek to disagree with the Lords amendments. The amendments are significant because they refer to the only defeat that the Government suffered in either House during the passage of the Bill. The fact that we did not suffer any other defeat was not because the Government were able, automatically, to rely on a majority to steamroller the Bill through, but because——
      Ms. Diane Abbott: Pull the other one.
      Mr. Mellor: Please do not put me off, or I shall just take longer. The hon. Lady will be proud to testify that during our discussions on important issues in Committee it was often possible to reach understandings that mitigated, in some cases removed, some of the concerns felt.
      I do not want to take up a great deal of time, nor to prevent the miniature meeting of the shadow Cabinet which appears to be taking place on the Opposition Front Bench. There is a collection of excited bearded people having a conversation——
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am not a member of the shadow Cabinet.
      Mr. Mellor: Well, the time may come—it will be the shadow Cabinet, not the real thing.
      I invite the House to take the serious step of rejecting the Lords amendment, not because I take issue with the intention behind it, but because I do not believe that the amendment represents the right way ahead. I pray in aid the debates in the House before the Bill went to another
      570
      place. Those debates led us to put the Bill into better shape than it was when it started and certainly into better shape than it is now with the addition of the three elements that I invite the House to reject.
      The key element of our deliberations is to ensure that we preserve on Channel 3 a diverse service catering for a wide range of tastes and interests. That is the statutory requirement.
      We acepted the case for including in the Bill specific references to religion and to children's programmes. I accept that there was quite a strong lobby for another item, education, but——
      Mr. Mark Fisher: A huge lobby.
      Mr. Mellor: Only huge in terms of the girth of some of those advocating it. Let us say that substantial arguments were put forward by weighty figures on the subject of education.
      But, generally speaking, it was accepted that the laundry list, as it came to be known, held no great attraction for most hon. Members and that it was better to place our faith in the diversity requirements, substantially buttressed, as it was, by the ITC being given a statutory power, which we gave it during the passage of the Bill, to send out, in effect, a prospectus to applicants making it clear how it thought applicants should begin. With the range of programmes currently available, applicants should not assume that they could cross the quality threshold, which we made more substantial during the passage of the Bill, without accepting that diversity meant using the existing range of programmes as a starting point.
      8 pm
      I lay great stress on that because I do not believe that, if any half dozen of us gathered tonight and constituted ourselves as applicants for a franchise and talked about what we should put in, any of us could confidently say, "We can leave out documentaries", or, "We can leave out educational programmes," or, "We can leave out social action programmes." It is clear from everything that has been said, from what people will have heard from the ITC and from what we now know to be the balance in the Bill between quality and price that nobody could be sure that if they left out such programme types, they would be able to surmount the quality hurdle.
      I say with sincerity that I do not doubt the good intentions of those who inflicted this one painful defeat on the Government in the other place. Plainly, they wished to ensure that independent television continues to cover certain categories of programmes. We approach these issues as experienced legislators, now that we have got down to the hard core of what might be called activists. Most of the people in the House now sat through the various stages of the Bill and know what we are talking about, and the more populist figures have gone for their supper. Most of those present now would not want to call themselves populist figures—[interruption.]—or would not have the capability to do so, having columns in the daily newspapers and so on.
      We are left with something of a difficulty because, added to children and religion, we have documentaries, social action and education programmes. We must consider what is left out. We do not have drama, sport or—I must say this in my present role—arts programmes.
      Mr. Corbett: That is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's fault.
      Mr. Mellor: Let us not forget entertainment programmes. We are, after all, talking about a popular channel which must contain entertainment and all the programmes that some people do not like to acknowledge—[Interruption.] Some people do not want to acknowledge that millions of our citizens watch television for entertainment purposes. They do not always want to look at educational programmes.
      Nobody is ever anxious, particularly at this stage of a parliamentary Session, to have, in effect, another parliamentary stage of a Bill, asking the Lords to accept our reversal of what they have done. Had it been possible honourably to accept the amendment, there would have been a compelling case, at least on business management grounds, for doing so.
      I urge hon. Members who might be minded to object to what we are doing tonight to consider whether we could prefer another three subjects. Although I appreciate that there is no Rubicon of principle—we crossed that when we inserted children's programmes and religion—it is a bit perverse to say that we should have documentaries but not drama, social action but not sport, education but not arts programmes. It reflects value judgments that are understandable but are not objectively valid. Because of that, the only alternative would be to add even more items to the now quite long list contained in the Bill as it has returned from the other place. The danger then would be that one would be purporting to define what a diverse service should be.
      I recall, with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), the time when we were jointly dismissing the idea of a laundry list in relation to changes in the obscenity legislation.
      Mr. Corbett: I recall that well.
      Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is on good form tonight and I look forward to his speech.
      A list of programme types runs the risk of narrowing the range of options that would be available on Channel 3. I do not want to speak at greater length, but that is the only reason why I am inviting the House to disagree with the amendment. We are entitled to take some pride in what we achieved in our debates. If there had been a glaring omission of the type that we are discussing, we might ourselves have spotted it—[Interruption.] I appreciate that some hon. Members were unhappy about some of what we did, but I doubt whether many would have chosen the list that is before us or whether they did not, by the end of our debates, feel that the quality threshold had been thickened up and that the pressure on applicants was such that we could start with the range of programmes.
      Whatever hon. Members may feel about protecting certain types of programmes, I hope that they would not wish to commend the other limb of the amendment, which is about the time they should be shown. We had to be realistic during the passage of the Bill. We had to recognise that in the more competitive situation of the 1990s, it was right, with other channels coming on stream, that broadcasters should have the flexibility to schedule. If we have confidence in some of our fellow men, then many of the programmes in the lists that are before us are popular enough to be shown at peak times. But we must allow the
      572
      schedulers the opportunity to schedule in what will be a competitive market and in a situation where they must be commercial.
      Although it is not my main reason for wishing to delete the amendment, its policy intention was that programmes that might attract smaller audiences should have the opportunity to secure a place in peak viewing time. But the amendment, because of the way it is drafted, suggests that programmes should be shown at appropriate times having regard to the potential viewers of programmes of that type, and that might mean that a high audience programme would be scheduled at peak time and a lower audience programme scheduled at off-peak hours. That is probably the opposite to what those who proposed the amendment intended.
      I do not give that as a central reason for objecting to the amendment. If it had not been otherwise flawed, we could have further amended it. But it is another good reason why I can suggest that we are not in any sense diminishing what I believe to be the clear remit for Channel 3—for the new companies to pick up where the others left off and to have a wide range of programmings.
      The effect of keeping the amendment would be, for no good or proper grounds, to appear to be preferring certain programme types to others. I have given six examples, three in and three out, and I defy anyone to say that there is any logical distinction in preferring the three that have been preferred to the other three—when the danger of even adding the other three would be a list that purports to define diversity in a way that narrows, rather than broadens, the programme types that are likely to be found. On that limited but persuasive ground, I invite the House to disagree to the amendment.
      Mr. Corbett: We were saddened to read in The Times this morning that the Minister for the Arts, so lately in office, is anxious to demonstrate that there is life outside politics. I hope that he will stay with us at least until the Bill has completed this stage of its passage.
      If I should ever write about my time in this place—or, in the context of this debate, should I ever fund a very low-budget video—I shall call it, "It's a funny way to earn a living." I say that because not many minutes ago the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and others said that, on occasions, members of another place knew more than we did about public opinion and matters concerning the populace. Coincidentally, it suited the hon. Gentleman's argument to say that.
      I shall be surprised to get it, but I am expecting some consistency on the amendments because it can be said that the House of Lords, in respect of the further must-carry obligations, reflects a central matter of concern that lies at the heart of the Bill—the quality threshold. The Government set enormous store by the quality threshold when we had the trailer for the Bill as long ago as November 1988 and have done so ever since. I remember the Minister telling us on several occasions that it was precisely that quality threshold that would ensure that what had happened to Australian television would not and could not happen here.
      In Australia, as we discuss the amendments, two out of three of the national channels are in the hands of receivers. Channel 10 will tomorrow sack 500 staff at all levels and switch to greater use of imported American material, precisely because those to whom that licence was sold funded their bids with funny money and junk bonds, and

      573
      got into enormous debt. As a consequence, that channel and Channel 9 are both wrecks. Down the road a little in New Zealand, the only commercial channel is in the hands of receivers.
      Ministers have said that the new ITV network regime on Channel 3 will be a notch below what we now have. That nice George Russell, the chairman designate of the ITC, asserts that it will be 80 per cent. of what we have now. There is no argument between us that some types of programming that viewers have become used to seeing, especially those at peak times, will no longer be there to choose from. What matters and lies behind the all-party concerns reflected in the Lords amendments is which type of programmes are likely to be more at risk.
      The fact that the Government want to remove the additions to the so-called quality threshold gives the game away. It is precisely programmes in the sectors specified by the amendments—documentaries, programmes with an educational purpose and social action programmes—that the accountants and advertisers who will control the Channel 3 licences will put most at risk.
      Documentaries will be put more at risk because they are often more expensive to make in terms of research, travel and production costs, and because things do not always work out as planned in the course of making them. Shows that are tightly scripted and shot in studios are much more controllable in terms of costs and their outcome is certainly more predictable.
      Education and social action programmes are at risk for another reason. Shown in peak time slots, the better to attract large audiences, they may well not produce the type of audience that advertisers want at those times. Those are the hard-nosed commercial judgments that will be made by the schedulers.
      As I think the House understands, programme timing is critical to audience size, as is the channel on which a programme is shown. For example, programmes of an educational nature on the environment and third-world issues, screened at peak hours on BBC 1 or networked on ITV, command audiences of between 2 million and 5 million. Exactly the same programme shown on BBC 2 or Channel 4 at similar times attracts a much lower audience of about I million. Therefore, unless it is specified that such programmes must be shown and at appropriate times of the day and week, they will be unprotected in an increasingly competitive television world and much more at risk than now.
      The Minister repeated tonight that he does not want any sort of laundry list. I must remind him that it was he who started to write it.
      Mr. Mellor: I accept that.
      Mr. Corbett: I know that he accepts that. He started to write it when he was persuaded, against a background of all-party pressure, to retain the must-carry obligations in respect of children's programmes and later religious programmes. I remember the night when we debated that because there was a bad storm and thunderbolts were bouncing off the roof above the room in which we were meeting. We are talking not about laundry lists, but simply about their length.
      The Minister said again tonight that there is no need to put such matters in the Bill because the ITC will issue illustrative guidelines on the programme range and type that it expects bidders to provide.
      574
      With respect, illustrative guidelines do not have the same force as quality threshold requirements, as he and the House well know. In this context, the important point is that if it is not in the Bill, accountants will be able to say, "Yes, we understand, Mr. or Mrs. Programme Maker, what you are saying, but we simply cannot afford them," or, "We want that slot for a different type of programme because it will deliver a different kind of audience at that time, and one that the advertiser wants."
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman twitted me a moment ago about consistency. In the previous debate the Opposition said that nothing was needed in the Bill because guidelines would be sufficient. Now they are apparently standing that on its head and saying that the guidelines are not sufficient, we cannot trust the broadcasters, so the matter must be specified in the Bill.
      Mr. Corbett: We are all sharp tonight. I generously acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point, but we cannot treat all fish in the sea as being of exactly the same kind, weight and importance.
      The Minister said earlier, although he did not use these exact words tonight, that if there is public demand for such programmes, they will have to be provided. There is no evidence for that assertion. On the basis of experience elsewhere, all the evidence points exactly the other way. There is evidence from France, what was lately West Germany, and Italy, which all started on this three or four years before we did, that in a deregulated climate exactly the opposite happens. The effect of deregulation in those countries has been a dramatic fall in the number of factually based programmes and a rise in those that are primarily entertainment led to meet commercial needs and advertisers' demands.
      I shall quickly tell the House that in terms of viewer demand—what viewers want—the IBA attitudes to television survey in 1989 showed that an astonishing 66 people out of every 100 wanted more nature and wildlife programmes, 55 out of every 100 wanted more educational programmes for adults and 55 per cent. wanted more plays and dramas. Some 42 out of every 100 viewers wanted fewer quiz shows and panel games, 43 per cent. wanted fewer chat shows and an astounding one viewer in two wanted fewer soap operas. That is exactly the opposite of what we suspect is likely to happen. I am trying not to make judgments because such programmes have a place on the menu, but I am trying to make the point to the Minister that so do other programmes, especially those specified in the Lords amendments.
      One of the saddest aspects of Australian television—I probably watch more of it there than I do here—is that it is the only publicly funded, multi-cultural, special broadcasting service channel that provides anything like a decent, nightly, international and national news programme, and very well done it is too, and documentaries. That is the reality of what can happen in such a climate.
      The Minister may recall that he described the quality threshold—I think that there was some dispute as to whether it was the Minister or that nice George Russell who used the phrase initially—as a "Becher's Brook". That Grand National jump got its name because Captain Becher dashed into the lead at the start on his horse Conrad, charged at the first brook, was dumped on the ground and hence gave his name to that jump. That is

      575
      what we fear about the quality threshold. We want it to be high, wide and firm, with every intending rider forced to jump well clear.
      The Government—and we agree with them—say that we want an active democracy and an informed electorate. If they are serious about wanting more citizens to be active citizens, they must realise that that will not happen unless television plays its part in helping it to happen. That is what makes this type of programme so important.
      Our former colleague, Mr. Alf Dubs, the distinguished director of the Refugee Council, puts it this way:
      "television has a vital role to play in raising people's awareness of the particular problems facing developing countries. It can also make people think more about situations nearer home, and can highlight social issues."
      The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education tells us:
      "The Government recognises that Britain needs a much greater commitment to re-skilling its workforce, and ITV has shown an ability to persuade people who have had no contact with education and training since school to follow up programmes with active study. This is a resource too precious to jeopardise."
      I hope that no hon. Member would disagree.
      Age Concern tells us:
      "Television and radio play an important part in enabling organisations such as Age Concern England to maintain and develop communication with older people."
      That is profoundly important.
      "In our ageing society, communication through the media is likely to become even more important, especially for those older people who are isolated and housebound."
      I hope that no hon. Member would condemn housebound
      and often lonely people to a diet of wall-to-wall game shows and chat shows such as the Bill threatens.
      Mr. Mellor: I do not want to prolong this debate but, by reading out those submissions, the hon. Gentleman is proceeding as if we were dealing here with the only television channel. My primary point is that I believe that no one will cross the quality threshold who does not have a full range of programmes. In public service television we have BBC 1 and BBC 2, and Channel 4 with its specific remit, so I wonder whether some of those points are not seriously overstated.
      Mr. Corbett: I understand that, but the Minister seems to overlook the fact that the must-carry obligations were imposed first on the BBC and then on the new independent television stations, and that is what enables us to stand up and assert that our television system is, if not the best in the world, certainly among the best in the world. That did not happen by accident. It happened because we required those responsible for running the commercial television network to carry out some of those basic functions.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: I think that the Minister is trying to say that he does not want competition on quality. He wants a channel that might be regarded by, say, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) as a trash channel.
      Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend makes the point well.
      I shall finish by explaining what puzzles me about the Government's attitude. We have laws and speed limits to try to reduce accidents on our roads. We insist that every child goes to school for 11 years from the age of five. We say who can and who cannot drink alcohol and what can
      576
      and what cannot be done with our processed food. Yet when it comes to television it seems that the Government say that there is no need for any guidance to those responsible for our television on what viewers should be able to see, for our national well-being and advancement. I find it unacceptable to claim that providing a lead in television is less important than it is in other areas in which the law touches on the lives of every citizen.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: I support the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) in favour of the Lords amendment, and wish to speak to my two modest amendments to it. The Minister will not be surprised by them; they are consistent with everything that I said in Committe and are designed to remind everyone that when we speak of regional television on Channel 3, in the Principality and in Scotland we are also talking about nationhood and the national culture. I wish to remind everyone that the term "regional" is not a wholly accurate description of the role of Channel 3 in the Principality. It will have a responsibility to reflect a national culture as well as regional interests.
      My amendments will be irrelevant if we lose the Lords amendment. In the past the Minister has been the flexible friend of the House during the passage of this Bill, so I do not understand why he is being so stiff-necked about these propositions. After all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington reminded him, we have added to the list. I supported the inclusion of children's and religious programmes, but I had little doubt that the Channel 3 producers would broadcast children's programmes—they are popular and would therefore be a normal part of any programme diet. But we still felt the need to reinforce their inclusion. I think it even more important to give statutory buttressing to the inclusion of education.
      The Minister intervened earlier to say that we have BBC 1, BBC 2 and Channel 4; and, in the Principality, S4C. But for many groups of people in the communities that I represent the commercial Channel 3 is the major television station; indeed, it is watched by the overwhelming majority. So the claim that because we have those other channels we do not need to impose an educational responsibility on Channel 3 is an invalid argument. A mainstream commercial channel should have a statutory responsibility to provide education.
      When speaking about how strong the diversity test will be and how the ITC will apply it, the Minister fallaciously argued that if we include education we should also have to include sport and drama. No one believes that sport will not be included in Channel 3 programming. We all know that there will be a lot of sport—too much in the view of many people. No one is worried that a commercial television station will not carry sport. However, under the pressures of costs and savings there may be genuine doubts whether, unless there is a clear obligation on commercial television to continue to run educational programmes, it will do so.
      Wherever we stand in the great education and training debate there is a consensus among all parties that education and training arrangements in this country are appallingly poor. We should not turn our backs on one significant means of communicating important educational and training messages to large groups of people, particularly younger people.

      577
      There is another reason why we must impose statutory obligations in respect of education. There are already tell-tale signs that, in view of projected declining advertising revenues in the 1990s, accountants, not programme makers, will start to rule our commercial television programmes. Any doubts that I had about that being a strong possibility have been dispelled because even since the Bill was last debated there is manifest evidence of it occurring on the Welsh television scene.
      I hope that the Minister will be alarmed to hear about what has happened in the last week or two. All of us, including the Minister, paid tribute to Welsh television and worked together to try to make sure that S4C'c role and remit in the Bill was assured and buttressed. Its revenues depend entirely on advertising and, as it foresees a future decline in those, it has dropped a bombshell on the Welsh television scene. Last week it announced that in the first six months of 1991 it will commission only £13 million worth of programmes. It commissions programmes from HTV and the Welsh independent sector, and the cut means that they will get just £6·5 million each.
      8.30 pm
      The independent sector has flourished as a result of the development of S4C, and HTV has had a significant and important programme-making capacity to meet its demands and needs. Last year S4C commissioned about £40-million worth of programmes. The reduction in demand from S4C will have a dramatic effect. In February or March, S4C may feel capable of commissioning more programmes, but the shape of things to come can be seen in the effect that that announcement has had on the development of programme making in the Principality.
      It is not alarmist or fanciful to express concern about the growing pressures of the 1990s. Financial pressures may develop in commercial television and we are worried about the amount of advertising revenue that will be available to Channel 3. There will also be takeover pressure in line with the new competitive spirit. As a consequence, accountants will tell the programme makers to cut everything except that for which they are statutorily responsible. The way in which S4C is revealing its problems to HTV and the independent sector about the commissioning of programmes next year because of worries about falling advertising revenue shows the shape of things to come in commercial television.
      There is a powerful case for including in the Bill a statutory obligation requiring commercial television to provide education programmes. The Minister's arguments in that respect are not valid. We added children's programmes and we rightly added religious programmes and, given the climate in which commercial television will operate, it is important to send from the House the loud and clear message that Channel 3 has an educational role. The best and simplest way to do that is to support the amendments.
      Mr. John Greenway: I sense that our deliberations are rather like old times, but one element is missing. It is sad that Norman Buchan is not with us, because he would certainly have taken part in the debate, as he took part in many of our debates in Committee.
      As always, I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who developed compelling arguments about the situation in France and Australia. I entirely agree that that should give us great
      578
      cause for concern about the future of our commercial television channels. However, I am not sure that he drew the right conclusions. Arguments about what is happening in France and Australia go to the heart of why it was right to put in the Bill a proper bidding process which not only strengthens quality but discourages overbidding. It also ensures that business plans must be realistic if they are to have any chance of passing the ITC quality test and the business plan test, because within the Bill the two tests are quite separate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister knows that in Committee I argued vigorously for a strengthening of the quality threshold.
      We should remind ourselves of three areas in which the Minister agreed to make some important changes to the tendering process. First, we should not forget the strengthening of regionality and of regional programming, which I know the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) also holds dear. Secondly, we must not forget about the strengthening of quality news and current affairs requirements in the bidding process. Thirdly, we added children's and religious programmes, which we felt had an overriding argument in their favour. We knew that by doing that we would encourage other special interest groups. Equally, we agreed that it was entirely unsatisfactory to provide a statutory requirement to broadcast a long and exhaustive list of programme types. To do so would completely undermine the objectives of deregulation, which in turn are based on a recognition of the commercial realities of the increased competition that Channel 3 and ITV will face over the next decade and into the next century.
      Already in the past six months we have seen a reduction in advertising revenue, giving rise to the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. I have heard no new arguments in this debate or read about any in reports of the deliberations in the other place about why we should change our position on this. The Bill already requires diverse programmes. Equally, the programme types included in the amendments draw attention to the importance of such programmes. The Minister has drawn attention to that and, like him, I can think of other programmes that I should like to see on Channel 3. I should like to see not just sport, which is commercial, but arts programmes, which are often riot commercial. I should like to believe that, from time to time in the years ahead, I shall still be able to see opera on Channel 3. However, it is not right to insist upon a statutory requirement that Channel 3 should broadcast opera.
      Mr. Mellor: I am enjoying my hon. Friend's speech. People will be set into a framework of existing provisions. Therefore, I am not relying purely on market forces for Channel 3. It is not without significance that BSB has already pinned much of its faith on opera for key viewing times, such as Saturday evenings. It is significant and rather encouraging that, since we last discussed these matters, Sky Television has announced quite serious plans for a dedicated arts channel. That suggests that the idea that the lowest common denominator of programming will rule is not necessarily correct.
      Mr. Greenway: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. I was about to make a different point—that, although companies must make a commercial judgment about what they show, it does not necessarily follow that

      579
      their support for, for example, the arts or opera need be through televising those events. They may well prefer to support them through sponsorship. Yorkshire Television has sponsored two productions by Opera North. I am only sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend could not come to see the recent revival of La Traviata. Yorkshire Television provides sponsorship for the commercial reason that it promotes the company in the region. However, it also does it to support the region. The regional structure, especially with Channel 3, should not be overlooked. If we place too many obligations on Channel 3 franchisees, we may put in their path requirements that, over time, they cannot match. Sponsorship could be one way to ensure that the sort of social action programmes to which the hon. Member for Erdington referred, and about which we all have strong views, continue.
      The House should recognise that programming obligations must be matched by commercial reality. If we cannot—and we cannot—guarantee Channel 3's income or its financial future, we must be careful not to saddle ITV with statutory obligations that it cannot realistically underwrite over the next 10 to 20 years—which is the timescale legislated for in the Bill. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, it does not mean the end of programmes. The market place can provide quality and diversity. ITV needs flexibility, and the Bill, as drafted when it left this place, provided that. We would be wrong to over-egg the pudding. We have provided for the essential ingredients; we should trust independent television to add the relish. I know that it can.
      Mr. Maclennan: I think that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), in the last moments of his speech, underlined our concerns that lead us to think that their Lordships made a wise move. He spoke of the difficulty for companies, in years to come, in meeting the requirement of diversity in the way that the Minister assured us he was confident they could. I suspect that none of us could predict with great accuracy what will be the financial position of those companies in three years, let alone 10 to 20 years.
      I take issue with the Minister who, in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), said that we should not overlook other matters, such as the special remit of Channel 4, the BBC's role and so on. We must be wary of that argument, because it is clear that that cornerstone of broadcasting, the BBC, is increasingly under attack, as it was attacked in our earlier debate.
      One of the sticks that will be used to beat the BBC is ratings. If it broadcasts programmes to satisfy the diversity requirement—for example, educational, social action, and expensive documentary programmes—which may be of high quality but directed at a specialist audience, and therefore not attracting substantial ratings, that will be taken as a sign of weakness, and the BBC may feel that it must respond to the ratings criticism. I fear that the whole atmosphere in which programme making, even by the BBC, is developing may be changed if the ITV channels move down market.
      We spent a great deal of time discussing these issues at earlier stages of the Bill. I think that the hon. Member for Ryedale was right to say that there are few new arguments to be deployed at this stage. However, the Minister cannot
      580
      complain about our taking issue with him when the other place thought it right to change the balance of the Bill and the balance of the protections. We listen to its arguments, we weigh them and then we decide whether we think that it is right. I was one of those least attracted to the original concept of specification. If we specify programme content to ensure diversity, the question will arise whether that is a requirement. If it is, other programmes that are not specified will be dropped.
      8.45 pm
      The Minister earlier admitted that it was he who accepted the view that religious broadcasting and children's programmes should be specified. Once that happened, I took the view that certain other matters also had to be specified because they were vulnerable to the sort of arguments that I have already made. They are also vulnerable because they are distinguishable from other programmes in that they are expensive, and quite properly directed to small audiences. The Minister talked about excluding the arts. I advocated special treatment for the arts and the creation of an arts fund. However, I recognise that, even if we specified the arts, only a small audience would be interested in a particular art form. We cannot specify all the arts, so it is difficult to argue for arts specification.
      The three matters highlighted for specification by another place are important and beyond argument. Social action programmes have been one of the great innovations in television broadcasting and have achieved something that could not be achieved by other means. They would be difficult to justify in commercial terms, so without some sort of obligation they might be the most vulnerable. Educational programmes are enormously important, and would probably be the last to disappear. They can attract substantial audiences, and there is a great and growing public demand for them. Documentaries are another matter because they can be exceedingly expensive to make, especially if they are shot abroad. It would be a great misfortune if they were to disappear from our screens.
      I throw my weight behind the arguments deployed in another place. I have highlighted the dangers that might arise if we rejected the amendment, which I believe improves the Bill.
      Mr. Walden: I want to make an intervention of nauseating piety but merciful brevity. Much of what I wanted to say has been said by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), with his Celtic fluency.
      It is ironic that this country is going through a crisis in educational quality, while knowingly passing legislation that will, in all probability, lead to a decline in the educative aspect of parts of television. If we are being honest, we all agree with that. There was a flagrant contradiction in the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said that, in all commercial realism, it could be difficult to pay for quality programmes if one did not have enough popular programmes. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister appeared to agree with him, even though he had said two minutes earlier that things were not as bad as they looked and that we would

      581 be seeing a lot of opera. It is permissible to have some intellectual doubt about the possibility of reconciling those two views.
      I repeat that it seems to me perfectly possible to suspect that we are in the process of passing legislation that will not only run down the quality, such as it is, of our commercial television but—as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) pointed out—will probably, in time, affect the quality, such as it is, of the BBC. I am not being a Jeremiah; those effects may take time and they may be difficult to pin down. Nevertheless, it is possible to take that view, and a lot of extremely intelligent and thoughtful people outside the House do, indeed, take that view.
      In terms of education, there is an increasingly close relationship between what is broadcast and what is taught in the classroom. Let me give my right hon. and learned Friend an example. I should be interested to know whether he has been in touch with the Department of Education and Science about the amendment. If he, like me, had had the misfortune to read some of the new GCSE examinations in English literature, he would know that, to a certain extent, they are based on piddling and banal television film scripts. That is the nature of the new world in which we live, and it is the subject of another debate. But given that those film scripts are used in our examinations, and used in our schools, as texts to be "studied", it will be a sad day for education if we do anything in the Bill to make them more piddling and banal than they are already.
      Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend can assure me that he has been in touch with the Department of Education and Science and that these matters have been given the thought that they deserve. But I beg leave to express some doubts about whether that is so, and to be not pessimistic but absolutely realistic about the risks that we shall be running in the Bill if we do not do whatever we can to use the sticking plaster—that is all it is—that the amendments represent. We shall not save the day, after all, by naming three subjects. The only case for naming them is that we may thus do something to head off what I regard as an inevitable decline in quality, which will have repercussions for the BBC and, indirectly, for our education system.
      Mr. Mellor: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) knows that I am enormously fond of him and that I agree with his views on almost everything. I even partially agree with some of the views that he has expressed from time to time on this issue, as I hope has been evidenced by what has happened during our proceedings on the Bill. Nevertheless, I think that he is over-pessimistic.
      I know that, in the end, it comes down to a matter of judgment. Honourable people of insight will come down on one side or the other of the argument. There are no absolutes in the matter, and I do not think that there is much room for further persuasion. But the new television channels that are completely free of any statutory intervention in terms of what they show have not proved the pessimists right. It is true that one of Sky's channels shows quite a lot of repeats, but that is also true of the BBC. Sky News is a quality product, however, and it is interesting to note that Sky is also contemplating a dedicated arts channel.
      582
      I profoundly hope that BSB will be a success. So much of its programming is based on quality. It shows many arts programmes. It has recognised that a large proportion of the public have told the pollsters that there is nothing on telly when they want to watch it, and on Saturday nights—a bit of a desert for quite a lot of us—it will be showing opera. I hope that that is a bold venture. On Saturday and Sunday afternoons, BSB wants to show children's programmes—proper programmes that it has commissioned itself. In other words, the truly commercial sector is not looking merely for re-runs of aged American soaps to pull in the viewers. It recognises that the viewers are a bit more discriminating than that.
      With ITV, I believe that there is something worth preserving, although one must not join the broadcasters in total self-congratulatory complacency about the quality of British television. One hears enough of that when one goes to the awards ceremonies. I shall miss them, of course, even if I noticed that there was a bit of self-congratulation around. Nevertheless, ITV gives us some television that is well worth preserving, and I believe that the Bill will preserve it. It is a matter of argument whether it would be better preserved if we added the list in the amendment. I hope that the House will accept that I have no ulterior motive for rejecting the list beyond believing that the diversity test, the quality threshold and the pretty clear steer that the ITV will get from the ITC will be sufficient. I hope that they will be enough to see the ITV network through the next 10 years and beyond.
      I must accept the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), that the commercial element of commercial television is not an optional extra. We said that time without number during the Committee stage. Commercial television is a commercial venture or it is nothing. The programming arrangements will only be threatened if the bottom drops out of the commercial market for commercial television. If that happens, no power on earth will save the programmes—whether or not they are enshrined in statute. Perhaps if we accepted all the Lords amendments—including the programming amendment—we should make it more difficult for Channel 3 to flourish because we might tie it down to a scheduling remit that it could not fulfil.
      One is entitled to ask, "Why have a public service broadcaster if that public service broadcaster is not there to produce programmes of a very different kind from those which are available elsewhere?" I think that we can go further and that we can have a viable Channel 4—indeed, we have one now—and a Channel 3 that is properly diverse. There is every chance of keeping all those balls in the air, but I do not think that the Lords amendment would help us to achieve that aim. For that reason—I am sorry that it will also have the unintended consequence of destroying the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)—I hope that the House will agree that it is perfectly proper, and probably in the long-term best interests of quality television, that we should reject the amendments.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 92.

      Division No. 343]

      [8. 57 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Amess, David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Arbuthnot, James

      583

      Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)

      Gorst, John

      Ashby, David

      Grant, Sir Anthony(CambsSW)

      Atkinson, David

      Greenway, John(Ryedale)

      Baker, Nicholas(Dorset N)

      Gregory, Conal

      Banks, Robert(Harrogate)

      Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Grist, Ian

      Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)

      Hague, William

      Benyon, W.

      Hamilton, Hon Archie(Epsom)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Hannam, John

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

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

      Body, Sir Richard

      Hargreaves, Ken(Hyndburn)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Harris, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Bowden, A(Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Bowden, Gerald(Dulwich)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Bowis, John

      Hayward, Robert

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen(Wolv' NE)

      Bright, Graham

      Hicks, Robert(Cornwall SE)

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

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Browne, John(Winchester)

      Hill, James

      Bruce, Ian(Dorset South)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Budgen, Nicholas

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

      Burns, Simon

      Howarth, G.(Cannock & B'wd)

      Burt, Alistair

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Butcher, John

      Howell, Ralph(North Norfolk)

      Butler, Chris

      Hunt, David(Wirral W)

      Butterfill, John

      Hunt, Sir John(Ravensbourne)

      Carlisle, John,(Luton N)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

      Irvine, Michael

      Carr, Michael

      Irving, Sir Charles

      Carrington, Matthew

      Jack, Michael

      Carttiss, Michael

      Jackson, Robert

      Cash, William

      Janman, Tim

      Chapman, Sydney

      Jessel, Toby

      Clark, Dr Michael(Rochford)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Colvin, Michael

      Key, Robert

      Conway, Derek

      Kilfedder, James

      Coombs, Anthony(Wyre F'rest)

      King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)

      Coombs, Simon(Swindon)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Critchley, Julian

      Knapman, Roger

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Knight, Greg(Derby North)

      Curry, David

      Knight, Dame Jill(Edgbaston)

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

      Knowles, Michael

      Davis, David(Boothferry)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Day, Stephen

      Lee, John(Pendle)

      Devlin, Tim

      Leigh, Edward(Gainsbor'gh)

      Dicks, Terry

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lester, Jim(Broxtowe)

      Dover, Den

      Lightbown, David

      Dunn, Bob

      Lloyd, Sir Ian(Havant)

      Durant, Tony

      Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)

      Eggar, Tim

      Lord, Michael

      Evans, David(Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Evennett, David

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Maclean, David

      Fallon, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Favell, Tony

      Madel, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Field, Barry(Isle of Wight)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Mans, Keith

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Maples, John

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Marland, Paul

      Forman, Nigel

      Marlow, Tony

      Forsyth, Michael(Stirling)

      Marshall, John(Hendon S)

      Forsythe, Clifford(Antrim S)

      Martin, David(Portsmouth S)

      Forth, Eric

      Mates, Michael

      Freeman, Roger

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      French, Douglas

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Fry, Peter

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Gale, Roger

      Mellor, David

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Mills, Iain

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Moate, Roger

      584

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Morris, M(N'hampton S)

      Speed, Keith

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Spicer, Sir Jim(Dorset W)

      Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Moss, Malcolm

      Steen, Anthony

      Mudd, David

      Stern, Michael

      Neale, Gerrard

      Stevens, Lewis

      Nelson, Anthony

      Stewart, Allan(Eastwood)

      Neubert, Michael

      Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Stokes, Sir John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Sumberg, David

      Nicholson, David(Taunton)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Nicholson, Emma(Devon West)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Norris, Steve

      Taylor, Ian(Esher)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Taylor, John M(Solihull)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Taylor, Teddy(S'end E)

      Page, Richard

      Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)

      Paice, James

      Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Thurnham, Peter

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Tracey, Richard

      Porter, David(Waveney)

      Trimble, David

      Powell, William(Corby)

      Trippier, David

      Raffan, Keith

      Trotter, Neville

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Rathbone, Tim

      Viggers, Peter

      Redwood, John

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Waller, Gary

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Wardle, Charles(Bexhill)

      Riddick, Graham

      Watts, John

      Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)

      Wells, Bowen

      Roe, Mrs Marion s'

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Rost, Peter

      Whitney, Ray

      Ryder, Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Wilkinson, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shaw, David(Dover)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Shelton, Sir William

      Yeo, Tim

      Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)

      Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge)

      Sir George Young and Mr. Irvine Patrick.

      Shersby, Michael

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Fisher, Mark

      Allen, Graham

      Foster, Derek

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Fraser, John

      Banks, Tony(Newham NW)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Barnes, Harry(Derbyshire NE)

      Garrett, Ted(Wallsend)

      Battle, John

      George, Bruce

      Beckett, Margaret

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hardy, Peter

      Boyes, Roland

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Bradley, Keith

      Hinchliffe, David

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hoey, Ms Kate(Vauxhall)

      Bruce, Malcolm(Gordon)

      Hogg, N.(C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Caborn, Richard

      Home Robertson, John

      Campbell, Ron(Blyth Valley)

      Howells, Geraint

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hughes, John(Coventry NE)

      Carlile, Alex(Mont'g)

      Ingram, Adam

      Clark, Dr David(S Shields)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Leighton, Ron

      Corbett, Robin

      Livingstone, Ken

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Livsey, Richard

      Crowther, Stan

      Lloyd, Tony(Stretford)

      Cryer, Bob

      McAllion, John

      Cummings, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McCartney, Ian

      Darling, Alistair

      McLeish, Henry

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

      Maclennan, Robert

      Dewar, Donald

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dixon, Don

      McWilliam, John

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Madden, Max

      Evans, John(St Helens N)

      Marshall, David(Shettleston)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Meale, Alan

      585

      Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)

      Smith, Andrew(Oxford E)

      Michie, Mrs Ray(Arg'l & Bute)

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

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, J. P.(Vale of Glam)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Spearing, Nigel

      Morley, Elliot

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mullin, Chris

      Strang, Gavin

      Nellist, Dave

      Thompson, Jack(Wansbeck)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Walden, George

      Pike, Peter L.

      Winnick, David

      Powell, Ray(Ogmore)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Radice, Giles

      Worthington, Tony

      Richardson, Jo

      Young, David(Bolton SE)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Rowlands, Ted

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Short, Clare

      Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Allen McKay.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 46 to 48 disagreed to.

    New Clause

      NETWORKING ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN HOLDERS OF REGIONAL CHANNEL 3 LICENCES
      Lords amendment: No. 111, after clause 34, insert the following new clause—
      (".—(1) This section has effect with respect to the making of arrangements which—

      (a) apply to all the holders of regional Channel 3 licences, and

      (b) provide for programmes made, commissioned or acquired by or on behalf of one or more of the holders of such licences to be available for broadcasting in all regional Channel 3 services,

      being arrangements made for the purpose of enabling regional Channel 3 services (taken as a whole) to be a nationwide system of such services which is able to compete effectively with other television programme services provided in the United Kingdom; and any such arrangements are referred to in this section as "networking arrangements".
      (2) Any application for a regional Channel 3 licence shall, in addition to being accompanied by any such proposals as are mentioned in section 15(3)(b) to (d), be accompanied by the applicant's proposals for participating in networking arrangements made under this section; and—

      (a) where a person has duly made such an application, the Commission—

      (i) shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the closing date for applications for the licence, send details of his proposals for participating in such arrangements to the Director General of Fair Trading, and

      (ii) (without prejudice to the operation of section 16(1)) shall not proceed to consider whether to award him the licence as mentioned in that provision unless it appears to the Commission that any such proposals are satisfactory; and

      (b) section(Conditions requiring holder of Channel 3 or 5 licence to deliver promised service) shall apply to any such proposals as it applies to the proposals submitted by the applicant under section 15(3)(bb) to (d).

      (3) The Commission may publish, in such manner as they consider appropriate, general guidance to applicants for a regional Channel 3 licence as to the kinds of proposals which they would consider satisfactory for the purposes of subsection (2)(a); but before doing so the Commission—

      (a) shall consult the Director General of Fair Trading, and

      (b) if he requests them to make any change in the guidance, shall incorporate the change in the guidance.

      (4) Each regional Channel 3 licence shall include conditions requiring the licence holder to do all that he can to secure—

      (a) (in the case of a licence granted before the relevant date) that, by that date, networking arrangements have been made which—

      586

      (i) have been entered into by all the holders of regional Channel 3 licences, and

      (ii) have been approved by the Commission; and

      (b) (in any case) that, so long as he provides his licensed service, there are in force networking arrangements which have been so entered into and approved (unless there are for the time being in force any arrangements made by the Commission under subsection (5)).

      (5) If—

      (a) no such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (4)(a) are made by the relevant date, or

      (b) any such arrangements are so made but cease to be in force at any time before 1st January 1995,

      the Commission may themselves draw up such networking arrangements as they consider appropriate; and, if they do so—

      (i) they shall notify all the holders of regional Channel 3 licences of those arrangements, and

      (ii) those arrangements shall (subject to subsection (6)) come into force on a date determined by the Commission.

      and each regional Channel 3 licence shall include conditions requiring the licence holder to give effect to any arrangements made by the Commission under this subsection as for the time being in force.
      (6) No arrangements made by the Commission under subsection (5) shall come into force at any time after 31st December 1994.
      (7) Where—

      (a) any such arrangements have come into force in accordance with subsection (6), but

      (b) any networking arrangements are subsequently—

      (i) entered into by all the holders of regional Channel 3 licences, and

      (ii) approved by the Commission,

      the arrangements referred to in paragraph (a) shall cease to have effect on the coming into force of the arrangements referred to in paragraph (b).
      (8) Where any arrangements have been approved by the Commission under subsection (4) or (7)(b), no modification of those arrangements shall be made by the holders of regional Channel 3 licences unless it too has been so approved.
      (9) Where any arrangements have been made by the Commission under subsection (5), they may (whether before or after the date specified in subsection (6)) make such modification of those arrangements as they consider appropriate; and, if they do so—

      (a) they shall notify all the holders of regional Channel 3 licences of the modification, and

      (b) the modification shall come into force on a date determined by the Commission.

      (10) Without prejudice to the generality of their power to refuse to approve any arrangements or modification under subsection (4), (7)(b) or (8), the Commission shall refuse to do so if they are not satisfied that the arrangements in question, or (as the case may be) those arrangements as proposed to be modified, would be appropriate for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1).
      (11) Where the Commission have—

      (a) approved any arrangements or modification under subsection (4), (7)(b) or (8), or

      (b) given with respect to any arrangements or modification the notification required by subsection (5)(i) or (9)(a),

      they shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after giving their approval or (as the case may be) that notification—

      (i) publish details of the arrangements or modification in such manner as they consider appropriate, and

      (ii) comply with the appropriate requirement specified in subsection (12)(a) or (b).

      (12) The appropriate requirement referred to in paragraph (ii) of subsection (11) is—

      (a) in the case of any such arrangements as are referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection, to refer those arrangements to the Director General of Fair Trading, and

      (b) in the case of any such modification as is so referred to, to inform him of that modification;

      587
      and Schedule(References with respect to networking arrangements) to this Act shall have effect with respect to any reference made under paragraph (a) above and matters arising out of any such reference, including the subsequent modification of the arrangements to which it relates.
      (13) In this section "the relevant date" means the date which the Commission determine to be that by which any such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (4) would need to have been made by the holders of regional Channel 3 licences in order for the arrangements to be fully in operation at the time when those persons begin to provide their licensed services.")
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in subsection (5)(b) of the new clause, to leave out 'before 1st January 1995'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
      Amendment (b) to the proposed amendment, to leave out subsection (6).
      Lords amendments Nos. 440, 441 and 501.
      I have to inform the House that Lords amendment No. 111 involves privilege.
      Mr. Maclennan: I express my appreciation to the Minister for the amendment, which reflects decisions taken earlier in the light of the view expressed strongly in Committee that there should be a networking arrangement reinforced by statute so as to avoid the possibility of complete chaos when the franchises are awarded. There should be additional safeguards when new companies come in. I must express regret that the Government have not thought fit to make that a continuing obligation on the ITC. The purpose of my amendments is to ensure that the obligation to have in place a networking arrangement is a continuing one.
      I take this opportunity of raising with the Minister points that have been put to me by the Campaign for Quality Television about the role of the Office of Fair Trading in the underpinning of the networking arrangement provided for by the Bill. That arrangement is set out in the schedule and referred to in the new clause. It has been expressed strongly, most notably in a speech by Mr. Richard Dunn of the Independent Television Companies Association at aFinancial Times conference, that there would be serious risks if the Office of Fair Trading were to be involved in the networking. The sort of competition criteria that might appeal to the Office of Fair Trading would not necessarily be the same criteria as would be in the mind of the ITC in putting forward its proposals. The purpose of the networking arrangements is to ensure that quality broadcasting is available across the board.
      My noble Friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth said in another place that the difficulty with network arrangements in television is that
      "while there is not a conflict, there are often tensions pulling different ways between the most competitive system in the terms in which the OFT is bound to look at the matter and the system that provides the viewer with the best possibility of a rich variety of programming."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 11 October 1990; Vol. 522, c. 493.]
      I am sure that the Minister has read Richard Dunn's speech and I hope that he will address the arguments that he made. They are serious arguments. We had some debate earlier about the appropriateness of bringing the Office of Fair Trading into the regulatory process. Some of us, particularly myself, moved amendments to seek to remove
      588
      the Office of Fair Trading from the oversight because that seemed to double the regulatory role. It would have taken away from the governors of the BBC their responsibility and, in this respect, would have reduced the role of the ITC. It is clear that the ITC can be overruled by the Office of Fair Trading according to the terms of the new clause. The House is entitled to an assurance that the carefully balanced quality provisions to which the Minister has devoted so much attention will not be damaged.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. John Greenway: I have given notice to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of my intention to raise a matter that was raised in the other place by Lord Boston of Faversham. It relates to the matter just mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—the involvement of the Office of Fair Trading. Lord Boston asked Lord Ferrers three questions; I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend would put on record the substance of Lord Ferrers's reply, which was given in a letter to Lord Boston on 18 October.
      First, Lord Boston asked whether the OFT would play any role in the process of selecting applicants for ITV franchises. If it did, that would clearly undermine much of the work that we did in Committee to strengthen the tender procedure and to make it rather more transparent than it has been in the past. Secondly, would any unhelpful delay result from the OFT's involvement which might prove commercially damaging to ITV companies? Thirdly, what does my right hon. and learned Friend intend to do to ensure that, should the Director General of Fair Trading feel that the agreed network arrangement is uncompetitive, exemption from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 will be provided?
      I think that the answers given in Lord Ferrers's letter are satisfactory, but it would be helpful if the House could be told—on the record—exactly what they are.
      Mr. Corbett: Opposition Members are glad that the Government have honoured the earlier undertakings to give the ITC powers to establish a networking system. I do not think that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) required anything more than a slightly more detailed explanation from the Minister.
      There is no argument about the fact that those who will be bidding for licences will need to know what kind of networking arrangement is in operation before they can make their bids. Will the Minister confirm that, at present, 10 of the 15 existing ITV companies have set up a body called Netco to make network programmes, and that five have said that they do not wish to make them—although one is in a bit of a dither whether to make them or not?
      I understand that a safeguard exists in that, as at present, the tariff for network programmes will relate to ability to pay, measured by advertising take. I also understand—perhaps the Minister knows more about this than I do—that Netco has yet to agree on the volume of network programme hours, and on how they will be allocated.
      That brings us to the question of the involvement of the Office of Fair Trading. One suggestion is that it should be based on what has happened over the past three years. That may be the point at which the OFT will start to take an immediate interest in the matter. Its job is to ensure that arrangements do not restrict, distort or prevent

      589
      competition. If it concluded—which it might do—that the formula of basing arrangements on the practice of the past three years breached some or all of its conditions, it could have a considerable impact on the arrangements. It could impose extra costs on network programmes and in turn cut the cash available for regional programmes. That could subsequently have an impact on the ability of regional Channel 3 licence holders to meet the so-called quality thresholds, by which the Minister sets so much store, as he reminded us again tonight.
      People are puzzled as to why there is a need for two referees, who could find themselves using different sets of rules on the same pitch. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) questioned the involvement of the Office of Fair Trading. After all, the Government appoint the members of the ITC, and to that extent are right to trust its judgment. In another place, the Minister of State described the rules specified for the OFT as a mere formality. If it will simply be a matter of sending the OFT a letter and receiving one in return, there does not seem much point to it. If it is a formality, the OFT does not seem to have got the message because it has, I understand, already set up a special unit to deal with that aspect.
      I am unclear also about the OFT's powers. If it does not like a proposal, will it write to that nice George Russell saying, "We don't like this proposal. Yours sincerely, OFT", or will it be able to prevent the proposed networking arrangement on the grounds specified?
      Like any other business persons, ITC members must have regard to the competition rules, and in that sense they do not need a second reminder—a watchdog or a nanny peering over their shoulders, prompting them that in making commercial arrangements they must take competition law into account.
      I hope that the Minister understands that competition must relate directly to the circumstances of a particular industry or trade, and that one concept cannot be wheeled round from shop to shop and be made to apply to all situations. That point is made by the Centre for Communication and Information Studies at the polytechnic of central London, which says:
      "In Germany, the Federal Cartel Office has a different regulatory policy towards broadcasting from that of the Federal Constitutional Court".
      Perhaps we can learn something from the methods used in Germany, even at the risk of upsetting the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
      Currently, in the independent television network system cost-effective, studio-made programmes such as "Coronation Street" and "Blind Date" subsidise more expensive programmes such as "World in Action", "First Tuesday" and "The South Bank Show". I mentioned "Blind Date" because in a media survey of Back-Bench Members, it came out as top of the pops. I share the fear that the OFT might prevent such a sensible arrangement which, although it may not fit any other industry, has served independent television well. Nevertheless, it may attract criticism from the OFT, which could weaken the Bill's quality provisions. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that none of the fears that I have expressed is well-founded.
      Mr. Speaker: Mr.——
      Mr. Mellor: Mellor, Mr. Speaker. I was about to say that I had forgotten the name of the chap sitting opposite
      590
      me when I discovered that you, Mr. Speaker, had forgotten my name—but never mind. That serves me right for being cheeky.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. It was a temporary lapse
      Mr. Mellor: We all grow older, Mr. Speaker. It is happening to me as well. At your age, Mr. Speaker, these things happen.
      The House welcomed the Government's decision, announced during the passage of the Bill, that we should not rely purely on the commonsense position of there being a network, although obviously the ITV system could not operate without a network. However, because of continuing concern about the previous network and the cartel thereby created, because of what some regarded as the unconscionable amount of time that was being taken to get another network and because of dark suspicions that one or two people were delaying settling on the basis that the Bill would not address those issues, it seemed of the essence that the Bill should address those issues. They were discussed between Departments and we achieved an acceptable proposition, whereby for a transitional period there is a back-stop provision to allow a network arrangement to be imposed.
      With respect to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), this is essentially a short-term problem and I do not think that we should be justified in giving the ITC the power to impose networking arrangements in the longer term. Although I have made it clear that, where it has a right to impose, it should do so with a firm hand, it would not be right for it to impose networking arrangements over a long period without going back to what I regard as a previous generation of regulation. It needs to regulate where it is necessary to do so, and where it is not necessary we should accept that the aim of the Bill is to remove restrictions.
      I have always been concerned about the transitional period. Having decided that there should be intervention, the question arises of who should do it. I noticed a certain strand to the debate—I do not say this critically, but it is an observation worth making—of hon. Members regarding the OFT as rather a boring body and asking, "What has it got to do with this?" I see the OFT as a vital public watchdog. Whatever our political differences, we surely agree that the competition policy must be enforced by a strong independent body. If a body is given an overview on competition, although one wants to give primary responsibilities to the specific specialist regulator, one cannot push the OFT to one side. Much thought, which is reflected in the schedule that their Lordships were kind enough to accept, has gone into giving the OFT a role while not usurping the function of the ITC.
      Paragraph 2 of Lords amendment No. 501 sets out the competition test. It makes it clear that the OFT's role is not a formality. If the circumstances arise, it must apply the competition test, which is based on the Competition Act 1980 and on paragraph 3 of article 85 of the EEC treaty. Arrangements satisfy the test if they do not have, or are not intended or likely to have
      "the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition in connection with any business activity in the United Kingdom."
      If they do have such an effect, however, they can still satisfy the test if they
      "satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph 3 of Article 85 of the E.E.C. Treaty."

      591
      That is inevitably complicated because EC law is involved, but that is the test that must be applied.
      If the OFT finds that the networking arrangements fall foul of the test, paragraph 5 says that it must publish the report and send a copy to the director and to the nice Mr. Russell. He is not so described in the schedule; he is merely described as the ITC, but we know that that means the nice Mr. Russell. Paragraph 6 requires the nice Mr. Russell to ensure that, under licensed conditions, the licensees modify the arrangements in accordance with the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
      Before giving way to the chap whose name I forgot, I should say that the nice Mr. Russell is 55 years old today, so perhaps somewhat belatedly we should send him happy birthday wishes.
      Mr. Corbett: I willingly join the Minister in extending happy birthday wishes to that nice Mr. Russell.
      Can the Minister give the House an assurance that, in looking at the proposed networking arrangements, he will look at the specific needs and requirements of the industry against the general background of the OFT's requirements rather than use a blanket approach? That is the point in a nutshell.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Mellor: The OFT has to apply a competition test that relates to the industry under consideration. That may be why it is necessary for someone to have some specialist awareness within the OFT. I appreciate that it is possible to criticize those arrangements. Obviously, it is possible to criticize any arrangement. If we isolated the OFT, people would ask, "What is the point of having a competition body such as the OFT and pushing it to one side, not giving it a role even though specialist competition issues are involved?"
      Our starting point is the fact that, had we not made any of those provisions, the networking arrangements would have been caught by the restrictive trade practices legislation, under which the Director General of Fair Trading and the restrictive trade practices court have a role. The Bill is permissive because it exempts approved networking arrangements from those provisions to ensure that they do not unnecessarily constrain the development of a network. We thought that it would be unjustifiable if, at the same time as removing the provisions of the restrictive trade practices legislation from this area, we also removed the role of the DGFT, particularly bearing in mind his wider competition responsibilities, which I mentioned.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) mentioned the Netcom proposals. I understand that they are still under discussion by the ITV companies. As far as I am aware, they have not yet been agreed or approved by the IBA. I understand that the chairman of the ITV association may be having informal discussions with the OFT. That is the process that would have to be followed through.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) mentioned some comments that Lord Boston made in another place, which were the subject of a letter from my esteemed colleague, Lord Ferrers. I shall deal briefly with that matter, but I shall happily let my hon. Friend have a copy of the letter. Three points were raised,
      592
      the first of which concerned applicants' proposals for participating in networking being sent to the Director General of Fair Trading. He certainly will not play any part in the selection process for applicants for a Channel 3 licence, which I think was Lord Boston's concern. Lord Boston was concerned also about delay because of OFT approval. I repeat Lord Ferrers' assurance that there is no need for any delay. The ITC will have to refer networking arrangements to the OFT, but they can be implemented pending OFT consideration, so there should not be any delay.
      There was concern that the competition test went a bit too wide. I set out what the test is. Lord Boston suggested that this should be restricted to the provision of licensed services and services connected with them. Lord Ferrers' view was that, in practice, that is probably how it will work out. That was his judgment on advice. It is unlikely that any networking arrangements will have any outside effects. In so far as they do, it is probably right that the OFT should be able to take them into consideration, but that is an unlikely proposition.
      I have done my best to respond positively. I feel that in agreeing with the Lords amendments—as I hope we shall—we are closing what some people at the beginning thought was a major gap in the Bill because no provision was made for imposing a networking arrangement. I am glad to have played a part in ensuring that that should happen. What we have done is in accordance with the spirit of the Bill, doing what is necessary, but not doing more than is necessary.
      Mr. Maclennan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment to the Lords amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Main Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 164

      DUTY TO PROVIDE ADVANCE INFORMATION ABOUT PROGRAMMES
      Lords amendment: No. 399, in page 127, line 43, leave out ("schedules of and other")
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 400 to 406, 641 to 649 and 675.
      Mr. Mellor: The substantive amendments relate to the extent of the information that broadcasters will have to make available and to the timing of the release of that information. Lords amendment No. 401, in most people's view, is the lead amendment in the group. It requires broadcasters to make information available at such a time as a publisher "reasonably requires it" and to make it available to all publishers simultaneously. However, broadcasters will not be required to make available a complete schedule for any one-week period more than 14 days before the first day of that week. The 14-day limit can be varied by order.
      Concern was expressed in Committee that some organisations with both television and newspaper interests might want to take some competitive advantage by getting hold of somebody else's schedule and then rescheduling their own programmes to meet it. The 14-day period is the

      593
      lowest possible lead time for a weekly magazine for the public dealing with listings on a week-long basis. It is a tight but fair target, which will protect the broadcasters' interests and, at the same time, allow a long overdue reform—the opportunity for freely available information about programme listings subject, of course, to proper negotiations about a payment for copyrighted material.
      Mr. Corbett: I am sure that the Minister will be able to clear up a couple of small points, especially as the letter of which I have a copy was sent from his office. Will he confirm that there is no obligation on broadcasters to supply television listings information about programmes that are scheduled to be broadcast before 1 March 1991?
      Mr. Mellor indicated assent.
      Mr. Corbett: I am glad that the Minister is able to do that.
      The second point has also been raised with the Minister's office. Negotiations between the copyright holders of the listings can open from 1 January, although the listings cannot be published until after the first programme is running after 1 March. There are fears that not only rogue publishers, but French, Italian and German publishers with a big interest in this market may be tempted to jump the gun in the initial two months. If that happened, and in the absence of an agreement, what would be the position of the holders of the copyright?
      Those of us who were members of the Committee will remember that there was great excitement about the next point. During the last sitting, the Minister found a relevant piece of paper in his red Dispatch Box to enable him to make some moves on listings. The House will he interested to know that Independent Television Publications Limited, which bought and holds the copyright to the ITV programmes, has made it clear that the proposal meets an expressed wish of Mr. Tony Elliott of Time Out. ITP has decided to make the information available to publishers free of charge once an initial licence fee has been established and the publisher has been registered as a licensed user. That is a bold and sensible move.
      I hope that the Minister can clarify the points that I have raised.
      Mr. Simon Coombs: My right hon. and learned Friend is aware of my appreciation of the way in which he has carried out the negotiations on this difficult matter and balanced the interests of publishers and copyright owners.
      I believe that the House has now got it about right, but there are still some lingering fears among copyright owners, such as IPC Magazines, that the negotiations between themselves and publishers might be protracted and difficult. They believe that there might be a temptation on behalf of would-be publishers to try to delay settlement of the negotiations so as to obtain an unfair advantage from them. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has been in receipt of correspondence on this matter this week from IPC Magazines. It would be helpful if he could reassure those who have written to him to express their concern.
      Once a copyright tribunal is established, such negotiations between copyright owners and publishers will be settled. It is inevitable that that tribunal would make a judgment on the responsible handling of the negotiations by the interested parties. The negotiations, however, might
      594
      be protracted and it is possible that the copyright owners will suffer a considerable commercial disadvantage. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to reassure them.
      Mr. Maclennan: The Minister will be aware that I share the concern that has already been expressed. I took an initiative on this matter earlier in our proceedings, and I am grateful to the Minister for his response then.
      Mr. Mellor: I agree with the first proposition advanced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). The hon. Gentleman also expressed concern about people jumping the gun, but the situation is exactly the same as it would be if somebody purported to publish a rival magazine now. A copyright owner has a legal remedy, which includes an injunction against publishers, distributors and so on, to protect his interests. I cannot precisely anticipate the relief the courts would give, but protection does not run out until the statutory arrangements come into force. Until that time, copyright owners are protected.
      I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) recognises that I have gone to some trouble to try to resolve differences with copyright owners. We do not want litigation to arise from this. We want to move into another era, amicably if possible. I am glad to say that, by and large, that has been achieved. I am grateful to John Mellon of IPC Magazines for his positive approach to the negotiations. We are keen to respond to the issues he raised.
      On unnecessarily protracted proceedings, it is true that we decided, on Report, to delete the provision in what was schedule 15 that would have allowed the copyright tribunal to award costs against any publisher who, in exercising his statutory right to publish, fixed the fee at less than a reasonable cost. We thought that a provision to this effect in the Bill was unnecessary, since the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 already contained such a provision. We therefore decided that that in the Bill did not have any practical significance.
      My noble Friend the Earl Ferrers made some other remarks about timing, which are reported in the Official Report of the other place. Although I believe that the timing is tight, there will be enough time for the necessary negotiating procedures because there will be an incentive for everyone to make the negotiations effective. Although I appreciate that there is two months between the negotiations and their implementation, the only alternative would have been to delay the start of the statutory arrangements until after 1 March. That would not have been justified, having regard to the pressure that has existed for a long time to remedy the situation.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Schedule 2

      RESTRICTIONS ON THE HOLDING OF LICENCES
      Lords amendment: No. 466, in page 146, line 21, leave out from ("corporate,") to ("and") in line 27 and insert
      ("shall be construed in accordance with sub-paragraph (2A)")
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Mellor.]
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 467 to 477 and 483 to 499.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Maclennan: At an earlier stage my hon. Friends and I sought to reduce the number of local radio stations that a company could own from six to four. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I oppose a system that would allow as many as 20 stations to be owned. It runs a risk of creating something like a game of monopoly, with the companies racing about bidding for the plums. It poses the possibility of large private monopolies being created to the detriment of small local stations and it could make a mockery of the bidding process. Why have the Government agreed to amendment No. 484, to leave out ("six") and insert ("twenty")?
      Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) gives me an opportunity to deal with a point that was not always clear from the debates in the other place. Indeed, it was not always clear to me until it was spelt out to me, so I am not assertin great superior insight into the subject.
      There is a crucial distinction here. We have changed the rules in a more significant way than just numbers. In the early stages, we were referring to stations. We are now referring to channels. Some independent radio stations in rural areas operate now on up to six channels, because different channels may be required to reach the whole area. A metropolitan example of that is LBC, which has one station with two channels.
      We are not talking about 20 stations. At present, there are already over 130 channels in the system, so the limit of 20 gives nobody, on the face of it, more than 15 per cent. It is less than that. But the number of channels is set to expand rapidly, so we shall not be creating a monopoly.
      We came up with an ownership system that people thought was crude and not convincing. The Radio Authority came up with another system that we felt needed modification to be acceptable. We suggested, in the spirit of open government which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland would commend, that the AIRC and the Radio Authority, in the light of certain guidance that we sent to them about our response to the Radio Authority's original proposals, should examine our guidance together and come back to us, when we would try to agree to their proposal.
      There are undercurrents here. While we do not want monopolies—the Bill is strong on control; it is only in relation to the non-DBS satellites that we have been remotely criticised for not being rigorous—we must remember that we are dealing with small battalions, so there is every advantage in allowing some element of multiple holding. What is left is still small in the context of enterprises outside of television companies. I hope that, in moving from stations to channels, and in due course promulgating—as we shall do by laying an order—the full details of the ownership arrangements, we shall have an arrangement with which the industry feels happy. I want the industry to be confident about the future and believe that it will be much more confident about it if it believes that it has shaped a crucial sector—the ownership requirements.
      596
      In further proving that there is life after death in this instance, I gather that I shall have the privilege of dealing with the order when it comes forward. I look forward to then being able to justify what has been done.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Minister, who made an extremely helpful intervention.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 478, in page 148, line 43, at end insert ("or the Authority")
      Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 479 to 482, 16, 21, 134, 171, 173, 254 and 256.
      Mr. Mellor: Both Houses have made a great effort to try to ensure that a rigorous but fresh climate for religious broadcasting is established under the Bill. I gather that there may be one or two residual problems, so I may intervene later if there are points that I need to pick up.
      Mr. Fisher: As the Minister says, many of these matters are technical and, although there are about 700 amendments to come, we are content to accept most of them as technical and will not delay the House. However, I should like the Minister to explain one or two more aspects of this group of amendments, particularly amendment No. 482, which requires the ITC and the Radio Authority to bring into force guidelines.
      The Minister will know that hon. Members have received a great deal of correspondence on that matter. The constituency of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) includes Vision Broadcasting and my constituency contains UCB. Both of us have been exercised by the representations of those two organisations on the guidelines, which are currently drawn up by the Radio Authority. The ITC is beginning work on its guidelines.
      Both sides of the House are at one in their general aim to prevent American-style, charismatic, evangelistic broadcasting in this country. We do not want the sort of broadcasting where the power of the medium is used to extract a great deal of money with emotional force and all the other sordid elements that have crept in in the United States.
      However, many people are, with some justification, concerned that the draft guidelines on which the Radio Authority is working at present may, in one or two particulars, be going too far, especially in relation to restrictions on appeals and donations and exactly what is meant by proselytising. The religious churches that might apply for the licences are perfectly happy to accept the restriction not to appeal on the air for money, but the guidelines on which the Radio Authority is presently working state that no other literature can be produced in support of their activities. That seems to put the churches at a disadvantage in relation to other charitable organisations. It is one thing not to use the power of radio or television to ask for money, but if organisations such as Vision Broadcasting or UCB cannot put out leaflets in support of their activities or ask people to support them in door-to-door campaigns, that seems to be going extremely far, and I am not sure that that is the intention. I should

      597
      be grateful if the Minister would give his views on that and some guidance, both to the Radio Authority and the ITC, which are currently drafting their guidelines.
      It is difficult to define proselytising—[Interruption.] The Minister has a definition to offer from a sedentary position and I look forward to hearing it later, but hon. Members who do not consider themselves a walking thesaurus would say that it meant to propound and propagate religious beliefs, which is explicitly allowed under this set of guidelines. However, the next sentence in the guidelines says that companies may not use any material
      "to proselytise or recruit members."
      Once again, this is a matter of using written material
      which companies may want to circulate to members of the public in support of their claims.
      There seems to be some confusion here and it would be helpful if the Minister gave some guidance to the Radio Authority and the ITC to clarify the matter.
      We are content with all other aspects of the amendments.
      Mr. Michael Alison: I should like to carry forward the expressions of anxiety by the shadow Minister for the Arts about the draft codes of conduct and of programme content that are beginning to appear.
      I had occasion to write to my right hon. and learned Friend about this a few days ago, so he is well apprised of the situation. There is no doubt that the new regulatory bodies, the ITC and the Radio Authority, which are the very creatures of this Bill, are arrogating to themselves powers of interpretation and discretion which are all weighted in the direction of restrictions that are the very reverse of the Minister's own liberalising and expansionist philosophy on religious broadcasting. So much is certainly beginning to come through in the draft to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) referred.
      I want to give the Minister the flavour of what I am complaining about. On 18 October last the new draft broadcasting, advertising and sponsorship codes on religious broadcasting were made available for comment. In a letter accompanying the draft codes the controller of advertising at the IBA wrote:
      "After very careful consideration both the shadow ITC and Radio Authority have concluded that there is not a sufficiently persuasive case to prohibit programme sponsorship by religious organisations".
      But my right hon. and learned Friend will recall that as long ago as April he wrote to parliamentary colleagues as follows:
      "Religious organisations will be allowed to sponsor programmes and to advertise on both TV and radio".
      So who is running the country, to ask a rhetorical question? I hope that the Minister will confirm that the controller of advertising at the IBA had no discretion or any option other than to reflect the Minister's decision as conveyed to colleagues in the House on this matter.
      This is not a nit-picking point. As my right hon. and learned Friend will know from the letter that I sent him on 24 October and from representations that he has received from other colleagues, the two broadcasting organisations already mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, United Christian Broadcasters—the Stoke-on-Trent radio station—and Vision Broadcasting cable television from Swindon, both approved and authorised to operate by the present Cable Authority,
      598
      would be threatened with closure and extinction if the draft programme code circulated by the new Radio Authority were to be implemented, and if it were to be echoed, copied and reflected in the parallel television code, which would affect Vision television.
      My right hon. and learned Friend will have noted from the material that I sent him that the UCB station at Stoke-on-Trent falls foul of the new draft code in at least eight identifiable and separate particulars. Yet that very station is warmly commended and authorised by the present Cable Authority. I remind the Minister that, judging from references that he and the Prime Minister have made in correspondence with me and Lord Halsbury, Vision television and UCB are regarded in Downing street and in the Home Office as acceptable and desirable bodies whose future is to be safeguarded and enhanced.
      The liberalising regime that my right hon. and learned Friend has sponsored and provided for in the Bill is designed not to mutilate but to multiply groups such as United Christian Broadcasters and Vision Broadcasting. We look to my right hon. and learned Friend for arm assurances that no code will be acceptable to the Government that cannot accommodate and secure the future of UCB and Vision Television.
      The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central mentioned the difficulty that we have already encountered in paragraph 7.7 of the draft code——
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion and the Lords Amendments to the Broadcasting Bill may be proceeded with, thought opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
      Lords amendments again considered.
      Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Alison: The draft paragraph is headed "Proselytising" and it seems quite extraordinary that the draft Radio Authority should seek to ban and bar what it calls proselytising, which means exactly the same as evangelism. One has only to read the gospel of St. John the evangelist on television or radio and one is evangelising. However, proselytising, which means making converts to a religion, is apparently to be proscribed. I cannot believe that such nonsensical random drafting by a body that is itself a creature of the Bill can be allowed to continue unchecked. My right hon. and learned Friend must intervene and put a sharper definition, regulation and control on such drafts. Above all, he must provide that bodies such as UCB and Vision will be able to survive, persist, multiply and flourish under the new regime that he has pioneered. We are profoundly grateful to him for the imaginative, outward-looking and constructive way in which he has approached the whole question of religious broadcasting. We look to him to persist with that matter in the oversight that he exercises on the new codes of practice.
      Mr. Simon Coombs: I shall start by assuming that the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the Arts are fully committed to the continuance in operation of the two organisations to which reference has been made in the debate—United Christian Broadcasters, which in Stoke has the advantage of a Dispatch Box speaker, the hon. Member for

      599
      Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), on its side, and
      Vision Broadcasting in Swindon, for which I should like to speak.
      The Minister has made it clear in previous debates and in Committee that he agrees that these bodies are doing a good and useful job and that their future should not be threatened by any legislation, or codes or guidelines drawn up under the legislation. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will tell the House that it is too early to assume the worst. I would be happy to feel that I need not assume the worst in these matters. The problem is that, on 1 January, the new ITC and Radio Authority will be in office. They will then have, as it were, the power of life and death over organisations such as those that I have mentioned.
      It is important for those of us who wish those organisations to continue to operate after 1 January to be reassured that that will be possible and that nothing will happen to prejudice their chances of survival. The Radio Authority's draft programme code and the shadow ITC's draft code on sponsorship and advertising contain indications that cause considerable concern.
      As has been said, in its draft code, the Radio Authority has produced suggestions that would simply close down UCB in Stoke. There can be little doubt about that. Of course there will be consultations about those draft guidelines and objections will be raised. What happens if those objections are overruled and the guidelines are the same on 1 January? We want to know. What happens if the shadow ITC's draft guidelines on sponsorship and advertising are adopted? To be fair, it does say:
      "The shadow ITC would welcome views on how far the draft rules should apply to advertising on specialised religious channels."
      What if, at the end of the consultation exercise, it decides
      that those rules should apply? As I understand it, on 1 January, Vision Broadcasting, for example, would be taken out of action. We do not want that to happen. I believe that the Government do not want that to happen, and I have been assured by my right hon. and learned Friend that he does not want it to happen—but the signs are that it could and probably will happen.
      In another place, the noble Lord Viscount Buckmaster called me to order and said that he hoped that
      "the Conservative Member of Parliament for Swindon will pursue vigorously the cause of the broadcasting installation"
      in his constituency. He also said:
      "I hope that your Lordships can appreciate the nervousness, especially at Vision Cable, because in recent years the IBA religious broadcasting department has blocked the broadcasting of a number of Christian programmes, as was mentioned on earlier stages of the Bill in your Lordships' House. It blocked them for a number of reasons … Virtually all of those programmes have in the end been broadcast, with some editing or modification … but from 1st January 1991 Vision Cable will be subject to the ITC and the authority of members of the same IBA religious department as originally refused broadcasting permission for those programmes."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 1990; Vol 522, c. 1221.]
      The problem is that those individuals have, for whatever reason, previously demonstrated a dislike of or a hostility towards the sort of programmes being transmitted. We have reason to be concerned about what may happen on 1 January—and on that date it will be too late, unless matters have been clarified and the Government have made it clear to the shadow Radio
      600
      Authority and the shadow ITC that they will not tolerate the sort of codes and guidelines that are beginning to appear, and which may multiply and take force on 1 January.
      My usual feeling is that codes and guidelines should be kept well away from Government and Parliament. We set up bodies and expect them to act reasonably on our behalf. What happens if one or two bodies act in a way that has an effect diametrically opposite to that which has clearly been stated as desirable by my right hon. and learned Friend and by Parliament? I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give us the answer to that. I hope that, before 1 January, he will ensure that any threat to religious broadcasting organisations is well and truly removed for good.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I join in this part of the debate with some humility because I wanted, like my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to be a member of the General Synod—but unfortunately, as a Conservative standing in Southwark, I failed to be elected. I regard myself as a member of the Synod, failed.
      I stand firmly on the ground advocated by David Sheppard, Bishop of Liverpool. I recommend an article that he wrote in one of today's newspapers, in which he said indirectly that the most important part of religious broadcasting was the broadcasting and not the narrow casting that will come on cable.
      Millions of people watch "Highway", "Songs of Praise", and the BBC's "Everyman". Such programmes reach far greater audiences than any of the specific religious Christian broadcasting channels are ever likely to reach. If the promotion of opportunities for radio broadcasting on specific religious channels and cable television lead to the major broadcasters—independent television and the BBC—dropping their God slots and goodness corners, the loss to the people will be great.
      We may not be faced with that choice—I do not have sufficient knowledge of the matter—but I do know that the fight for Radio 3 and the broadcasting elements for Christian and other great faiths has meant that people do not watch or listen only to the listings of their choice, but can come across elements of broadcasting almost as a surprise—and faith may do the same, not as the result of evangelism, but as a part of our national life.
      Large-scale national religious broadcasting is vital. I cannot speak for the organisations in Stoke or Swindon. I have not listened to their output and I am not sure that I have read what they have sent to me—if, indeed, they have sent me anything. I respect my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) because they know what they are talking about in speaking up for the modification of the draft code, but I do not want the code to be modified so that, although we may gain a spread of local religious channels and stations, the national radio and television broadcasters will drop what is important to those of us who have or seek faith and who want religion to be reflected in national broadcasting.
      Let us look at the United States and its three major national networks. There is an absence of what we in this country take for granted.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Why does my hon. Friend think that it is an either/or situation; we can have both.
      Mr. Bottomley: I am not sure that my hon. Friend can have been listening to me. I did not say that it would necessarily be an either/or situation.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is not.
      Mr. Bottomley: In all humility, I should like to develop my own speech. I may be wrong, and my hon. Friend may be right. I merely want to ensure that we do not debate the matter without recognising the major influence of the hours of broadcasts that are valuable to all of us. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) would agree with that. I doubt whether Twyford high school would have been converted to a Church of England school without the background influence of national broadcasting, even though the majority of children at that school are not necessarily of a Christian denomination.
      That important element, and the work that the Bishop of Liverpool does with the Central Religious Advisory Committee, should get more attention. I hope that, as the months go by, people will listen to the chairman and members of that committee, who do have a broad knowledge of what is going on. They may be able to prevent us from falling into the idea that religion is a minority interest rather than a most important part of our national life and our national broadcasting network.
      Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their commitment to making progress with the Bill, and for their co-operation in achieving that aim. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I moved future amendments formally—not to avoid debate, but to avoid unnecessary debates. If there are then points on which I can assist the House, as I am sure there will he, I can respond to them. That may be preferable to my introducing at any length questions on which, given the consideration the Bill has already received, hon. Members may be perfectly content.
      Hon. Members indicated assent.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): From all the heads that are being vigorously nodded, I get the impression that that is a most welcome suggestion.
      Mr. Mellor: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is a good start.
      The constituents of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) get a bit of balance in their lives, being represented by him in Parliament and having religious broadcasters in their midst as some compensation. When we set our hand to an expansion of responsible religious broadcasting, we did so advisedly, believing that some broadcasters would view responsibly the expansion that had been made possible, but knowing that there are some other groups—cults and American-style broadcasters, for example—that we would not want broadcasting here and for which the Bill provides no mandate. That is why the Bill is carefully drawn to permit the expansion of responsible Christian broadcasting while at the same time preventing irresponsible or exploitative broadcasting.
      Unfortunately, these are not self-defining passages. They require sensitive work on the part of the regulatory bodies—in this case the ITC and the Radio Authority. Frankly, I do not envy either of those bodies their task, but I believe that they are doing the best that they can to
      602
      consult widely on their guidelines. I imagine that the reason why the Radio Authority has produced guidelines—guidelines that neither I nor the Government have seen, but upon which comments have been made—is to ensure that, if they are unreasonable, they can be corrected before they are promulgated formally. If it is thought that the authority is being unreasonable even when the guidelines are promulgated, much as I am reluctant to call upon the assistance of my learned friends in these matters because I do not want to add to their work with this Bill, it would be a fitting matter for judicial review.
      If it is any help, we obviously considered these matters. It is not our job to be a regulator—I say that on constitutional grounds—but obviously, if something seems manifestly unfair, I dare say that comments to that effect would not be improper, if they were privately expressed.
      10.15 pm
      On the whole, we should have some sympathy with the regulators in their task. After all that we have been through, I do not believe that either UCB or Vision Broadcasting will find things very difficult. I am anxious that they should not—to use the old boxing parlance—squeal before they are hurt. We have to bear in mind the fact that the ITC has not yet even published its draft guidelines. Frankly, I cannot be expected to give reassurances about a problem that has not even arisen.
      As I have already said, while I cannot anticipate the ITC's individual licensing decisions, I am quite sure that Vision Broadcasting will have nothing to fear under the new regime on programming grounds if its religious broadcasting is responsible and not exploitative. So far, I have no reason to believe that its output has been anything other than responsible, and it has not been exploitative.
      Some of my hon. Friends are very keen, either because organisations are located in their constituencies or because they are involved with new and exciting opportunities, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). We must also bear in mind the cautious words of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and of the Bishop of Liverpool, with whom I have discussed this topic. There is another view, which is that there are real dangers in allowing expoitative religious groups in by the back door. We have to accept that there is a role for the regulators in distinguishing one from the other.
      I am keen to be absolutely sure that the regulations work properly. I am satisfied in my own mind but, by setting about the process of consultation with such care, in the end it will be possible for sensible people to come to terms on the matter.
      Mr. Fisher: Hon. Members on both sides of the House are agreed that we do not want the high-pressure charismatic broadcasting that disfigures the American scene; we are at one with the Minister on that.
      The Minister must accept that his Bill places a responsibility on the Radio Authority and the commission to introduce guidelines. By taking the arm's-length view of the guidelines—that he has admitted to in his replies--he is distancing himself far too much from the creature and from the responsibilities that he has set up.
      I am sure that the Minister has listened carefully to the debate. The speech by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), speaking as a Church Commissioner, and

      603
      those of other hon. Members should give him some cause for concern. Many of the guidelines that the Radio Authority and, probably, the ITC are working on are quite correct—for example, those on appeals for money on the air, on not denigrating other religions, and on limiting programmes about phenomena. It is not that all the guidelines are wrong. But I should have thought that the Minister would have heard enough in this short debate to realise that there is genuine concern about appeals, donations and the problem area of proselytising.
      The House would be reassured if the Minister gave an undertaking to get in contact with the Radio Authority and the ITC. He has required them to set up guidelines. If he entered into a dialogue at this stage, we could get things right before 1 January. That is not asking a great deal of the Minister. He has brought the guidelines and responsibilities into force, so he owes it to the House to take a little more interest in them, and to ensure that they are the sort of guidelines that all hon. Members want.
      Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but may I say to him in all kindness—and I mean that—that he must not allow the fact that one of these organisations is located in his constituency to blur his wider judgment. If I started to meddle with the regulatory bodies on other issues, he would be the first to leap up and say that that was constitutionally improper. As it happens, I believe that this is a perfectly proper matter on which I dare say we shall have discussions, but we must not be thought to be trying to lean on the regulatory bodies to prevent them from dealing sensitively with a difficult matter. I do not want worthwhile broadcasters to be trampled on. That will not, I believe, be the consequence. With great respect, however, to all concerned, since the Independent Television Commission has not yet published its draft——
      Mr. Fisher: There is also the Radio Authority.
      Mr. Mellor: That is a separate body.
      I return to the point that we have set our hand to expanding religious broadcasting. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) was kind enough to say that I have done it, but in five or 10 years' time, I do not want bitterly to regret having done it because we had levered the regulatory bodies into a position in which they were afraid to stand up against exploitative religious broadcasting.
      I do not suggest that either of the organisations is exploitative; I am perfectly satisfied that they are not. Anyone standing in my position, however, would be well advised not to say too much to the regulatory bodies that will be doing their best to deal with the problems they encounter. Nevertheless, in so far as there are words that with advantage might be changed to softer or better words, in accordance with the principles that we have followed throughout our consideration of the Bill, the officials will want to have discussions about them. I do not wish to appear to be condemning prematurely regulatory bodies that will be doing their best, but I shall convey with pleasure both to the ITC and to the Radio Authority the points that have been made in the debate.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]
      Mr. Mellor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that we missed Lords amendment No. 110 to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) wished to speak.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I had put the Question on that amendment but, in view of the speed at which I was moving, I shall gladly reverse engines and allow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) to speak.

    New clause

      PROMOTION OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IN RELATION TO EMPLOYMENT BY LICENCE HOLDER
      Lords amendment: No. 110, after clause 34, insert the following new clause—
      (".—(1) Any Channel 3 licence or licence to provide Channel 4 or Channel 5 shall include conditions requiring the licence holder—

      (a) to make arrangements for promoting, in relation to employment by him, equality of opportunity between men and women and between persons of different racial groups; and

      (b) to review those arrangements from time to time.

      (2) In subsection (1) "racial group" has the same meaning as in the Race Relations Act 1976.")
      Mr. Fisher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. I understand that with this we are discussing Lords amendments Nos. 124 and 310.
      I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister for your courtesy. The amendments were moving like a blur before my ears. I do not want to detain the House for long, but it is important to record the thanks of a great many people for the Minister's commitment on Report to deal with equal opportunities. In view of his doubts about that in Committee, it reflected well on the way in which he listened to the debate and considered it. Many people were extremely grateful to him.
      The Minister received a delegation from myself and others including Cherry Ehrlich, the BBC's equal opportunities officer, Christina Driver, the industrial officer of the Broadcasting and Entertainment Trades Alliance and Sophie Balhatchet of the Independent Programme Producers Association. He listened, as is his wont, very attentively. We put it to him that a generalised commitment to equal opportunities would not achieve what he had sought to give as a commitment on Report. We told him that we were seeking a definite statement that Channel 3 companies should have a policy on equal opportunities and that it should cover employment, promotion and other training issues. We said that in order to ensure that the policy was effective, we would at least need to monitor the progress of each company and for it to publish its progress in its annual report. The Bill requires the companies elsewhere to produce annual reports. That would not be an onerous responsibility and would ensure that there was some accountability to the public and the work force that progress was being made.
      The Minister heard our submission with great attentiveness and we went away believing that he was sympathetic to it. Therefore, it was disappointing to receive a letter from the Minister three or four weeks later saying that after further consideration and discussion with the shadow ITC he felt that this could best be achieved by a generalised statement in the Bill and guidelines from the

      605
      ITC that would have non-statutory force. The shape of that argument is ironic when it is the reverse of the argument on impartiality that we had earlier in the evening. Perhaps such inconsistencies are a feature of these debates.
      I should be grateful if the Minister could put on the record why he feels that the very loose and generalised statement presented in Lords amendment No. 110 is satisfactory, and how the guidelines will achieve what I took to be his intention that each company should have an equal opportunities policy, monitor the progress of that policy and publish the results annually. That does not strike me as an expensive or arduous commitment; it would also promote the skills of women, members of the ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. That last group seems to have disappeared from the clause, although the original intention was to include them. All three groups, however, have many skills to offer independent broadcasting-—skills that are not being fully represented now.
      10.30 pm
      The Minister knows the statistics; they do not need to be laboured. Let me point out, however, that this is not simply an argument for equity and justice: if the skills that those groups have to offer are muted or unrealised, not only will the people concerned be disadvantaged or prejudiced against, but the rest of us will suffer too. We shall be the losers, because broadcasting will be less strong, skilful and various than it would otherwise be.
      I suspect that the Minister has considerable sympathy with the case that I am making. My point is that the Bill and the guidelines are unlikely, in their present form, to have the impact that we understood him to intend following the meeting in his office.
      Mr. Mellor: I think that the key remark made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) came at the beginning of his speech: having been rather dubious about it, we have put a clause clearly on the face of the Bill. There is, of course, always the danger of being outbid—we cannot do everything that people want—but, having read the clause again while the hon. Gentleman was speaking, I feel that it represents a very real commitment. I am sorry if it did not emerge plainly enough at the meeting that what I envisaged would be couched in general terms, but I feel in any event that the best must not be the enemy of the good. This is, I think, a significant step forward.
      Licence holders—that is, holders of licences for Channels 3, 4 and 5, domestic satellite services and national radio services—will be required to make arrangements to promote equal opportunities for men and women and for people of different racial groups, and to review those arrangements from time to time. The ITC and the Radio Authority will enforce the provisions through the licence conditions that they impose under the new clauses. They may require the applicants to set out their
      606
      equal opportunities policies, and successful applicants would then be subject to an equal opportunities condition in their licences. That condition would take account of any undertaking that the applicant had made, and—this is relevant to one of the hon. Gentleman's points—the IBA has undertaken that the licence conditions should include a requirement for the holder to review progress on equal opportunities in the company's annual report.
      I recognise the strength of the case for the involvement of disabled people. I discussed the matter with the Department of Employment. The Department's view was that—as it is reviewing discrimination against disabled people, and has recently issued a consultation document, "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities", and as that consultation period does not expire until the end of the year—it would not be right to pre-empt the outcome of the review by carrying out a specific review relating to broadcasting. We have no sinister motive for not including such a provision; we simply wanted to have regard to the fact that consultation is in progress.
      I hope that what I have said about the way in which the regulatory bodies propose to deal with the matter strengthens the case for the clause, and convinces the hon. Gentleman that we are making a genuine effort. Even if it falls short of the ideal, it is still not bad.
      Mr. Fisher: I accept that there are encouraging elements in what the Minister said, although he will understand that, when it is a question of the difference between "may" and "should", there is the possibility of misinterpretation. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will do all that he can to encourage the ITC to fulfil those aspirations and to introduce an appropriate requirement as part of the licence application.
      People with disabilities will genuinely be disappointed with the Minister's remarks. They have few opportunities and are permanently discriminated against not just by the Government but in all walks of life, yet the Bills equal opportunities clause excludes them. It is not good enough for the Minister to argue that because the Department of Employment has initiated a consultation exercise and produced a document—although it is not a bad document—there is no need to make provision in the Bill for people with disabilities.
      Even if the Minister has not gone as far as we want, he has taken an important step forward by putting equal opportunities on the face of the Bill, and by placing a duty, albeit couched in gentle terms, on a particular group of employers. Still, to have missed the opportunity to represent the interests of people with disabilities will be gravely misinterpreted by them. I urge the Minister to think again, even at this late stage. That apart, I welcome the encouraging signs that he has given, and hope that he will pursue the point more fully.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, [Some with Special Entry.]

    Clause 79

      REGULATION BY AUTHORITY OF INDEPENDENT RADIO SERVICES.
      Lords amendment: No. 228, in page 66, line 39, leave out
      ("within a particular institution, or at")
      and insert
      ("for a particular establishment or other defined location, or").
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Mellor.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 229 to 235, 239, 240, 250, 251, 277, 300 to 309, 311 to 314, 333, 334 and 338.
      Mr. Corbett: I shall not detain the House, but I wish to make a small point on amendment No. 313. We could spend many hours on the difference between "shall" and "may", but we will not do so.
      The amendment applies to when an announcement must be made about the results of a finding. The Minister accepted in Committee that a radio station should explain why an announcement was being made. I am interested, if he is able to help me, to know why their Lordships felt that they had to change "shall" back to "may". If he can assure me that the effect is the same, we can move on.
      In Committee, the Minister was kind enough to be persuaded that we should make this mandatory and that we should use "shall" in that context. I wonder what has persuaded him to change his mind since Committee.
      Mr. Maclennan: I have another point to make, although I should like to return to amendment No. 313.
      Amendment No. 306, if I read it right, would permit companies that did not want to or were unable to live up to their service responsibilities to abandon them. The use of the word "substantially" is much too strong; it allows considerable watering down of the schedules. Some explanation of that is called for, even at this hour.
      I noticed the change, to which the hon. Member Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) referred, from "shall" to "may" in amendment No. 313. I am seeking to protect listeners' rights. If an announcement is made, listeners are entitled to know whether the Radio Authority has found a station to be in error, to have done something that is unacceptable and, indeed, whether it is censoring the station. The listener can then make up his mind whether that is an effective remedy for a transgression.
      I think that by this time there is a fair chance that the Minister will have a view about that.
      Mr. Mellor: Yes, I have managed to acquire a view, and I am only too happy to give it to the House.
      I begin with what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said about amendment No. 306, which allows the Radio Authority mare flexibility to let stations drop unpopular programmes or strands of programmes that have gone out of fashion. It makes it clear that the fundamental character of the station may not change, and I attach importance to that. I said in a public speech not long ago that it is very important that stations that have been given a licence on one basis should not be allowed to slither rapidly towards the middle of the pop market and stay there so that every time a listener flicks across the airwaves he finds the same old stuff.
      Mr. Corbett: What is pop?
      Mr. Mellor: I am reliably assured by my noble Friend Lord Ferrers that pop is something that goes thump, thump, thump. That was said not to be sophisticated enough for drafting, but for my purposes it seems absolutely right. In my long reign as Minister for the Arts, I intend to use that definition with monotonous regularity.
      Amendment No. 314 gives the authority the ability to impose a fine on licensees who fail to observe their promise of performance. That shows that no leniency is intended, but sometimes there will be a good reason why one set of undertakings is not appropriate. However, no one will be allowed gratuitously off the hook and, like the hon. Member for Erdington, I attach much importance to that fact.
      I am afraid that there is a problem with amendment No. 313. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) did rather well in Committee on 27 February. Nothing in his ensuing career has been anything like as glorious as that afternoon. The hon. Gentleman may recall that he was on something of a winning streak when, in one of our briefer exchanges, he proposed that "may" should be amended to "shall" and I said, "Why not?" I am afraid that when the matter got to the other place and the inconsistency between the television and radio provisions was tackled, the latter, rather than the former, was changed. I am sorry about that. Perhaps good comes out of bad, in the sense that we could have ended up with the right policy by going consistently the other way.
      10.45 pm
      On 27 February, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said:
      "If a licence holder says that he has apologised because he must do so, that is a less powerful apology than one that simply states, 'I am apologising.'"—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 27 February 1990; c. 1072.]
      There is something in that point. There is also the more general point that, under the Bill, the licensee is responsible for his programming output, as the ITC and Radio Authority are not broadcasting bodies. It is arguably more consistent on this principle for the licensee to be able to decide whether he should say that an apology or correction is being broadcast as a result of a regulatory direction.
      I am sorry. By and large, this is the only occasion when something has gone wrong with an undertaking. We have honoured dozens of undertakings. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to slither off this hook.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lord amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

    Clause 122

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO IBA's BROADCASTING SERVICES AND TO EXISTING CABLE SERVICES
      Lords amendment: No. 344, in page 98, line 13, leave out ("and") and insert—
      ("(aa)) for the purpose of the regulation by the Commission after the end of that period of services provided in succession to the DBS services provided by them during that period; and")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Mellor.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 345, 346 and amendment (a) thereto, 347 to 359, 512 to 515, 521 to 542, 543 and amendment (a) thereto, 544 to 554, 555 and amendment (a) thereto, and 556 to 574.
      Mr. Maclennan: I should like to speak to Lords amendment No. 347. We strongly welcome the Government's decision to allow for a continued pooling of transmission expenses. However, once again, the Bill provides only for an interim period. Despite the Minister's reassurances, there is no protection in the Bill for the sparsely populated areas and areas of difficult terrain on a continuing basis. This gives rise to concern in companies such as Grampian Television that they may be forced out of business and be taken over by geographically more fortunate franchise holders.
      I had understood that the Minister's commitment was to provide for a system that would not be brought to a conclusion at the end of the interim period. I am therefore surprised to see the provision in this form. I know that the Minister will be prepared at least to repeat his earlier assurances.
      Mr. Mellor: I repeat those assurances. This is not an easy issue. The previous Home Secretary announced in July last year that there would be a uniform tariff for Channel 3 companies. The announcement also made it clear that those cross-subsidy arrangements would be reviewed. Of course, one stands by that.
      As for radio, there is a transitional period. Because of the nature of the radio system, it was decided that the kind of elaborate arrangements that might have been appropriate for television were not appropriate for perpetuation in the radio system. Some radio companies are dismayed about that and a long and honourable battle has been waged by Mr. Prag of the Moray Firth radio station. I made it clear to him throughout that I did not think that I could improve on the position that I had inherited and that I was under great pressure from the Association of Independent Radio Contractors not to do so.
      We have not moved any goalposts in the amendments, but I understand that we have not gone as far as some other interests would have wished us to do. I can only regret that, but say that I have done so on the best advice from others within the industry.
      Mr. Maclennan: I cannot say that I am surprised by the Minister's remarks about radio because they conform to what he has said throughout. I may have misread Lords amendment No. 347, but I thought that it referred to television and I wanted to draw attention to it for that reason. I have been advised that some of the companies are concerned about the provisions. It is, of course, for the smaller companies, such as Grampian Television, which serve areas of sparse population, that the arrangements are to be made only for an interim period. There will not be a continuing guarantee of cross-subsidisation.
      Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. At the end of a long evening, I see the point. The break in the mid-1990s was raised on Report. It is necessary to review these matters from time to time, but I cannot conceive that anything is likely to change as the case for these measures will be as compelling then as it is now. It is simply that, following consultations with other Departments, it has not
      610
      been open to us to put in place a perpetuity arrangement. We are concerned about transmission systems being far more complex in some areas than in others.
      On Report, there was petitioning from the west country. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said that there were 30-odd booster stations in his constituency alone. The best that I could do then—it was quite considerable—was to say that, while there has to be a review period, I personally doubted whether the basis of the argument would have changed materially to allow any different result from that which we already considered to be conceivable.
      Mr. Alistair Darling rose——
      Mr. Mellor: I believe that I am technically intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, so I had better sit down and allow him to finish so that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) can say his piece.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am only too happy to rise to my feet again to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.
      Mr. Darling: I wanted an undertaking from the Minister rather than an undertaking from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) who, I suspect, is not in a position now—nor, with due respect, is likely to be—to give me such an undertaking.
      I understand what the Minister is saying. However, it might be helpful—and would be appreciated by those who live in areas that are served by many transmitters—to obtain an undertaking from the Government to keep the situation under review. There may be an opportunity to look at the position again in the mid-1990s, but the worry is that something might happen fairly quickly in the interim which meant that Parliament was unable to respond to developments. If the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland could continue his speech to allow the Minister to intervene to give that undertaking, I should be happy.
      Sir Giles Shaw: I rise in support of the points made by the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). Of all the complexities that are described in the Bill, that of the transmission system—its maintenance, its ownership and its effectiveness—is the area of greatest weakness, in my humble estimation. It is at its greatest weakness in the provisions for outlying areas that require many subsidiary transmitters, which add substantially to capital and to operating costs.
      My right hon. and learned Friend would be unwise to assume that it was purely a matter of rural areas. It is at its most obvious in rural areas and in the Celtic fringes. However, even in some more populated parts, there is considerable difficulty in obtaining adequate transmitters to fit the existing regional contractors' marketing purposes. My right hon. and learned Friend knows perfectly well that large portions of Yorkshire, for example, are omitted from receiving signals from Yorkshire Television and are included in the north-eastern regional station. Those are obvious quirks of geography.
      The review of the transmission system under the new regime will require even greater resources than do the reviews under the current system. I beg my right hon. and learned Friend to agree that there will be frequent reviews of the transmission system in the early stages of the ITC

      611
      Channel 3 operation with a view not only to dealing with the problems raised by those in Scotland and in Wales, but to reviewing the system in the rest of the country.
      Mr. Mellor: I appreciate the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw). The present cross-subsidy arrangements subsist until 1992 and the new cross-subsidy arrangements will operate from 1993 to 1996.
      My hon. Friend asked about the technical capabilities of the system. We discussed that exhaustively in Committee when I was happy to state that we were committed not only to maintaining the existing system, but to improving it for the benefit of those in the so-called black holes of the transmission system. At present, 99·4 per cent. of the population is covered by the system, but we aim to improve on that. In the course of a privatisation there would be no question about that. Obligations would be set to ensure that there was no deviation from the perpetuation of an efficient and effective system covering existing transmission areas. We hope that that would be accompanied not only by further improvements in transmission to areas already covered by the system, but by an extension of the system into some of those black holes. Such improvements are firmly in our sights.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Mr. Mellor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unless I am misinformed, I understand that no other hon. Member has given notice of wanting to intervene on any of the subsequent amendments.
      Mr. Fisher: I intended to speak to Lords amendment No. 432.
      Mr. Mellor: That is not on my note. I had hoped to be able to suggest that we might be able to put all the other amendments to the House en bloc.
      Mr. Fisher: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On amendment No. 432, could the Minister say something about the sort of sum——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister cannot do that. First, we should deal with the proposition that we should take the rest of the amendments en bloc. Is there any hon. Member who disagrees with that proposition?
      Mr. Cryer: Yes. Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure what en bloc means. Does the Minister mean a select group of amendments or all the amendments? Even though we appear to rush through amendments, our practice gives hon. Members an opportunity to intervene when they so wish. I am opposed to dealing with the subsequent amendments en bloc.
      Mr. Simon Coombs: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I welcome maximum speed in our deliberations where possible, but there are two groups of amendments on which I should like to intervene briefly.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accept, of course, the points that have been made by the hon. Members for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). We shall proceed as we have hitherto.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

    Clause 163

      USE AS RIGHT OF SOUND RECORDINGS IN BROADCAST AND CABLE PROGRAMME SERVICES
      Lords amendment: No. 387, in page 124, line 18, leave out from ("licence") to ("terms") in line 19 and insert—("(a) whose").
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Mellor.]
      11 pm
      Mr. Simon Coombs: This amendment deals with the delicate balance that has always been struck and maintained between the interests of the music recording industry and of broadcasters, particularly in radio. I urge caution on the Government before they do anything to change that delicate balance.
      I am pleased to note that the issue was thoroughly aired in the other place and that assurances were given. I need not detain the House at this stage, apart from urging my right hon. and learned Friend to be keenly aware of the concern in the music recording industry about the fact that a small change in legislation could have a big effect on a major British industry that has always been a successful contributor to the British balance of payments. In that light, I hope that he will recognise the need for caution and will do nothing to upset that delicate balance.
      Mr. Mellor: I accept what my hon. Friend says. It is a responsibility, I am almost happy to say, of the Department of Trade and Industry, and I shall make sure that that Department is made aware of my hon. Friend's view, of which I am well aware from representations made to me.
      Mr. Gale: Will my right hon. and learned Friend also convey to the Department of Trade and Industry the fact that as there is now no format protection in the Bill, any format programme from television can be pirated and run on radio without any payment whatever?
      Mr. Mellor: That is the Hughie Green case that we discussed at length. It all turns on whether it is an idea or whether it constitutes a fully worked through, written document of a kind that can attract copyright protection. I regret that there remains dissatisfaction on that issue. I shall convey that dissatisfaction to my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry, all of whom are prudently absent from the House at this hour.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    New Clause

      UNAUTHORISED DECODERS FOR ENCRYPTED SERVICES ETC.
      Lords amendment: No. 407, after clause 166, to insert the following new clause—
      (".—(1) In the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 the following section shall be inserted after section 297—

      UNAUTHORISED DECODERS FOR ENCRYPTED SERVICES ETC.

        Unauthorised decoders.
        297A.—(1) A person who makes, imports, sells or lets for hire any unauthorised decoder shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
        (2) It is a defence to any prosecution for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that he did not know, and had no reasonable ground for knowing, that the decoder was an unauthorised decoder.
        (3) In this section—

        "apparatus" includes any device, component or electronic data;

        "decoder" means any apparatus which is designed or adapted to enable (whether on its own or with any other apparatus) an encrypted transmission to be decoded;

        "transmission" means any programme included in a broadcasting or cable programme service which is provided from a place in the United Kingdom; and

        "unauthorised", in relation to a decoder, means a decoder which will enable encrypted transmissions to be viewed in decoded form without payment of the fee (however imposed) which the person making the transmission, or on whose behalf it is made, charges for viewing those transmissions, or viewing any service of which they form part."

        (2) In section 299 of the Act of 1988 (fraudulent reception of programmes broadcast from countries or territories outside the United Kingdom)—

        (a) subsection (2) shall cease to have effect; and

        (b) in subsection (5), after "297" there shall be inserted "297A".")

        Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Mellor.]
        Mr. Simon Coombs: The House will be aware that I took considerable interest in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. That measure, among many other things, prohibits satellite signal theft and gives satellite service providers certain remedies against the manufacture, importation and sale of unauthorised decoding equipment. But the provisions apply only to signals uplinked from the United Kingdom. Signals uplinked from abroad enjoy no legal protection. That means that there is no legal remedy against the growing proliferation of pirate decoders. About 30 per cent. of United Kingdom homes with authorised decoding equipment are now estimated to have unauthorised decoders provided by Filmnet. That has caused, and will increasingly cause in the future, serious economic loss to United Kingdom satellite services and their programme suppliers. Therefore, we need an amendment to the 1988 Act to enable the Government to extend legal protection to all signals originating from abroad, not just—as the present law provides—signals from countries that already have laws against satellite signal theft.
        The recent case of BBC Enterprises v. Hi-Tech Xtravision suggests that it is not dishonest within the meaning of the 1988 Act, and therefore not illegal, to buy unauthorised decoding equipment that is available more cheaply from someone other than the broadcaster and to use it to receive encoded satellite signals. That interpretation, if followed by other courts, would render the satellite signal theft provisions of the current statute almost unenforceable. Therefore, an amendment is needed to the 1988 Act to make it clear that an offence is committed whenever a relevant transmission is received with intent to avoid payment, without requiring a further showing of dishonesty.
        Although the Court of Appeal in the BBC case that I mentioned found that the 1988 Act establishes both a primary right and a corresponding remedy in respect of the manufacture, importation and sale of unauthorized
        614
        decoding equipment, there was almost unanimous agreement among the judges who considered the case that the current statute is not nearly as clear as previous law in establishing the primary right. Therefore, the 1988 Act should also be amended to clarify that point.
        The Broadcasting Bill could be an appropriate vehicle for those amendments to the copyright law. In July, in the other place, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead introduced amendments that would have achieved the desired effect. The Government, in the person of Lord Saunderson of Bowden, said that they were considering the matter and would introduce amendments on Report. But the amendments before us have not met the requirements, as I said. The new clause does not provide the protection asked for.
        Among the companies that fear that, in all probability, they will lose heavily financially are the BBC, British Satellite Broadcasting, Sky Television, the Federation against Copyright Theft, the British Video Association, the British Screen Advisory Council and the Motion Picture Export Association of America. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister and the House will recognise the seriousness of the matter, which is why I have sought to detain the House at this late hour.
        I appreciate that at this late stage of the Bill's passage it is too late to amend the legislation to deal with those problems. But I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider the matter and, if necessary, be prepared to return to the issue before this burgeoning and important industry in the United Kingdom is severely, and perhaps irreparably, damaged.
        Mr. Mellor: These are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to whom I shall certainly convey the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs). I appreciate that there is a problem in relation to Filmnet. The suggestion that emerged from the debate in the House of Lords was that those who sell film rights should, in all conscience, ensure that they sell them only to people who have some interest in ensuring that they cannot be readily pirated. The fault lies not with the Government, but with Filmnet for using relatively crude technology that can be so easily broken into.
        I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be only too happy to become further engrossed in those matters in due course. I, as Minister for the Arts, will not have a continuing role in all this.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Lords amendment No. 408, as amended, agreed to.
        Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

    New Clause

      CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS MAINTENANCE OF NATIONAL TELEVISION ARCHIVE.
      Lords amendment: No. 432, after clause 170, insert the following new clause—
      (".—(I) The Commission shall, for the financial year which includes the commencement of this section and each subsequent financial year, determine an aggregate amount which they consider it would be appropriate for the holders of Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences to contribute, in accordance

      615
      with this section, towards the expenses incurred by the nominated body in connection with the maintenance by it of a national television archive.
      (2) In this section "the nominated body" means such body as may for the time being be nominated by the Commission for the purposes of this section, being a body which—

      (a) is for the time being a designated body for the purposes of section 75 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (recordings for archival purposes), and

      (b) appears to the Commission to be in a position to maintain a national television archive.

      (3) A Channel 3 or Channel 5 licence shall include conditions requiring the licence holder to pay to the Commission, in respect of each of the financial years mentioned in subsection (1), such amount as they may notify to him for the purposes of this section, being such proportion of the aggregate amount determined for that year under that subsection as they consider appropriate (and different proportions may be determined in relation to different persons).
      (4) Any amount received by the Commission by virtue of subsection (3) shall be transmitted by them to the nominated body.
      (5) In this section—

      "the Commission" means the Independent Television Commission; and

      "Channel 3 licence" and "Channel 5 licence" have the same meaning as in Part I of this Act.")

      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. Mellor.]
      Mr. Fisher: I should be grateful if the Minister would say something about this because he will agree that it is an extremely significant development. We have a large but by no means complete television archive, which represents an important cultural collection, and it would be helpful if the Minister told us about the size of what is called the "aggregate amount" and about the cost to franchise applicants. He should also express his encouragement for the enterprise.
      Will the Minister also say a little about the nominated body? In subsection (2) of the Lords amendment, that body is mentioned but not specified. There are a large number of different archives in existence, and there are problems to do with compatibility, format and handling. Who will compose the nominated body? How will the commission come to that decision? How will it reconcile the different archives? What sums of money will be involved?
      This is an important provision; we trust that it will coherently lay down the sort of archive that the industry needs for the future.
      Mr. Cryer: I also welcome the Lords amendment. It represents one of the many commitments made by the Minister in Committee to some sort of national archeive. Film going back to before the turn of the century in the Weintraub archive at the Associated British Picture Corporation as was, now Goldcrest at Elstree, has been sold to the United States, so valuable historic documentation of how people then lived, in animated picture form, is no longer in United Kingdom ownership.
      The Government might say that as long as the film can be seen, it does not really matter who owns it, but there is obviously a greater interest in this country in preserving that sort of footage than there is in the United States, where an owner might see some commercial advantage in disposing of it to yet another owner. I recall that, of the silent British feature films made at the studios of Cecil Hepworth in the 1920s, all bar one—"Coming through the
      616
      Rye"—were sold to be dissolved to make dope for covering the canvas aircraft fuselages of the time. So we lost a valuable historic collection for relatively small commercial considerations.
      I echo the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). How much money is envisaged? What sort of costs are likely to be involved? I welcome the fact that the archive, under public ownership and control, cannot be sold off at the whim of some takeover merchant, as happened when the Associated British Picture Corporation studios and film vaults were sold to Cannon—and in turn sold off by Cannon.
      Elstree Studios could survive on the income derived from lending films from the archives without making any pictures in the studios. It did that as well, thus adding cream to the cake, but that was stopped, not by any decision by film makers in the United Kingdom but by a decision by Cannon, as it then was, simply to maximise the real estate value of Elstree Studios to offset the financial difficulties in which Cannon found itself in the United States.
      11.15 pm
      I welcome the clause. It would be interesting to know what the Minister had in mind during any discussions. It is not the Minister's decision, but at least he must have had some discussions about the sums involved, how long it will take the nominated body to set up the archive and what sort of material is currently available. I suspect that the cost of storing video material is lower than the cost of storing film. However, some records must be on film, which must be stored in carefully controlled conditions.
      Mr. Mellor: I am glad that our decision to put these matters on a statutory basis has met with the approval of the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that it is a shame when irreplaceable art heritage items are wilfully destroyed. I am glad that he mentioned the institute at Bradford, which is part of the Arts Council's drive for more inner-city arts activities. It is proud of the museum in Bradford, which I gather is important not only for what it achieves but as a centre for visitors who come a long way to see it. That rather proves the advantages of the arts in inner cities because it makes those areas places to which people will go. I found that the other day when I visited the Tate gallery in Liverpool.
      I was asked about who would keep the archive. The body has yet to be nominated, but I do not think that it is any secret that I think that it will be the British Film Institute, which is obviously well qualified to do that and is already doing it. We wish to keep up the level of payments in real terms, which will be about £200,000 per annum at current prices from the ITV companies. I am glad to say that, although we have not placed a statutory requirement on Channel 4, it has confirmed its willingness to continue to contribute to the archive and will contribute a further £100,000.
      As is always the case, such organisations would like a bit more, but I think that everyone understands that £300,000 is enough to maintain an archive that is properly representative of British television for the years in question. Although the change is not earth shattering, it is one of the useful changes made during the progress of the Bill.
      Mr. Fisher: How will the provision operate retrospectively? As I understand it, the provision refers only to the new franchise holders, and the important existing archive of current ITV companies will not be covered. The British Film Institute keeps some but by no means all of the archives. Perhaps if I talk for long enough, the Minister will get some sort of steer on the matter. He appears to be none the wiser and is obviously superbly well informed already. What is the scope of the British Film Institute's present activities and how will those activities link with future commitments?
      Mr. Mellor: My advisers told me the bit that I already knew. They do not know the bit that I should like to know. They have confirmed that what I know is right. It was once said of Ronald Reagan, "It ain't what he knows that bothers me, but what he says he knows that ain't so." At least what I know seems to be right, which is that the ITV companies already contribute voluntarily to the BFI. The hon. Gentleman asked about their existing archives and whether there are any plans to pool them in a central point. I do not know the answer to that, but I shall try to find out and inform the hon. Gentleman.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 173

      POWER TO GIVE BROADCASTING BODIES ETC. DIRECTIONS RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
      Lords amendment:No. 434, in page 136, line 39, after ("may") insert ("by order")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Mellor.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 435.
      Mr. Cryer: I welcome the amendments because they fulfil another commitment made in Committee. They translate a direction by a Minister into a statutory instrument subject to annulment by either or both Houses of Parliament. That is a slight improvement in the accountability of Ministers because they have to present a statutory instrument that is subject to perusal by the House.
      In case we are carried away by the work done by the people down the Corridor, I should point out that many of these proposals were made in Committee and the Minister found it convenient to introduce them in another place. It shows that there is nothing that a revising committee could not do if, on some happy future date, the House of Lords happened to be replaced.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I welcome the amendments. However, I should be grateful if the Minister could refresh failing memories on the implications of clause 173, if amended. For those hon. Members who are not closely following the Bill, the clause, as amended, would state that the Secretary of State may by order direct certain bodies to carry out functions
      "for the purpose of enabling Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to give effect to any international obligations of the United Kingdom."
      618
      The clause does not specify broadcasting obligations. It lists all the broadcasting authorities—the BBC, the ITC, the Welsh Authority, the Radio Authority and the Broadcasting Standards Council. I assume that
      "any international obligations of the United Kingdom".
      means, for example, that if we have international obligations under the resolution of the Security Council with regard to the presence in the Gulf, the Secretary of State might seek, by order approved in the House, to direct the broadcasting authorities to carry certain messages, or whatever he may determine.
      I want the Minister to confirm whether that applies purely to broadcasting obligations under international agreements——
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is a blank cheque.
      Mr. Banks: As my hon. Friend suggests, is it a blank cheque for the broadcasting authorities, by order, to carry out any obligations—military or whatever—that the Secretary of State of the day may determine? Will the Minister refresh our memories?
      Mr. Mellor: I am happy to confirm that it means only obligations relevant to the broadcasting authorities in question. We are not fundamentally changing their nature to get them to do other things. It is a tempting thought, but one that must be resisted.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Alistair Darling, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. David Mellor.
      To withdraw immediately.
      Mr. Mellor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before withdrawing immediately, I should like to express my appreciation to the whole House for the businesslike way in which we have been able to discuss the amendments tonight. I am most grateful to all concerned.
      Mr. Corbett: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Had it been possible for the House to leave alone those who have lived with the Bill for nigh on a year, we should probably have made even better progress, and we should not, perhaps, have experienced some of the hiccups that I am told occurred last week. Happily, I was not concerned with those, because at the time I was standing on my head in Australia.
      Although there were a large number of amendments, the overwhelming majority were technical. When they were not, they fulfilled pledges which had been given in the House or in the other place.
      Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) takes a very great interest in matters of privilege. I am sure that the Committee, which seems to have been a fix-up between the usual channels, would benefit from his advice, because he takes a deep interest in such matters. If you would like me to, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should be quite happy to provide a manuscript amendment to whatever resolutions are passed.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Perhaps I can have the last word on this matter. It is always a great privilege to preside over the House, but it is especially so when the House is in such a constructive and happy mood.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

    BROADCASTING
    Ordered,
    That—
    (1) the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House (to be called henceforth the Select Committee on Broadcasting etc.) shall have power to give directions and perform other duties, relating to the broadcasting of proceedings of the House and matters ancillary thereto, in accordance with the Resolutions of the House of 26th July 1977 and 19th July 1990;
    (2) unless the House otherwise orders, those Members presently nominated to the Committee shall continue to be members of it for the remainder of the present Parliament;
    (3) save as superseded by the provisions of the preceding paragraphs of this Order, the temporary Standing Order made on 29th March 1988 relating to the Committee shall continue to apply thereto;
    (4) the Committee shall have leave to confer and to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on Broadcasting for the purposes of deliberating and of examining witnesses; and
    (5) this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.—[Mr. Wood.]

    Ordered,
    That Standing Order No. 129 (Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting) be repealed.—[Mr. Wood.]

    Statutory Instruments, &c.

      INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101( 5 ) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
      That the draft European Commission and Court of Human Rights (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 13th July, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
      Question agreed to.

      HOVERCRAFT
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
      That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
      Question agreed to.

  Roads (Kirklees)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  11.31 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for giving me this opportunity to raise matters concerning roads in Kirklees, which are of great importance to my constituents. I am also most grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping for being with us at this late hour—although it is not quite as late as he and I feared earlier in the evening.
  The issues that I shall be raising in the debate are not great matters of state, but bread-and-butter matters affecting the ordinary day-to-day living of just about everybody in my constituency, and within Kirklees, who drives a motor vehicle.
  Visitors coming to Kirklees and residents returning are made only too well aware of when they have entered our district. It is not just the reassuring signs which tell them that they have entered a nuclear-free zone, but rather the state of the roads which become markedly worse.
  I have received a regular flow of complaints from constituents about the state of the roads in Kirklees. I can confirm from my own experience of driving round the constituency that they leave an awful lot to be desired. It is fair to say that the state of the roads in Kirklees is an absolute disgrace.
  All too often when complaints are made about the state of local services, the parrot cry is, "We need more money." My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to go down that road this evening.
  Kirklees council budgeted for spending more than £10 million on road maintenance last year, although it is my understanding that about £800,000 of that budget has not been spent. That seems a little surprising. Lack of resources is not the root cause of the problems that I have outlined. According to information provided to me by the highways department of Kirklees council, the utility companies create on average about 29,000 holes or openings in the roads in Kirklees every year. The problem lies in the interaction between Kirklees council and the utility companies.
  When I first voiced concern in the local press about all the potholes, local Labour councillors, including the leader of the council, tried to put all the blame on the utility companies, and suggested that there was lack of funding to carry out proper repairs. Both claims fall short of the mark. Local authorities have the power now to carry out the permanent reinstatement of the initial temporary reinstatements carried out by the utility companies when they first fill in the hole that they have dug.
  Councils have a choice. Either they can require the utility companies to carry out the permanent reinstatement work, or they can do the work themselves. Kirklees council—like, I believe, many other councils—has elected to carry out the permanent reinstatement work itself. The council therefore has the power to ensure that potholes are properly and efficiently repaired. It also has the power to charge the costs of the work direct to the utility companies. That ensures that local community charge payers do not have to bear the cost.
  Regrettably, it appears that Kirklees council is not carrying out that function properly. Certainly it is the view of the Mirfield road safety committee—Mirfield is in

  621
  Kirklees but just outside my constituency—that the council carries out very little reinstatement work. Earlier this year I raised with the highways department the poor quality of two roads in the village of Slaithwaite in my constituency. It told me that the permanent reinstatement work had been carried out. I discovered later that it had not been carried out, which suggests some confusion and perhaps a lack of co-ordination.
  Sir Giles Shaw: My hon. Friend is dealing with issues that are of the greatest importance. It is typical of my hon. Friend's devotion to constituency issues that he is doing so. I want him to understand, however, that the problems that he raises are shared by all districts in west Yorkshire. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) and I agree that the great problem of lack of co-ordination over reinstatement must be properly addressed and that local authorities are reneging on their civic duty properly to maintain roads.
  Mr. Riddick: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. Some people in Kirklees imagine that their roads are the worst in the country, but there appear to be problems in other parts of Yorkshire. I am grateful, too, for my hon. Friend's kind comments about my work as a constituency Member of Parliament. I have tried to follow the excellent example that he set in his constituency.
  My constituents are fed up with the state of their roads. I believe that the time has come for the Government to grasp this nettle. Utility companies must be made properly responsible and accountable to the local highways department for the work that they carry out. Highways departments must ensure that the state of roads generally is kept at a high level.
  The Horne report was published in 1985. Professor Horne and his team were asked to review the working of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 to see whether the law needed to be updated and clarified. As the Minister knows, the Horne committee made a number of recommendations. I take this opportunity to urge my hon. Friend to ensure that legislation is brought before the House in the next Session of Parliament to implement the recommendations of the Horne report. The Horne report recommended that the responsibility for reinstating roads should be placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the utility companies. Experience in Kirklees proves—fairly conclusively, I think—that the current system is not working. Therefore, I support such a move.
  Clearly, however, we should have to ensure that a cast-iron system was established that did not allow the utility companies to evade their responsibilities. Strict national standards would have to be put in place to cover the quality of the work, specifications and workmanship and the time scale within which the reinstatement work must be carried out.
  There are two other vital factors. There is nothing more frustrating than to see a new surface put down only to have a utility company come along a few months or even a few weeks later and dig it up again. I believe that an effective—probably computerised—system of notification by the utility companies about future excavations is essential. The highways authorities should be given the rights of inspection over all the work carried out by the utility companies.
  It is vital to have a proper system of monitoring and of penalties for failure to carry out proper reinstatement. On
  622
  the apportioning of costs, I see no reason why community charge payers should have to bear the burden of the excavations carried out by the utility companies. After all, the excavations are done to help the customers of the utility companies. Therefore, it is right that the customers should bear the cost of such work.
  I recently met some people who work for British Gas, one of the utility companies that often digs up our roads. They made it clear to me that British Gas and the other utility companies are keen that all recommendations are implemented into law so that a proper system can be introduced. They believe that the utility companies are the most appropriate bodies to carry out that work.
  I reiterate my strong hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will win his and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's battle to obtain legislative time for a transport Bill next Session. An editorial in my local newspaper, the Huddersfield Daily Examiner, suggested recently that I will need all the luck I can get if anything is to be done about the roads in Kirklees. It is not luck I need but legislation.
  The appalling potholes that I mentioned present a serious danger to drivers, particularly drivers of motor cycles. I understand that during 1989 60 accidents, some more serious than others, were caused by vehicles going into potholes. It is difficult for drivers to obtain proper compensation for personal injuries suffered or for damage to vehicles. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister will look at that part of the law to see whether it needs to be tightened up.
  Finally, may I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at the problem of unadopted roads? Within Kirklees there are hundreds of unadopted roads. That means that local residents have to maintain them and some of them are in an appalling state. In many cases, the local residents cannot afford to carry out proper repairs. I recently visited Coldwell street in Linthwaite which has had particular problems that have been exacerbated by large lorries delivering to a supermarket. Whether a small local road is adopted or unadopted is simply an accident of history. However, residents who find themselves in that position still have to pay the same community charge as everybody else in the area and many of them consider that to be unfair. Currently, Kirklees council will adopt a road only if it is up to a certain standard. I suggest that a system should be put in place to ensure that councils adopt a certain number of roads each year. Obviously, the number would depend on local circumstances.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for staying up till this late hour to answer the debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) for being here with us. He is an assiduous attender in the House. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give me some positive answers to some of the issues that I have raised. Many of my constituents are fed up with the state of the roads in Kirklees, and my hon. Friend the Minister is the best hope that I have for getting something done about it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Perhaps I should make it clear that it is not in order for hon. Members to ask for legislation during an Adjournment debate. I am satisfied, however, that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) was asking the Government to act, which is perfectly in order.
  11.44 pm
  The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on drawing attention to the problem affecting his constituents. I know what a problem it is for him; he has told my colleagues and me many times about it, and I hope that—while remaining mindful of the caution that you have just given us, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I can go some way towards explaining what can be done.
  Kirklees is a metropolitan district in the west Yorkshire conurbation. Two of the region's most important motorways—the M1 and M62—pass close to its boundaries, giving Kirklees excellent road links to the south, eastwards to the Humber ports and the Al and westwards over the Pennines to Manchester and Merseyside. Improvement of the M62 has already begun, and climbing lanes have already been provided on some of the more difficult gradients. The length within Kirklees was completed in 1988 at a cost of £3 million.
  The White Paper "Roads for Prosperity", published last year, announced proposals to widen the 17 miles of the M62 over the Pennines between junctions 18 and 24 from dual three-lane to dual four-lane at a cost of £125 million, and proposals to create a new 12-mile dual-carriageway trunk road across Kirklees district, linking the M1 to the M62 at a cost of £54 million. By trunking the M606 local authority motorway from the M62 into Bradford in 1989, we were able to relieve Kirklees council of the financial responsibility for the one mile of the M606 within the district.
  The Government have also been supporting the improvement of local authority roads in the district. As part of our "action for cities" initiative, Kirklees has two inner-city target areas. I am pleased to see that Kirklees council and private developers in the area have been making good use of the grants that the Department of Transport offers under section 13 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. Those 30 per cent. grants are available in assisted areas such as the northern end of the district, adjacent to the M62 junctions 26 and 27, which lie within the Bradford travel-to-work area. In recent years, IDA grants in Kirklees have supported roadwork schemes costing £1·5 million, helping industrial development and enabling the creation of 2,350 new jobs.
  The main source of Government support for the improvement of local authority roads is the transport supplementary grant. It is designed to recognise that many local authority roads are also roads of more than local importance, complementing the national road network. TSG is a 50 per cent. grant towards programmes of expenditure on accepted schemes. The other 50 per cent. is supported through the credit-approval system, which attracts extra revenue support grant, enabling local authorities to build accepted schemes at virtually no cost to their community charge payers. TSG settlements are announced annually, and local authority schemes must compete for priority for the funds available.
  In the case of Kirklees, only two major schemes have been put forward for TSG support in transport policy and programme bids since Kirklees council became a highway authority in 1986, when the metropolitan county councils were abolished. The Dewsbury ring road, already under construction in 1986, cost just over £7 million. It was supported by TSG, and was completed in 1987. Mold
  624
  Green relief road was proposed by Kirklees council. It was accepted for TSG and completed in 1989 at a cost of £3·1 million.
  Kirklees' transport policy and programme for 1991–92 includes a bid for TSG support for a large reconstruction scheme costing £1·25 million in Ravensthorpe, Dewsbury. A decision on whether the scheme will be accepted for TSG will be announced towards the end of 1990.
  I should make it clear that Government support for improvement schemes on local roads depends on local authorities' coming forward with schemes in the TPPs, commanding priority for TSG. Until Kirklees comes forward with a bigger programme of schemes, it cannot expect to increase its portion of support through TSG.
  Expenditure on routine highway maintenance is not eligible for TSG, but is covered in the standard spending assessment calculations for RSG, where we prefer to give the local authorities a reasonably free hand to sort out their own priorities.
  My hon. Friend drew attention to the particular problems of unadopted roads. I understand that he recently received a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic explaining the position on that issue, and there is nothing that I can usefully add at this stage.
  As my hon. Friend clearly illustrated tonight, the work of the public utilities has a major effect on the condition of roads. Electricity, gas, water and telecommunications companies enjoy statutory rights to break open streets to lay and maintain their apparatus. In built-up urban areas such as Kirklees, where demand for utility services is greatest and road traffic is heaviest, conflicts of interest frequently arise.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that a complete overhaul of the legislation governing utility street works is required if there is to be a real and lasting improvement. While I cannot anticipate what will appear in the forthcoming Queen's Speech, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to bringing forward legislation to reform the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950—known as PUSWA—at the earliest opportunity. I hope that the Huddersfield Examiner will, rightly, give credit and praise when that Bill comes forward.
  There are a number of serious shortcomings in the present law on utility works. One example is the requirement to serve notices in writing on all the authorities involved before starting works. That results in unnecessary bureaucracy, with some 4 million holes each year subject to the requirements of the 1950 Act.
  The paper-based system fails to distinguish the important advance notifications from the routine. There are 18 different forms of statutory notice for use by the utilities, and a further 21 for use by other authorities. The highway authority has little opportunity to make adequate arrangements for traffic management, still less to co-ordinate works between various utilities. The possibilities for simplification and efficiency gains offered by information technology are ruled out by the statutory requirements for paper notices.
  Another example of the shortcomings of the present framework is the generally unsatisfactory state of reinstatement of roads following excavation work by utilities. The 1950 Act allows highway authorities to elect to do the permanent reinstatement of the upper levels of the roads themselves at the utility's expense. There is no time limit laid down for the highway authority to carry out the reinstatement in those cases. As a result, temporary

  625
  reinstatements done by utilities are often left for far too long in a totally unsatisfactory condition, and in those cases where the utility is allowed to do the permanent reinstatement itself there is a wide variety of permitted standards and a weak system of enforcement. All that means too many reinstatements are left in a poor condition, and highway authorities have to spend more on maintenance in the long run.
  Recognising problems such as those, in 1984 my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), the then Minister of State, Department of Transport, invited Professor Horne to chair a committee to review all aspects of the 1950 Act. Its report, "Roads and the utilities", published in November 1985, provided a comprehensive review and a series of recommendations for action that commanded a wide degree of support.
  The Government published their formal response to the report in 1986, accepting the main recommendations. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend that we take such issues seriously. Those recommendations were, first, that the primary responsibility for carrying out reinstatements following street works by utilities should be placed on the utilities themselves. Local authorities and their direct labour organisations would be allowed to tender for such work if they wished, but would no longer have the statutory right to elect to do the permanent reinstatement themselves. In future, the responsibility and liability for reinstatements will clearly rest with the utilities. That should go a long way towards meeting the concerns about liability in the case of accidents that my hon. Friend mentioned. Members of the public trying to find out who is responsible for a particular pothole will no longer have to suffer being passed back and forth between utility and highway authority
  The second main recommendation was that there should he new performance standards for reinstatements with better specifications for materials and workmanship, backed up by a system of training and certification of workmen and their supervisors. There should also be improvements in the procedures for the service of notices, inspections, traffic management, and safeguarding road users.
  In accepting those main recommendations of the Horne report, the Government recognised that primary legislation would be required to implement them. At the same time, they urged local authorities and the utilities to embark on the detailed technical work required to prepare the ground. The street works advisory committee was established to give the Secretary of State for Transport direct access to the best advice available. That committee has been invaluable in the formulation of detailed proposals for legislation, which were included in a consultation paper issued by the Department of Transport last year.
  Over the past three years, a considerable effort has been made by representatives of local authorities and utilities in association with Department of Transport officials to draw up the various codes of practice which will underpin the proposed new arrangements. Those involved have produced draft codes of practice on matters such as the specification for reinstatements, notice and inspection procedures, requirements for training and certification of workmen and the arrangements for diverting utility apparatus during road schemes.
  My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the new specification for reinstatements that is being drawn up will
  626
  require utilities to guarantee the performance of the repair for a fixed period. A demanding standard will be set to prevent uneven and dangerous road surfaces. The prescribed standard will have to be met whether the reinstatement is temporary or permanent. The needs of more vulnerable road users, including pedestrians and cyclists, will be taken into account when the standards are set. Each utility's performance will be closely monitored through a system of highway authority inspections, and there will be penalties for failure to meet the required level.
  All that important preparatory work should ensure that the implementation of the new arrangements can be done more effectively and quickly once a new legislative framework is in place.
  There is a need to reduce traffic obstruction and delay caused by utility street works. The Horne report argued the case for improved co-ordination of road works and better traffic management during the execution of works. I take my hon. Friend's point that there is nothing worse than a new road being laid and someone digging it up the next day. The Government fully accept the importance of this aspect and have indeed gone further than Horne in their proposals to protect the interests of road users, whether they be on wheels or on foot. It is proposed that the highway authority will be placed under a duty to co-ordinate all excavations in the highway, including its own, with a view to minimising the disruption to road users. There will be a new management tool to aid co-ordination in the form of a computerised street works register. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the Department of Transport is making available funding for the design and development of the register.
  In future, the highway authority will be empowered to designate as "traffic sensitive" those streets where works could cause great disruption to road users. On such streets, utilities will be required to consult the highway authority in advance before starting works. Where the highway authority is satisfied that works may cause serious disruption to traffic, it will have power to direct the utility on the times of working. However, of course, special arrangements will be made for genuine emergency works.
  Utility street works and building works undoubtedly impose costly delays on trafffic. Although much of this disruption is unavoidable, and as customers of the utilities we often benefit from the work which causes it, unnecessarily long or frequent disruption to road users can and must be avoided. For that reason, we came forward with a further proposal last autumn to take a power which would enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to require highway authorities to charge the promoters of works and their contractors to minimise disruption and delay in the most traffic-sensitive areas.
  We shall continue to encourage the use of so-called trenchless methods of construction and maintenance. Various techniques are now available to bore under roads with far less disruption to traffic and damage to the road surface than conventional trenching methods. As the technology becomes more reliable and cost-effective, we may expect to see it increasingly preferred by the utilities.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. He was joined in his comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) was present throughout the debate. I realise what an important subject this is to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley. He is certainly

  627
  never backward in coming forward and making strong representations to the Government about what most affects his constituents. I hope that I have been able to outline the Government's thinking and what action is necessary.
  628
  I hope that we can act soon and that some of theproblems to which my hon. Friend referred, which have caused much annoyance to his constituents and to those of other hon. Members, can be put right and that we can achieve a better system of maintaining and fixing our roads when they are dug up by the utilities.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Information Technology
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest estimate of the balance of trade in information technology.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  According to the latest estimates, the United Kingdom had a deficit of £685 million in the manufactured products of the electronics and information technology sector in the first quarter of 1990. This sector is defined as the principal products of activity headings 3301–2, 3441–4 and 3453–4 of the Standard Industrial Classification. These figures are for hardware only. There are no separate figures for trade in software.

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet his European counterparts to discuss Britain's trade deficit with the rest of Europe.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend holds regular meetings with his counterparts in the European Community over a broad range of issues.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has any knowledge of the corporate involvement between the Technology Development Group (TDG) of London and the Swiss firm of Schmiedemeccanica of Lugano; and what assessment his Department has made of the role of TDG in exporting sensitive technologies to Iraq.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: My Department is not able to confirm any information about possible links between TDG Ltd. and Schiedemeccanica SA. Exports of goods and technologies as described by the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989 (as amended) require export licences. No applications for such licences have been received from TDG Ltd.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has initiated any investigation into the

  Table 1

  Scheme name

  Region

  Length kms

  Contract let date

  Completion date

  Cost £ million1

  NPV

  Originally predicted traffic flows for 1989 (annual average daily traffic)

  Actual traffic flows for 1989 (annual average daily traffic)

  Estimated Outturn

  A1

  Penmanshiel Diversion

  Borders

  1·7

  October 1981

  September 1982

  3·0

  3·4

  -0·834

  5,800

  5,700

  A74

  Johnstone Bridge

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1·8

  April 1981

  March 1983

  1·2

  1·8

  -0·250

  18,300

  18,900

  A75

  Carsluith Diversion

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3·0

  October 1981

  November 1982

  1·1

  1·5

  -0·521

  2,700

  3,200

  A94

  Syde and Pert Improvement

  Grampian

  2·9

  February 1981

  September 1982

  2·6

  3·

  -0·911

  27,000

  11,700

  240
  trading operations of the Technology and Development Group, based in London, in regard to its role in the procurement of military usable technology for Iraq.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: Officials in my Department have had discussions with the Technology and Development Group. It is not our practice to disclose the nature of such discussions.

  Giant Hogweed
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take steps to ban the import and sale of seeds of Heracleum Mantegazzianum.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: No. There are currently no plans to ban the import or sale of seeds of Heracleum Mantegazzianum.

  However, under section 14(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it is an offence for any person to plant or to otherwise cause to grow in the wild any plant which is included in part 2 of schedule 9 to the Act. Giant hogweed (Heracleum Mantegazzianum) is listed in the schedule.

SCOTLAND

  Road Planning
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for the 16 schemes in Scotland, identified by the National Audit Office as having a 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, (g) the details of the negative economic appraisal or net present value and (h) in respect of the A74 only, estimated capital value cost and NPV for two-lane and three-lane motorway.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is given in the following two tables. Table 1 refers to the 16 schemes identified in the NAO report of 27 October 1988 as having a negative net present value. The originally predicted traffic flows for 1989 were based on the then current national growth projections. Actual traffic growth has generally been higher than predicted at that time.

  Table 2 gives the most recent budgetary estimates of costs and net present values for construction of the M 74 between Millbank and Gretna.
  241

  Scheme name

  Region

  Length kms

  Contract let date

  Completion date

  Cost £ million1

  NPV

  Originally predicted traffic flows for 1989 (annual average daily traffic)

  Actual traffic flows for 1989 (annual average daily traffic)

  Estimated Outturn

  A94

  Scotston-Candy

  Grampian

  8·5

  April 1983

  July 1985

  5·5

  7·0

  -2·757

  27,700

  13,100

  A94

  Laurencekirk Bypass

  Grampian

  7·8

  February 1984

  May 1985

  6·0

  7·9

  -1,745

  27,100

  10,400

  A92/A94

  Stonehaven Bypass

  Grampian

  9·7

  December 1982

  November 1984

  10·1

  14·5

  -5,362

  27,700

  13,100

  A82

  Eos Eonan-Derrydarroch Bridges

  Central

  2·6

  April 1981

  December 1982

  1·5

  2·1

  -0·813

  1,900

  2,300

  A82

  Carnoch-Craigrannoch I

  Highland

  2·9

  December 1981

  October 1983

  1·6

  1·7

  -0·772

  2,500

  2,200

  A82

  Carnoch-Craigrannoch II

  Highland

  1·2

  March 1983

  October 1984

  1·4

  1·7

  -1·071

  2,500

  2,200

  A835

  Silverbridge-Gorstan

  Highland

  3·2

  May 1981

  December 1982

  2·4

  2·9

  -0·527

  800

  1,200

  A9

  Auchterarder/Aberuthven Bypass

  Tayside

  8·2

  January 1982

  October 1983

  5·9

  7·5

  -1·648

  10,000

  14,100

  A9

  Dalreoch-Burnside

  Tayside

  6·3

  June 1984

  October 1986

  8·4

  9·4

  -0·683

  9,700

  14,300

  A929

  Tealing-Tarbrax

  Tayside

  5·6

  November 1983

  July 1985

  6·0

  6·4

  -0·720

  29,800

  13,300

  A972

  Kingsway III

  Tayside

  2·5

  August 1984

  June 1986

  2·6

  3·0

  -0·203

  211,800

  18,200

  A94

  Balnabreich-St. Ann's

  Tayside

  2·8

  May 1981

  July 1982

  1·9

  2·1

  -0·927

  27,400

  12,800

  1 Tender letting stage estimate of total scheme cost.

  2 Includes an estimate for traffic re-routed as the result of the detrunking of the A92 Dundee-Stonehaven (coastal route).

  Table 2

  Motorway design standard

  Cost £m (September 1990)

  NPV (mid-1988 prices)

  Dual 3 lane

  412

  127

  Dual 2 lane

  350

  40

  Note: All costs exclude VAT

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what penalty points have been awarded by Greater Glasgow health board against private contractors providing domestic, catering, portering and associated services to the board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  One hundred and three penalty points have been awarded against in-house operators; 21 have been awarded against private contractors. These were mainly incurred during the first six months as the new arrangements settled in.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many eye tests were carried out in the first three quarters of each year since 1983 in(a) Scotland, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Glasgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the table below.

  Year

  Scotland

  Strathclyde

  Glasgow

  1983

  589,182

  284,978

  126,559

  1984

  619,999

  298,928

  133,091

  1985

  679,756

  330,267

  147,735

  1986

  692,400

  333,203

  149,720

  1987

  742,883

  359,374

  160,490

  1988

  841,030

  404,363

  185,376

  The total number of sight tests carried out in Scotland from 1 April 1989 is not available centrally.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out in tabular format(a) the number of civil servants in his Department devoted to the planning, building and maintenance of roads, (b) the number of civil servants in his Department devoted to the development
  242
  and maintenance of railways, (c) the number of civil servants in his Department devoted to the development of public transport other than railways and (d) the number of civil servants in his Department devoted to the promotion of cycling.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The roads directorate within the Scottish Development Department has 140 staff and deals with legislation, road safety, traffic regulation orders, road and bridge maintenance and new construction. It has executive responsiblity for the trunk road network in Scotland. The planning, building and maintenance of roads embraces provision for all road users and those employed on this work cannot be categorised by mode.

  The responsibilities of transport and local roads division of the Department include the issuing of capital allocations to regional and island authorities who have executive responsibility in Scotland for local roads and transport, and the discharge of the Department's functions relating to other transport modes, principally ferry and bus services. The division has 15½ staff. Thirty-one staff are also employed on toll collection and related duties at the Erskine bridge.

  The Department of Transport is the sponsoring Department for British Rail.

  Young People (Complaints)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will specify what formal procedures for making complaints and representations, specifying where appropriate under which sections of what Acts, are available locally and nationally to children and young people under 18 years of age who wish to make complaints about matters which are the responsibility of his Department.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Under section 5(1) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 anyone of any age who claims to have sustained injustice in consequence of maladministration by the Scottish Office may ask a Member of Parliament to refer a grievance to the Parliamentary
  243
  Commissioner for Administration. If the complainant is for any reason unable to act for him or herself, the complaint may be made by virtue of section 6(2) of the 1967 Act by another person on behalf of the complainant. The PCA may also investigate complaints against the following bodies, listed in schedule 2 to the Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners Act 1987, for which I am responsible or to which I make appointments:

  Countryside Commission for Scotland

  Crofters Commission

  Department of the Registers of Scotland

  Forestry Commission

  General Register Office, Scotland

  Highlands and Islands Development Board

  Red Deer Commission

  Scottish Courts Administration

  Scottish Homes

  Scottish Legal Aid Board

  Scottish Medical Practices Committee

  Scottish New Town Development Corporations

  Scottish Record Office

  Scottish Sports Council

  Scottish Tourist Board

  Under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 I have the power to take default action, on complaint by an interested person or otherwise, in respect of the failure of an education authority, school board or school managers to discharge any statutory duty under the 1980 Act.

  Persons, including children and young people under 18 years of age or those acting on their behalf, may make complaints or representations about their treatment by the national health service in Scotland in the following ways:

  a. by complaining to the appropriate health board about their treatment in hospital (section 1 of the Hospital Complaints Procedure Act 1985);

  b. by complaining to the appropriate health board that a family practitioner is in breach of the relevant terms of service (various sections of the NHS (Scotland) Act 1978);

  c. by making representation to a tribunal that the continued inclusion of an individual in a list of those providing family practitioner services is prejudicial to those services (section 29 of the NHS (Scotland) Act 1978); and

  d. by complaining to the Health Service Commissioner (Section 90 to 97 of the NHS (Scotland) Act 1978), although the Commissioner does not have the powers to investigate actions specified in Schedule 14 to the 1978 Act.

  This reply excludes references to procedures in which I have no locus and which are about matters that are the responsibility of local authorities.

  Education Authorities (Land Sales)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions since 1979 his Department has compelled education authorities to sell land that was being held for future school building.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Schools (Testing)
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he proposes to ensure that testing in English and mathematics is carried out with P4 and P7 pupils in Scotland in 1991.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Guidelines containing arrangements for the conduct of primary tests in 1991 were issued by the Scottish Education Department on 10 October. A copy has been placed in the Library. To ensure a consistent and orderly approach to testing I have concluded that it would 244
  be helpful to place the conduct of testing within a regulatory framework. Accordingly regulations to this effect are being laid before Parliament today.

TRANSPORT

  Coventry Airport
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many air misses have been filed relating to Coventry airport over the past four years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Two—one on 8 March 1989 and one on 27 June 1989. The first was assessed by the joint air miss working group (JAWG) as a possible risk of collision. The second has still to he evaluated by the JAWG.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to change the instructions concerning the investigation of air misses so that complaints notified by members of the public may be so recorded.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Reports by members of the public are ocassionally received by the Department and by the CAA. There is no standard procedure for dealing with them; each one is treated on its merits. None of the reports received from the public in recent years has been found on investigation to indicate any hazardous situation. The height of an aircraft can be accurately measured and maintained. The normal separation by height of aircraft at the lower levels is 1,000 feet, about 300 metres. This close vertical, but quite safe, proximity can mislead even an expert observer into believing that the aircraft are dangerously close. There are no plans to change the instructions concerning reports notified by members of the public.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Civil Aviation Authority on the methods of recording air misses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has had no discussions with the Civil Aviation Authority on the recording of air misses, which are incidents reported only by pilots. However, during 1987 and 1988 discussions between my right hon. Friend and the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority led to the introduction of aircraft proximity hazard (APHAZ) reports by air traffic controllers. The APHAZ reporting system, which began on 1 April 1989, closely parallels that for air misses.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many notifiable accidents were recorded for Coventry airport, and how many of those accidents were attributable to controller error, over the past two years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There have been two notifiable accidents at Coventry airport during the two years. On 23 August 1989 an undercarriage leg of a Cessna 172, a private aircraft, dropped into an unmarked pothole on the taxiway. The aircraft was substantially damaged, but there were no injuries. On 22 November 1989, a Cessna 150. a private aircraft, was blown on to its back during taxiing by the propeller wash of a DC6 that was running up its engines prior to take-off. The Cessna 150 was substantially damaged but there were no injuries.

  Three-way Catalyst
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether he will provide in the regulations for the testing or replacement of the three-way catalyst in cars after eight years' use;

  (2) if he will make three-way catalyst emission testing one of the conditions for granting an MOT certificate.

  Mr. Chope
  We are now consulting on proposals for an emissions check for introduction into the MOT test next year. We are proposing that this should include vehicles equipped with catalytic converters. A vehicle with a seriously defective catalyst would not pass the test.

  Trams (London)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations he has given to the introduction of modern trams into London.

  Mr. Freeman
  No formal proposals for the introduction of modern trams in London have been submitted to the Department of Transport. The Department is cooperating in the study of a possible light rail system in the Croydon area which is being taken forward by London Transport in conjunction with British Rail and the London borough of Croydon. The study is considering options, including some street running.

  Road Safety
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current budget for road safety campaigning; and what percentage is allocated to responding to inquiries from members of the public.

  Mr. Chope
  Estimates provision on road safety publicity in 1990–91 is £4·254 million. About 1 per cent. of this is allocated to the provision of a freephone inquiry service in connection with the recent child road safety publicity campaign. Each year several thousand written and telephone inquiries on all aspects of road safety are received by my Department. The cost of responding to these is not separately identified in the Department's provision for running costs.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, further to his announcement on 14 June about the channel tunnel rail link project, what action he has taken to safeguard the route between the channel tunnel terminal and the north downs.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have made initial safeguarding directions under the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 for this section of route (between Cheriton and Upper Hailing). The directions came into force on 13 September to coincide with British Rail's launch of public consultations on the fine detail of this route section. We have invited comments from the local authorities concerned on any aspects of the initial directions that should be improved or changed in any revised directions.

  Young People (Complaints)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will specify what formal procedures for making complaints and representations, specifying under which 246
  sections of which Acts, are available locally and nationally to children and young people under 18 years who wish to make complaints about matters which are the responsibility of his Department.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are no formal procedures specifically available to children and young people who wish to make complaints or representations about matters which are the responsibility of this Department. It is, however, open to members of the public, of whatever age, to write to the Department about any issue which concerns them.

  Complaints may also be made, through hon. Members, to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, under section 6 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, about the administrative actions of Government Departments and certain non-departmental public bodies.

  Traffic Lights
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the transport and road research laboratory has made any study of the potential benefit of a traffic light system that allows an approaching bus to activate changes in traffic lights from red to green.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The transport and road research laboratory (TRRL) studied bus-activated signals in the United Kingdom in the mid-1970s in both computer simulation and on-street studies. TRRL also participated in international bus priority studies.

  At unco-ordinated (non-linked) signals, trials in Swansea showed that average reductions in bus delay of six seconds per bus per signalled junction could be achieved.

  In a network of co-ordinated signals in Glasgow, reductions in bus journey times of between 2 per cent. and 15 per cent. were achieved depending on the signalling strategy and the time of day.

  Conclusions from the research were that modest net benefits could be achieved. Benefits were less where bus flow was high and where there were conflicting bus movements. Disbenefits to other traffic could outweigh the benefit to buses.

  Bus and Cycle Lanes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase the mileage of(a) bus lanes and (b) cycle lanes in London.

  Mr. Chope
  Bus and cycle lanes are primarily for local highway authorities. My Department produces technical guidance to assist with their design.

  My Department is planning to develop a network of priority routes which will assist the movement of buses and we are also supporting London Transport's bus priority team. Both initiatives will result in more bus lanes which could also be used by cyclists.

  My Department is actively supporting the provision of a 1000-mile cycle network for London. We also consider the provision of cycle lanes and crossings when designing new trunk roads and improvements to existing ones.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the effects of traffic-calming measures on road accident levels.
  247
  Mr. Chope
  The final report of the Urban Safety Projects which was published in May (TRRL report RR263) indicated that traffic calming measures can reduce casualties in residential areas by an average of 13 per cent. If this approach were applied nationally approximately 5 per cent. of all casualties would be saved.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road traffic accidents occurred in the Macclesfield constituency in the first six months of 1990; how many of these involved(a) minor injuries, (b) serious injuries and (c) fatal injuries; and what are the comparable figures for the same six-month period in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chope
  The figures requested for the constituency of Macclesfield are available only at disproportionate cost. The figures below relate to the borough of Macclesfield and include accidents reported to the police in the first six months of each year. The data for 1990 are provisional.

  Road Accidents in the borough of Macclesfield (January-June)

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1990

  10

  59

  311

  380

  1989

  7

  75

  293

  375

  1988

  7

  55

  329

  391

  1987

  3

  56

  277

  336

  1986

  15

  50

  286

  351

  1985

  7

  47

  273

  327

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement outlining the circumstances of each of the road traffic accidents which took place in the Macclesfield constituency during the first six months of 1990 and which led to fatal injuries; and if he will indicate in each case what steps have been taken by the appropriate authorities to minimise future accidents.

  Mr. Chope
  Information on the detailed circumstances of particular accidents is not held centrally. Investigation of road accidents is the responsibility of the police. Devising appropriate remedial measures is the responsibility of the highway authority. The Department has a continuing programme of engineering measures to improve accident blackspots on trunk roads, as do local highway authorities for their roads. From the next financial year funds from central Government will be made available through transport supplementary grant for engineering remedies on all local roads.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out in tabular format(a) the number of civil servants in his Department devoted to the planning, building and maintenance of roads, (b) the number of civil servants in his Department devoted to the development and maintenance of railways, (c) the number of civil servants in his Department devoted to the development of public transport other than railways and (d) the number of civil servants in his Department devoted to the promotion of cycling.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department has the following numbers of civil servants dealing with:248

  Numberk

  Roads

  2,300

  Railways

  135

  Other public transport

  20

  Cycling

  140

  1Part of the time.

  The substantially larger number of roads' staff reflects the Department's direct responsibility for the national roads programme. The development and maintenance of other transport modes is the responsibility of other bodies, for example, British Rail and London Regional Transport.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is considering to avoid repetition of the prolonged traffic delays experienced on the Severn bridge in the first week of October.

  Mr. Chope
  Delays on the Severn bridge occurred on 5 and 6 October due to a combination of road works, restrictions due to high winds, and traffic incidents.

  Resurfacing work will stop in November for the winter months thus easing traffic conditions. This work should be completed next year.

  Some windshielding is about to be installed adjacent to and either side of the towers of the existing Severn bridge, where most of the high wind accidents occur. Additionally the proposed second Severn crossing will be windshielded over its entire length.

  Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list the present members of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The present members of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport are:

  Mr. J. H. Peart (chairman)

  Mr. J. W. Cockfield, FICS

  Mr. R. M. Stewart, OBE, TD

  Mr. C. Godfrey

  Mr. C. Ward, MBE

  Mr. J. Newbold

  Mr. G. D. Saul

  Mr. G. Hall

  Mr. A. D. Frew

  Mrs. B. S. Lythgoe

  In addition, two full-time officers of the authority have been appointed by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority to serve as members of the authority. They are Mr. J. P. Hackney and Mr. N. Britton, MBE.

  Newcastle Airport (Near-miss)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what inquiries have been undertaken into the recent reported near-miss involving a Dan Air civilian aircraft taking off from Newcastle airport and two military aircraft.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  An air miss report was filed with the Civil Aviation Authority concerning a Dan Air B737 and two Tornado aircraft. The incident took place at 8.14 pm on 10 October near Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The 737 was at a height of 12,000 ft en route from Newcastle to Cos in Greece and the Tornados were flying to RAF Learning. in
  249
  Yorkshire. Avoiding instructions were given to the Dan Air aircraft by Newcastle airport air traffic control and the Tornados passed above the 737.

  The precise details are being investigated by the CAA's safety regulation group. The information will then be sent to the joint air miss working group (JAWG) for assessment. The JAWG comprises representatives from all sectors of the industry, including operators, pilots and air traffic controllers.

  MV Derbyshire (Sinking)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold a public inquiry into the sinking of the Derbyshire, following publication of the report of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) on Tuesday 23 October at column 98.

  A595
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will undertake a further survey of the pedestrian and vehicle figures for the A595 at Bigrigg, and reconsider the case for a pedestrian crossing.

  Mr. Chope
  Yes. The Department's agent, Cumbria county council, has been given instructions to carry out a further survey.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the A595 Egremont bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  The next stage is for the compulsory purchase order to be made.

  a. Regional rate: Percentage increase over the previous year in each of the last 10 years and the current year.

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  17·9

  9·8

  6·9

  2·9

  7·9

  8·1

  9·4

  2·9

  7·98

  12·63

  7·39

  b. Local rate by council area: Percentage increase over the previous year in each of the last 10 years and the current year.

  Council

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Antrim

  28·8

  12·1

  21·5

  0·0

  2·05

  3·70

  8·93

  6·01

  5·15

  3·92

  2·83

  Ards

  50

  16·7

  16·7

  2·0

  0·0

  0·0

  6·00

  0·0

  1·89

  6·48

  13·04

  Armagh

  25·8

  7·7

  8·9

  4·9

  4·07

  2·99

  10·14

  0·0

  7·89

  7·32

  7·95

  Ballymena

  17·3

  11·1

  8·3

  4·6

  40·4

  2·39

  4·54

  4·87

  7·53

  2·68

  6·82

  Ballymoney

  30·8

  35·3

  11·6

  3·9

  2·05

  3·05

  7·10

  1·66

  2·17

  6·91

  7·46

  Banbridge

  16·7

  10·7

  7·1

  6·9

  14·06

  10·47

  6·77

  6·27

  0·0

  0·0

  7·65

  Belfast

  30·06

  16·0

  18·1

  10·4

  7·00

  6·46

  10·60

  4·81

  4·91

  0·0

  4·91

  Carrickfergus

  29·3

  24·0

  8·6

  2·5

  3·09

  4·27

  4·55

  3·32

  5·20

  4·2

  5·70

  Castlereagh

  30·2

  10·7

  9·7

  -2·9

  -3·0

  3·13

  18·42

  4·91

  -2·68

  -5·01

  17·12

  Coleraine

  27·8

  11·6

  6·8

  4·9

  0·0

  5·26

  8·89

  2·04

  6·00

  3·77

  0·0

  Cookstown

  21·6

  11·1

  10·0

  13·6

  4·02

  10·14

  10·88

  8·18

  -0·58

  11·7

  8·38

  Craigavon

  15·6

  14·9

  10·0

  8·0

  4·09

  3·8

  9·61

  5·22

  0·0

  6·5

  4·89

  Derry

  35·1

  12·9

  10·5

  8·9

  2·06

  7·99

  12·61

  3·73

  4·39

  5·86

  9·38

  Down

  30·4

  23·3

  16·2

  4·7

  0·0

  0·0

  17·78

  13·21

  8·33

  4·62

  2·94

  Dungannon

  23·2

  13·2

  6·7

  6·3

  2·09

  8·57

  9·21

  6·02

  0·0

  0·0

  8·52

  Fermanagh

  25·5

  11·9

  8·3

  6·3

  5·03

  6·88

  14·04

  4·10

  5·42

  3·74

  3·60

  Larne

  16·7

  11·4

  7·7

  3·6

  0·0

  3·45

  9·44

  6·70

  6·09

  1·79

  13·97

  Limavady

  22·5

  12·2

  10·9

  3·3

  10·6

  9·38

  11·43

  5·00

  26·23

  8·05

  7·45

  Lisburn

  20·9

  26·8

  12·4

  7·5

  6·00

  1·40

  5·54

  1·95

  7·68

  0·0

  3·71

  Magherafelt

  18·75

  14·5

  13·8

  17·2

  3·08

  9·77

  10·65

  12·28

  5·97

  6·53

  5·74

  Moyle

  28

  43·8

  8·7

  3·8

  5·05

  9·13

  10·04

  0·0

  -0·38

  4·43

  8·51

  Newry and Mourne

  20

  13·0

  27·9

  10·3

  7·00

  6·52

  10·82

  9·94

  0·0

  -2·85

  0·0

  Newtownabbey

  18·75

  7·9

  4·9

  4·7

  6·07

  9·58

  4·77

  3·86

  4·93

  6·73

  0·92

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Freehold
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any proposals for law reform to enable householders to have the same right to purchase the freeholds of their property as exists in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I have approved the publication of the final report of the land law working group which makes wide-ranging recommendations on the law of property in Northern Ireland, including recommendations on ground rents and the purchasing of freeholds. It is intended to publish the report before the end of the year, following which there will be a period of public consultation on its recommendations with a view to bringing forward legislation.

  Commons Brae, Castlereagh
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the condition of the road surface at Commons Brae off Saintfield road in the borough of Castlereagh; and what proposals he has to improve this road surface.

  Mr. Needham
  The road surface at Commons Brae is in good condition. There are no proposals to improve it at present.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the percentage increase in each of the last 10 years and the current year in(a) the regional rate and (b) the local rate in each of the council areas of Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: The information is set out in the tables.
  251

  Council

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  North Down

  33·3

  20·3

  11·7

  5·8

  3·03

  9·57

  10·49

  7·03

  4·60

  3·38

  5·15

  Omagh

  23·7

  23·4

  17·2

  14·7

  5·01

  4·88

  9·30

  9·89

  6·49

  6·36

  9·91

  Strabane

  19·2

  9·7

  7·5

  13·5

  0·0

  4·82

  16·09

  6·93

  5·56

  6·58

  10·70

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Motor Vehicles (Information)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to improve co-ordination between the police and DVLA on the recording and sharing of information on the ownership, registration and keeping of motor vehicles to combat the resale of stolen vehicles.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no such plans. I understand from the police and the DVLA that they regard the existing arrangements for co-ordination as satisfactory.

  Telecommunications (Complaints)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prosecuted under section 49 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981 for each of the years since the Act came into force; and how many of those prosecuted were(a) men and (b) women.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is given in the table below. 1989 data are not yet available.

  Persons prosecuted for offences under Section 49 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981, by sex. 1981–1988

  England and Wales

  Prosecutions

  Males

  Females

  1981

  —

  —

  1982

  —

  —

  1983

  3

  1

  1984

  2

  —

  1985

  1

  2

  1986

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  1988

  —

  —

  Vagrancy
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) prosecuted and convicted in the Metropolitan and City of London police districts in the year ended December 1989 under the Vagrancy Act 1824 for (i) begging and (ii) sleeping out, (b) prosecuted and convicted in the rest of England and Wales in the same period for the same offences; and how many people at (a) and (b) above (i) were fined, (ii) received custodial sentences, (iii) served custodial sentences in default of payment of fines, (iv) received conditional discharges and (v) received probation orders.

  Mr. John Patten
  Data for 1989 will not be available until November.

  Domestic Violence
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of domestic violence were reported to the police in the last year for which figures are available; and how many resulted in(a) committal proceedings and (b) convictions in the last year for which figures are available.
  252
  Mr. John Patten
  Information on notifiable offences of violence against the person is published annually in table 2.8 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales". The figures for 1989 are published in table 6 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 10/90. Regular information on domestic violence is not reported separately to this Department by the police forces in England and Wales. However, detailed information on homicide is presented in chapter 4 of the above publication. Some incomplete information was published in "Criminal Statistics" in 1979 and 1980. In addition, results obtained from a special survey of violent crime recorded by the police and from the 1988 British Crime Survey were published in Home Office Research Bulletin No. 27. There is also some information in chapter 7 of "Domestic Violence" Home Office Research Study 107. Copies of all these publications are available in the Library. Information on prosecutions and convictions is not collected in sufficient detail to distinguish domestic violence.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individual police forces have dedicated domestic violence units.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is not collected centrally, but I understand that dedicated units have been established by three forces to date.

  Brixton Prison (Suicides)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suicides per quarter have taken place in Brixton prison in the last two years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The number of deaths of inmates at their own hand at Brixton prison in each quarter over the last two years is shown in the table.

  Deaths at the prisoner's own hand at Her Majesty's prison Brixton between 1 October 1988 and 30 September 1990

  Period

  Number of deaths at own hand1

  1 October to 31 December 1988

  —

  1 January to 31 March 1989

  1

  1 April to 30 June 1989

  13

  1 July to 30 September 1989

  1 23

  1 October to 31 December 1989

  1

  1 January to 31 March 1990

  1

  1 April to 30 June 1990

  —

  1 July to 30 September 1990

  32

  1 The figures in brackets give the number of deaths in respect of which a verdict of suicide was returned at the inquest.

  2 Includes one death which occurred at Isleworth crown court.

  3 Neither inquest has yet been held.

  Child Care
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what child care provision his Department provides for the pre-school age children of Home Office employees or after-school or holiday care for children aged five years or over; and whether he has any plans to increase provision.
  253
  Mr. Waddington
  The Home Office is making day nursery provision available, for payment, for children of its staff in Croydon with effect from 30 October and in Bootle from 5 November. Consideration is being given, with other Government Departments, to making similar provisions in central London. Holiday play scheme places have already been made available for the children of staff in Bootle, Croydon, Peterborough and Westminster.

  Force

  Chief Con.1

  Deputy Chief Con.3

  Assistant Chief Con.3

  Chief Supt.

  Supt.

  Chief Insp.

  Insp.

  Sgt.

  Const.

  Total male ranks

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  1

  3

  12

  38

  68

  147

  467

  2,044

  2,781

  Bedfordshire

  1

  1

  1

  5

  15

  19

  50

  137

  677

  906

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  1

  1

  5

  12

  24

  59

  190

  770

  1,063

  Cheshire

  1

  1

  2

  6

  23

  31

  104

  267

  1,207

  1,642

  Cleveland

  1

  1

  2

  7

  19

  25

  87

  229

  943

  1,314

  Cumbria

  1

  1

  1

  7

  19

  24

  69

  189

  738

  1,049

  Derbyshire

  1

  1

  2

  7

  25

  34

  94

  254

  1,171

  1,589

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  1

  3

  13

  34

  46

  132

  440

  1,915

  2,585

  Dorset

  1

  1

  1

  6

  16

  23

  69

  189

  834

  1,140

  Durham

  1

  1

  2

  5

  17

  28

  75

  208

  926

  1,263

  Dyfed Powys

  1

  1

  1

  7

  13

  21

  38

  149

  618

  849

  Essex

  1

  1

  3

  12

  31

  59

  121

  416

  1,897

  2,541

  Gloucestershire

  1

  1

  1

  6

  14

  20

  54

  171

  782

  1,050

  Greater Manchester

  1

  1

  5

  27

  91

  128

  388

  1,022

  4,477

  6,140

  Gwent

  1

  1

  1

  5

  14

  17

  46

  152

  668

  905

  Hampshire

  1

  1

  3

  11

  35

  51

  127

  476

  2,132

  2,837

  Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  2

  9

  23

  30

  90

  244

  1,025

  1,425

  Humberside

  1

  1

  1

  8

  23

  37

  204

  315

  1,345

  1,835

  Kent

  1

  1

  3

  12

  36

  50

  170

  419

  1,943

  2,635

  Lancashire

  l

  1

  3

  13

  40

  72

  158

  507

  2,059

  2,854

  Leicestershire

  1

  1

  2

  7

  23

  29

  100

  265

  1,142

  1,570

  Lincolnshire

  1

  1

  1

  4

  10

  24

  65

  193

  782

  1,081

  Merseyside

  1

  1

  3

  20

  60

  78

  253

  730

  2,964

  4,110

  Norfolk

  1

  1

  1

  6

  18

  22

  65

  196

  161

  1,271

  Northamptonshire

  1

  1

  1

  6

  13

  22

  70

  167

  742

  1,023

  Northumbria

  1

  1

  3

  13

  48

  63

  188

  508

  2,362

  3,187

  North Wales

  1

  1

  1

  7

  24

  27

  66

  206

  863

  1,196

  North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  2

  7

  17

  26

  75

  206

  926

  1,261

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  —

  1

  8

  27

  32

  129

  328

  1,611

  2,137

  South Wales

  1

  1

  3

  14

  42

  64

  178

  525

  2,028

  2,586

  South Yorkshire

  1

  1

  3

  11

  40

  43

  156

  437

  1,954

  2,646

  Staffordshire

  1

  1

  2

  11

  31

  50

  120

  319

  1,384

  1,919

  Suffolk

  1

  1

  1

  6

  17

  20

  59

  177

  791

  1,073

  Surrey

  1

  1

  2

  7

  23

  24

  94

  246

  1,048

  1,446

  Sussex

  1

  1

  4

  10

  33

  39

  175

  443

  1,979

  2,685

  Thames Valley

  1

  1

  3

  12

  35

  46

  174

  485

  2,476

  3,233

  Warwickshire

  1

  1

  1

  5

  14

  17

  60

  154

  658

  911

  West Mercia

  1

  1

  2

  11

  29

  39

  127

  288

  1,264

  1,762

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  5

  24

  78

  121

  387

  1,029

  4,252

  5,898

  West Yorkshire

  1

  1

  5

  19

  69

  80

  280

  794

  3,423

  4,672

  Wiltshire

  1

  1

  1

  6

  16

  23

  58

  180

  739

  1,025

  City of London

  1

  1

  1

  6

  11

  20

  53

  117

  491

  701

  Metropolitan

  4

  15

  34

  164

  242

  484

  1,421

  4,158

  18,269

  24,791

  1 Includes ranks of assistant commissioner and above in Metropolitan police, and commissioner in the City of London police.

  2 Includes deputy assistant commissioner in Metropolitan police and assistant commissioner in the City of London police.

  3 Includes commanders in Metropolitan police and City of London police.

  Force

  Chief Con1

  Deputy Chief Con.2

  Assistant Chief Con.3

  Chief Supt.

  Supt.

  Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Con.

  Total Female Ranks

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  4

  14

  268

  288

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  8

  129

  141

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  5

  115

  122

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2

  22

  191

  218

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  8

  7

  131

  148

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  115

  120

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  8

  6

  172

  189

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  14

  264

  282

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  3

  7

  134

  146

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  4

  107

  113

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  82

  86

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  6

  22

  272

  301

  Police Forces
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) women and (b) men are employed by the individual police forces in Britain; and at what grade they are employed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend is responsible for policing in England and Wales where the number of male and female police officers as at 31 August 1990 is as follows:
  255

  Force

  Chief Con. 1

  Deputy Chief Con. 2

  Assistant Chief Con. 3

  Chief Supt.

  Supt. i

  Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Con.

  Total Female Ranks

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  100

  103

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  12

  47

  816

  880

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  4

  88

  95

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  11

  298

  314

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  11

  211

  224

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  6

  146

  156

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2

  21

  338

  364

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  5

  15

  302

  325

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  14

  178

  199

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  4

  4

  99

  1,190

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  2

  6

  35

  523

  570

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  7

  101

  110

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  106

  111

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  5

  15

  312

  334

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  8

  129

  139

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  9

  120

  130

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  8

  192

  202

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  15

  249

  268

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  13

  292

  311

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  12

  261

  276

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  5

  115

  123

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  13

  195

  210

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  18

  274

  295

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  4

  16

  455

  479

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  3

  98

  105

  West Mercia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  10

  235

  248

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  14

  56

  903

  977

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  8

  26

  570

  607

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  7

  102

  111

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  9

  78

  90

  Metropolitan

  —

  —

  1

  3

  6

  10

  30

  262

  3,183

  3,495

  1 Includes ranks of assistant commissioner and above in Metropolitan police, and commissioner in the City of London police.

  2 Includes deputy assistant commissioner in Metropolitan police and assistant commissioner in the City of London police.

  3 Includes commanders in Metropolitan police and City of London police.

  Police Stations (Rape Suites)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individual police forces have dedicated rape suites.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not collected centrally, but I understand that well over half the forces in England and Wales have now established these suites.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the inquiry by the Devon and Cornwall police into the Birmingham pub bombings case to be complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on 22 October at columns 19–20.

  Young People (Complaints)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will specify what formal procedures for making complaints and representations, specifying where appropriate under which sections of which Acts, are available locally and nationally to children and young people under 18 years of age who wish to make complaints about matters which are the responsibility of his Department.

  Mr. Waddington
  This information is not collated centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate 256
  cost. If the right hon. Gentleman is aware of any instance in which a child or young person has been improperly or unlawfully refused a procedure for making a complaint or representation about a matter falling within my responsibility I will look into the matter if he will send me the details.

  Electoral Statistics
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people had registered to vote by 10 October in the Finchley constituency.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested will not become available until the electoral register is published on or before 15 February 1991.

  Ampthill Games
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Bedfordshire on the requirement for citizens of the United Kingdom participating in the Ampthill games on 4 November to divulge their names and addresses to the Bedfordshire police; what information he has on any similar requirement imposed on internationally famous sportsmen when participating in similar games in the United Kingdom; and what is the Government's policy on such requirements.

  Mr. Waddington
  The police have no power to require those who participate in sporting events to disclose their names and addresses. I understand that the police did not
  257
  ask for this information in the case to which the hon. Member refers. The information was provided voluntarily by the organisers.

  Birmingham Public Inquiry Office
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the staffing by grade at the proposed Birmingham public inquiry office.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The most recent estimate indicated a requirement for two executive officers, five administrative officers, one administrative assistant and a custodian.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the likely workload of the proposed Birmingham public inquiry office.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It was estimated in 1985 that the proposed Birmingham public inquiry office would attract around 16,000 callers per annum.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the savings at other offices following the opening of the proposed Birmingham public inquiry office.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A study in 1985 suggested that there would be a reduction of around 6,500 postal applications per annum at Lunar house, with an approximate net saving at that time of £65,000.

  Dogs
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his review of model byelaws for the regulation of dogs in the light of comments received in response to the Department of the Environment consultation document "Action on Dogs".

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 10 August 1989 the Department of the Environment published a consultation document, "Action on Dogs", which sought views on various issues including the content and operation of the Home Office model byelaws. Comments were submitted by 126 local authorities and other bodies and these have been carefully considered in the light of our experience in dealing with dog byelaw applications since the models were last reviewed in 1987.

  When reaching his conclusions, the aim of the Home Secretary has been to offer a wide range of possible byelaw provisions for dog control which can be used by local authorities in a variety of combinations to produce schemes tailored to meet local needs.

  By far the largest number of those commenting suggested making the "poop-scoop" byelaw more freely available. This makes it an offence for a person in charge of a dog to fail to remove any faeces it may deposit in designated parks, recreation grounds and open spaces. At present the byelaw may be applied to any children's playground or sports pitch, beaches and promenades in the summer season, trunk road picnic sites, and picnic areas in country parks, but it may be applied to parks and open spaces only where there are alternative uncontrolled areas. Experience of operating the byelaw has shown that, while it has been successful in designated parks,
  258
  uncontrolled areas nearby tend to become heavily fouled. We consider that it is reasonable to expect dog owners to clear up after their pets in places used by other members of the public, including children. Therefore my right hon. and learned Friend has decided that he will be prepared to confirm "poop-scoop" byelaws for any park, recreation ground or open space, except heaths and woodlands where the local authority considers them appropriate and without the need to provide alternative uncontrolled areas. The byelaw will also be available for beaches and promenades all the year round. Parts of beaches which are subject to a dog ban during the summer season may be designated as "poop-scoop" areas for the remainder of the year.

  We have also considered the byelaws available to control fouling on highways. At present, local authorities may introduce a byelaw which makes it an offence simply to allow a dog to foul a pavement next to a carriageway or an adjacent grass verge up to 4 metres wide. Although most local authorities have this byelaw, it has been criticised on various grounds: it provides no protection either for footpaths which are not adjacent to a highway or for pedestrianised areas and, once the fouling has taken place, the faeces remain there. Since our aim is to encourage dog owners to remove dog mess from the environment, my right hon. and learned Friend proposes to replace the "no fouling" byelaw for pavements with a further extension of the "poop-scoop" byelaw.

  In addition to recreation grounds and open spaces, the "poop-scoop" byelaw will be freely available for local authorities to apply to any footpath in a built-up or residential area whether or not it is adjacent to a highway. The byelaw can also be applied to any grass verge which is maintained in good order and is adjacent to a highway. It will also be available for any pedestrianised area owned by a local authority such as a shopping precinct.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has also decided to make the "poop-scoop" byelaw available for the gutters of highways in urban areas. While it would be too hazardous to both the pet owner and the traffic to extend the "poop-scoop" byelaw to the carriageway itself, the "no-fouling" byelaw will become available for carriageways in built-up areas. This will prevent the transfer of the problem from the gutter to the carriageway and deter owners from permitting their pets to foul the highway. It will be open to local authorities to choose to use these byelaws for pavement, gutter and carriageways either individually or in combination to meet their local needs.

  We have also considered the operation of the "dogs on leads" byelaw. This compels owners to keep their dogs on leads at all times in designated places. It may be applied to parks and other open spaces where a need can be shown—eg ornamental gardens, children's play areas and bowling greens, promenades adjacent to beach ban areas during the summer months, and areas where the disturbance of wildlife is a consideration.

  There is a need to balance the interests of those who wish to visit parks without being bothered by loose dogs, such as mothers with young children and pet owners who wish to exercise their dogs off the lead at some time during the day. But the balance is, in general, best determined locally, bearing in mind the need to protect those, such as children, who are likely to be frightened or disturbed by loose dogs. In order to assist local authorities, my right

  259
  hon. and learned Friend has decided that a wider range of byelaws should be made available to promote greater flexibility.

  First, the "dogs on leads" byelaw will be available in a wider range of circumstances than previously permitted, including promenades all the year round, where the local authority is able to justify the use of the byelaw, which will normally involve showing areas are available locally where dogs may be exercised off the lead at some time during the day. Secondly, two new model byelaws will be made available. Instead of imposing a requirement for a dog to be kept on a lead in a park or part of a park all day, it will be possible for a local authority to limit the lead requirement to certain times of day or days of the week, for example when young children are most likely to he there. Different times could be imposed in different parks in the same area to cater for various local needs. A second new byelaw will give powers to council officers to ask for dogs to be put on a lead if it is necessary to prevent nuisance or behaviour giving reasonable grounds for annoyance. This byelaw will be available to local authorities to apply to designated parks and open spaces, again where a need can be demonstrated.

  Finally, we have examined the byelaw which prohibits dogs from entering designated and enclosed grounds, enclosed parts of other grounds (children's play areas, bowling greens, etc.) and parts of beaches during the summer season. My right hon. and learned Friend has concluded that these measures should continue to be available on the same basis as before, but that a wider variety of byelaws should be available to the local authority. Two further model byelaws have been developed, first, a byelaw which enables dogs to be banned from a designated park or open space for a specified period of the day. This will be similar to the new time-limited "dogs on leads" byelaw and will be available for open parks as well as enclosed ones. Secondly, we have developed a new model byelaw which will enable local authorities to ban dogs from designated enclosed parks, apart from a specially designated and enclosed exercise area. The exercise area will need to be of a reasonable size and usually be subject to a "poop-scoop" byelaw. Owners will be required to take their dogs on the lead from the park entrance to the exercise area.

  When considering which combination of byelaws is most suitable for their areas, local authorities will need to bear in mind that, unlike the general law, the validity of byelaws, including their reasonableness, can be challenged in the courts. Local authorities will need to weigh up the needs of various sections of the community. These will include mothers with children and others who wish to be able to enjoy a visit to the park either free from dogs or free from boisterous loose dogs. There will also be pet owners who wish to exercise their dogs off the lead at least once a day, reasonably near their homes. These will include families with children and dogs who wish to go to the park

  Outstanding cases

  Nationality

  General immigration casework1 2

  Asylum and related casework1 3

  Naturalisation1

  Registration1

  1989

  January

  6

  6

  45,237

  6

  February

  6

  6

  43,774

  6

  260
  together, shift workers, the elderly who cannot walk far and solitary women who would wish to choose a time to exercise their dogs when they feel it is safe to do so.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment intends that the same range of byelaws should be available to local housing authorities for public housing estates and amenity greens. The consultation paper "Action on Dogs" also sought comments on the present procedure for local highway authorities to make "dogs on leads" orders under section 27 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and whether this power should be replaced by a byelaw making power. The balance of comment was in favour of change. The Government have taken note of this and propose to take this forward when a suitable opportunity arises.

  My right hon. and learned Friend is grateful to all the bodies that commented on the byelaws and he hopes that the increased range of measures will strengthen the ability of councils to regulate dogs and to deal effectively with the fouling of public areas. Details of this answer, together with the wording of the new model byelaws. will be circulated to local authorities shortly.

  European Parliamentary Constituencies
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Boundary Commission intends to conduct any supplementary review of European parliamentary constituencies in England.

  Mr. Waddington
  The Commission has informed me that it intends to consider making a supplementary report on the following two European parliamentary constituencies in England:

  Oxford and Buckinghamshire

  Bedford South.

  Jet Skis
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will approve local authority byelaws to enable local authorities to control the use of jet skis.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 22 October 1990]: My right hon. and learned Friend will consider any proposal from a local authority which wishes to make byelaws to regulate the use of jet skis, under any enabling power for which he is the confirming authority.

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of outstanding cases for each month in 1989 and 1990 under the headings(a) naturalisation, (b) registration, (c) refugees, (d) asylum seekers and (e) general immigration work, and the numbers of new applications in each of those areas for each month.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of outstanding cases relates to casework in B1 and B4 divisions in the immigration and nationality department and is as follows:
  261

  Nationality

  General immigration casework1 2

  Asylum and related casework1 3

  Naturalisation1

  Registration1

  March

  41,154

  84,438

  43,011

  6

  April

  43,855

  81,068

  39,995

  6

  May

  46,109

  85,112

  36,629

  9,548

  June

  52,318

  86,452

  34,782

  9,678

  July

  59,226

  73,689

  33,806

  9,645

  August

  64,193

  78,365

  30,475

  10,091

  September

  63,877

  70,858

  29,204

  11,067

  October

  65,925

  68,700

  30,520

  11,650

  November

  64,924

  59,765

  30,774

  12,767

  December

  64,930

  55,239

  30,678

  13,539

  1990

  January

  64,402

  47,622

  29,274

  14,475

  February

  65,355

  42,791

  27,978

  15,031

  March

  65,050

  38,832

  27,968

  16,272

  April

  63,902

  35,780

  26,197

  17,270

  May

  64,273

  33,755

  23,444

  18,150

  June

  64,318

  32,081

  22,584

  19,752

  July

  65,203

  30,648

  21,073

  21,069

  August

  66,031

  27,312

  21,880

  23,229

  September

  64,681

  26,103

  21,227

  26,595

  6 Not available.

  The number of new applications received is not available in the form requested, but the information which is available is as follows:

  Intake

  Nationality

  General Immigration

  Asylum and related

  Naturalisation1

  Registration1

  Casework1 2

  Casework1 4

  1989

  January

  3,177

  8,924

  22,231

  670

  February

  4,033

  11,782

  19,814

  710

  March

  5,094

  11,131

  22,745

  1,010

  April

  4,432

  10,316

  19,456

  860

  May

  3,427

  9,037

  18,271

  1,820

  June

  7,963

  6,971

  22,139

  2,920

  July

  9,777

  4,491

  21,826

  850

  August

  7,160

  3,030

  23,587

  1,210

  September

  1,452

  904

  24,760

  1,660

  October

  1,625

  884

  27,413

  1,560

  November

  1,622

  933

  26,707

  1,320

  December

  849

  601

  18,805

  1,620

  1990

  January

  1,515

  830

  23,545

  1,550

  February

  1,586

  972

  21,935

  1,220

  March

  1,485

  843

  26,612

  1,330

  April

  629

  540

  21,337

  1,300

  May

  1,589

  767

  23,285

  1,230

  June

  1,457

  1,276

  24,681

  1,820

  July

  2,714

  1,144

  26,459

  1,750

  August

  1,408

  553

  25,759

  2,640

  September

  2,033

  1,001

  25,536

  3,060

  1 Does not include applications received in the Department but which await allocation to caseworkers.

  2 Includes referred entry clearance applications, and enquires submitted by letter, as well as variation of leave cases. Includes both general and Eastern European casework (the latter was absorbed into general casework in July 1990.)

  3 These figures are a total of all work outstanding in the Refugee Unit.

  4 Provisional figures. Those for 1990, particularly for recent months, understate because of delays in recording cases on the computer system.

  Tear Gas and CS Gas
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to review the legislation governing the storing of supplies of tear gas/CS gas at Territorial Army headquarters in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Containers of CS gas and similar irritants are stored in accordance with military regulations for ammunition storage. All premises which store these materials are
  262
  inspected and licensed by the Chief Inspector of Explosives (Army) and hazard assessments are made under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1989.

  Orthchloro-benzylidene Melonitrile
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those Territorial Army headquarters in the United Kingdom that are known to stock supplies of orthchloro-benzylidene melonitrile.
  263
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  It would not be appropriate, for security reasons, to provide this information.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Eastern Europe
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government have plans to offer aid to the newly democratised countries in eastern Europe for the specific purpose of combating pollution and protecting the environment.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are already doing so through the European Community, and £35 million has already been spent on environmental projects in eastern Europe this year alone. United Kingdom experts have participated in fact-finding missions. We are also prepared to consider carefully targeted support under our know-how funds for eastern Europe.

  Kenya
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Kenya concerning the fate of those designated by Amnesty International as prisoners of conscience, including George Anyona, Edward Oyugi, Ngotho Kariuki, Augustus Kathanga and Kanu and Caleb Mokaya Gichana; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made representations on several occasions to the Government of Kenya urging the release of those detainees held without charge. It is our understanding that Messrs Anyona, Oyugi, Kariuki, Kathanga, and Gichana have now been charged in accordance with Kenyan law. The Kenyans are well aware of our concern for the maintenance of good human rights standards.

  Argentina
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made any representations to the Argentine Government about abuses of human rights in Trelew, Patagonia, Argentina.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  No. We have seen a report of public demonstrations in Patagonia but we have not received any reports of human rights abuses.

  Gulf Crisis
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about indications given by the United States Government to the Government of Iraq, prior to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, concerning the United States Government's likely response to such an eventuality.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This is a matter for the United States Government.

  Cambodia

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Ministers in(a) the Lords and (b) the Commons who have had responsibility for Cambodia since 1980.
  264
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since 1980 Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with responsibility for Cambodia have been:

  Peter Blaker MP—1 January 1980—August 1981

  Nicholas Ridley MP—until November 1981

  Douglas Hurd MP—until August 1982

  Cranley Onslow MP—until February 1983

  Douglas Hurd MP—until August 1983

  Richard Luce MP—until Novembber 1985

  Timothy Renton MP—until August 1987

  David Mellor MP—until November 1987

  Lord Glenarthur—until November 1989

  Lord Brabazon—until July 1990

  The Earl of Caithness—since July 1990

  Antarctica
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his present policy towards ratification of the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities; if he will consider supporting the Australian initiative calling for a new all-embracing environmental convention; annd if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My hon. Friend will have received a copy of my letter which has been sent to all Members and which encloses a copy of our policy paper "Britain in Antarctica". This paper sets out our position on all issues concerning Antarctica including the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities (CRAMRA). The United Kingdom, along with 18 out of 38 member states, has signed CRAMRA, but there is no set timetable for ratification.

  We remain committed to the protection of the Antarctic environment and we look forward to discussion of all proposals to that end at the meeting of Antarctic treaty consultative parties in November. Along with a number of other member states, we are proposing an environmental protocol to the existing Antarctic treaty which will provide comprehensive measures for protecting the Antarctic environment and for which we believe there is widespread support.

  Palestinians
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek a report on the Palestinian doctor found hanged in the occupied territories in the early part of October; and as to what progress there has been towards an autopsy.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The consulate-general in Jerusalem is watching this case closely. We understand that an autopsy has been carried out at the request of the family. The preliminary findings from this, suggesting death by suffocation, have been published. But we await a fuller report.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the number of Palestinians he had originally intended to meet during his recent visit to Israel; and how many of them were imprisoned before his visit.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had intended to meet 29 Palestinians for discussions and lunch in Jerusalem on 17 October. Of these, one—Feisal Husseini—was detained by the Israeli authorities before his visit.

  Gaza Strip
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the security problem that existed in the area of Gaza strip where he had been scheduled to open a British Council operation at the time at which he had been originally scheduled to carry out the opening.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The trial of a Hamas leader from Gaza, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, was scheduled to begin on 17 October when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had intended to open the new British Council office there. This would have been marked by a general strike and a significant increase in tension in the area. My right hon. Friend therefore decided to delay the opening which was carried out on his behalf by the consul-general in Jerusalem on 24 October.

  Israel
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in his recent visit to Israel, he entered into any commitments to the Israeli Government in the event of an Iraqi attack on Israel.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made it clear to the Israelis during his recent visit that such an attack would be absolutely unacceptable.

  British Muslims
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet British Muslims recently returned from a visit to the Gulf states.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 22 October]: I will meet Mr. Yusuf Islam shortly.

HEALTH

  Cataract Operations
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources can be made available under section 64 of the general scheme for care grants to encourage district health authorities to participate in the schemes organised by the Impact Foundation to reduce waiting lists for cataract operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Health authorities cannot make applications for core grants under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. These are available only to voluntary organisations.

  The Impact Foundation has made an application and we are currently considering this.

  Waiting list initiative funds have been, and are being, used by health authorities to support schemes set up by the Impact Foundation to reduce waiting lists and times. So far these schemes have proved to be cost effective and have enabled many patients to be treated from waiting lists.

  Mental Illness (Women)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of women suffering from mental illness are currently recorded with his Department; and, of those, how many have children in care.
  266
  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Young People (Complaints)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will specify what formal procedures for making complaints and representations, specifying where appropriate under which sections of which Acts, are now available locally and nationally, or will soon be available under the Children Act 1989, to children and young people under 18 years of age who wish to make complaints about matters which are the responsibility of his Department.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations 1974 (as amended) made under sections 29, 36, 39 and 42 of the National Health Service Act 1977 provide for a complaint to be formally investigated if it has been made by or on behalf of any person entitled to family health services and alleges that a family practitioner has failed to comply with the relevant terms of service.

  (b) Directions issued to health authorities under section 17 of the NHS Act 1977, and issued following the Hospital Complaints Procedure Act 1985, provide a formal framework for dealing with complaints made about services, care or treatment received in hospital.

  (c) Section 120(1)(b) of the Mental Health Act 1983, requires that any complaint made by a detained, or formerly detained, patient should be investigated. This duty is undertaken by the Mental Health Act Commission under section 121(b) of the same Act.

  (d) Section 111 of the NHS Act 1977 enables any individual to make a complaint to the Health Service Commissioner with regard to certain failures in service or maladministration by health authorities, family health service authorities, the Mental Health Act Commission and the Public Health Laboratory Service Board.

  (e) Section 26 of the Local Government Act 1974 allows complaints of maladministration to be made to the Commissioner for Local Administration in relation to local authority personal social services.

  (f) The Department has introduced formal complaints procedures in both its youth treatment centres. Complaints may be made by residents about any aspect of their life in the youth treatment centres.

  (g) Section 26(3) of the Children Act 1989, to be implemented in October 1991, requires local authorities to set up procedures to consider representations including complaints about the provision of services to children and families under part III of that Act. Section 59(4) requires voluntary organisations to set up procedures to consider representations including complaints made by children accommodated by them, but not looked after by local authorities, and by other people connected with the child. Paragraph 10(2)(1) of schedule 6 to the Act places a similar requirement on registered children's homes.

  The Department does not hold information centrally about national or local procedures for making complaints and representations which fall outside the scope of the legislation mentioned.

  Nebulisers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to change the arrangements for issuing nebulisers to national health service patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no such plans. Powered nebulisers will continue to be supplied through the hospital service for those patients for whom they are considered clinically necessary.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sheffield Development Corporation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total possible and actual number of attendances of each member at meetings of the board of Sheffield development corporation since their appointment.

  Mr. Portillo
  Attendance at board meetings is a matter for the board of Sheffield development corporation.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many firms were relocated from the area of the Royal Docks since the inception of the London docklands development corporation and how much money was paid to these firms in compensation for these removals.

  Mr. Portillo
  The London Docklands development corporation has since 1981 relocated 71 firms previously operating in the Royal Docks area, and £2·13 million has been paid out in compensation for these removals.

  Young People (Complaints)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will specify what formal procedures for making complaints and representations, specifying where appropriate under which sections of which Acts, are available locally and nationally to children and young people under 18 years of age who wish to make complaints about matters which are the responsibility of his Department.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The only formal procedures relating to my Department are those under which the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration may investigate complaints drawn to his attention by hon. Members. The Department does not make any distinction on grounds of age in responding to complaints from members of the public, or from hon. Members on behalf of their constituents.

  Education Authorities (Land Sales)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions since 1979 his Department has compelled education authorities to sell land that was being held for future school building.

  Mr. Atkins
  Directions under section 98 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 are not issued where public sector owners have firm and specific plans to bring land into use for the purposes of their functions within a reasonable period.

  Palace of Westminster (Repairs)
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the work carried out in the current year to the great clock.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) announced on 22 March at column 683, the hour strike had to be taken out of action to allow essential repair work to be carried out. The chime was restored on 28 August.

  The hon. Member will no doubt have noticed that the tone of the chime is lower than it was before the work started. This is mainly because the bearings which are new need time to settle in and new rubber buffers have been installed. However, a check with the archives has confirmed that the tone is identical to a recording made after similar work was carried out in 1956.

  Cornish Coast (Wildlife Losses)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dolphins have been found dead in the area around Portreath and Newquay in the past 12 months; and what were the causes of death.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 17 October 1990]: The British Museum (Natural History) holds a comprehensive record of confirmed reports of strand ings of cetaceans around the British Coast. Its records for the past 12 months show that 28 cetaceans were found dead around the coasts of Devon and Cornwall. Of these, three were found between St. Ives and Newquay. Comparison with past records shows nothing unusual in these numbers.

  Since July, a systematic study of the stranding:; of cetaceans has been funded by this Department with post-mortems and the taking of samples for contaminant analysis being co-ordinated by a veterinary surgeon based at London Zoo. A post mortem carried out on the only cetacean found in the Portreath/Newquay area since the co-ordinator's appointment has shown no obvious cause of death.

  EC Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent action he has taken to extend the collection and publication of statistical data on the environment; and if he will make a statement on the policies of other EC member states on the compilation and release of their environmental statistics.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 23 October 1990]: A wide range of statistical material is published by my Department, including the annual Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics. In order to bring together environmental statistics in a more coherent and comprehensive form, the Government proposed in their Environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance" to publish at regular intervals a statistical report covering a range of data on environmental topics. It is hoped that the first report will be published in 1992.

  Other EC countries are making similar efforts to improve the collection and dissemination of environmental statistics. All are committed, for example, to support the work of the European Environment Agency, when

  269
  operational, to ensure that the data underpinning environmental policy are objective, comparable and reliable, at the European level.

  Printing (Toxicity)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what requirements exist for the treatment of waste water to be undertaken by print workers before discharge to local sewers or natural drainage channels.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 23 October 1990]: The treatment required will depend on the terms of the trade effluent consent by the relevant sewerage undertaker or, for natural drainage channels, the terms of the discharge consent by the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the risk to print workers posed by the discovery of the radioactive isotopes Caesium 137, Caesium 134 and Cobalt 60 in newsprint imported from Scandinavian countries since April 1986.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 23 October 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  Measurements of Caesium 137 present in paper imported from Scandinavia indicate levels of contamination little higher than those present in any natural material. This would represent only a negligible hazard to print workers handling newsprint.

  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has no records of measurements for Caesium 134 and Cobalt 60 in newsprint imported from Scandinavia. However, HSE can confidently state that these measurements would be less than that for Caesium 137.

  EC Environmental Directives
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on European Community document 8221/90 Env 184 FIN 268 on the implementation of Council regulation (EEC) No. 2242/87 on action by the Community relating to the environment, dated 27 July.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 23 October 1990]: The document concerned was a report by the European Commission on applications received and funding given during 1989 under the "ACE" Programme (Action by the Community relating to the Environment). An explanatory memorandum to Parliament on the document was submited by the Department of the Environment on 13 September.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to European Commission document 8288/90 ENV 186 COM (90) 287 Final being a proposal for a Council directive harmonising and rationalising reports on the implementation of certain directives relating to the environment, dated 2 August 1990.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 23 October 1990]: The proposal has not yet come forward for discussion in the Environment Council. We shall be submitting an explanatory memorandum on the proposal to Parliament in the near future.

ENERGY

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any of the accountancy firms criticised by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors have been advising on the electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Baldry
  Further to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member on 24 April 1990 at column 146, two reports of inspectors appointed under the Companies Act published since that time have contained criticisms of firms of accountants who have been appointed by the epartment to advise on electricity privatisation.

  Name of company, date of publication of reports and firm of accountants:

  Minet Holdings plc and WMD Underwriting Agencies, 29 August, Ernst and Young.

  Alexander Howden Holdings plc, 29 August, Ernst and Young/Peat Marwick McLintock and Co. Bermuda.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any of the accountancy firms criticised by the joint disciplinary scheme have been advising on the electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Baldry
  Two reports, by the committee of inquiry appointed under the joint disciplinary scheme, have contained criticism of firms of accountants who have been appointed as advisers by the Department on electricity privatisation.

  Name of Company, date of report and firm of accountants: Orbit Holdings Limited, 28 March 1983, Peat Marwick Mitchell and Co.

  Ramor Investments Limited, 27 January 1986, Price Waterhouse.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what action Her Majesty's Government have taken to implement the steps proposed to urge the European Community to negotiate effective voluntary agreements on minimum standards of energy efficiency for domestic and individual appliances, as set out in paragraph C33, page 2, of annex C of the White Paper on the Environment (Cm 1200);

  (2) what studies have been undertaken or commissioned by his Department to substantiate the statement made in the White Paper on the Environment (Cm 1200) C31, page 287, that customers are unlikely to choose white domestic appliances lighting systems, central heating systems etc. on energy saving grounds; and what additional measures are planned by his Department to increase customer awareness of energy labelling on electric goods.

  Mr. Baldry
  A report by independent consultants on the energy efficiency of domestic electrical appliances, commissioned by the Energy Efficiency Office, was published in September (HMSO Energy Efficiency Series No. 13). The report established the general lack of consumer interest in choosing appliances on the basis of their energy efficiency. The Energy Efficiency Office is now discussing with manufacturers, advertising agencies and consumer groups the best way to present energy information to consumers and has proposed a voluntary labelling scheme for electrical appliances.

  The Energy Efficiency Office is actively participating in the EC action programme for improving the efficiency of

  271
  electricity end use (PACE) and will be discussing information and efficiency standards for domestic electrical appliances at a workshop in Brussels next month. We are also pressing for work on labelling and standards to be carried forward under the proposed specialaction programme for vigorous energy efficiency (SAVE).

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will set out each of the steps taken since May 1979 to publicise the availability of finance for renewable energy from the European Community and the efforts made to encourage British companies to take advantage of such opportunities, to which reference is made in paragraph C.58, page 291, of annex C of the White Paper on the Environment (Cm 1200).

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department of Energy has publicised the availability of financial support from the European Community for the research development and demonstration of renewable energy technologies since their programmes began in 1983–84. In 1989, the latest year for which figures are available, 54 United Kingdom companies and universities successfully participated in these programmes with our active encouragement. For the 1991 call for proposals the Department has so far distributed over 30,000 leaflets, mounted nine seminars throughout the United Kingdom, and responded to more than 300 requests for detailed information.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will set out the methods by which Her Majesty's Government intend to reinforce their existing programme for demonstrating renewable technologies; how much additional moneys will be made available per annum to achieve this reinforcement; and what criteria will be adopted by his Department to judge which renewable energy technologies will receive support under the initiative at paragraph C.48, page 290 of annex C of the White Paper on the Environment (Cm. 1200).

  Mr. Moynihan
  In the light of the White Paper on the Environment my Department's renewable energy strategy, as published in Energy Paper 55, is to be reviewed and updated during 1991. Methods, resources and criteria for support will be addressed in that comprehensive review.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the establishment of the new ministerial committee on energy efficiency foreshadowed in paragraph 5–32, page 70 of the White Paper on the Environment (Cm. 1200).

  Mr. Wakeham
  The ministerial committee on energy efficiency aims to raise the profile of energy efficiency by working with Government Departments, local authorities and organisations representing energy users in all sectors of the economy to stimulate improvements.

  The first meeting of the committee was held on 17 October. I asked my colleagues to: develop initiatives to raise awareness of the potential for energy saving and to draw attention to the energy efficiency measures that can be taken and the Government services to promote them; to intensify the campaign to improve energy efficiency on the Government estate; and to report on how they and their Departments will take forward the initiatives announced in the White Paper on the Environment.
  272
  The first annual report of the campaign to promote energy efficiency on the Government estate was also published on 17 October. Copies of the report are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will set out the specific services he expects the Energy Efficiency Office will develop in 1991 to provide energy users with expert advice, specific to circumstances, on the purchase, design and improvement of energy using equipment and buildings, as foreshadowed in paragraph C11, page 285 of annex C of the White Paper on the Environment (Cm. 1200).

  Mr. Baldry
  Implementation of energy efficiency investments often involves the selection and purchase of complex equipment and alterations to the structures of buildings and to the heating, lighting and ventilation equipment, or modification of industrial processes. These purchases, alterations or modifications require engineering and costing expertise often lacking in smaller companies.

  My officials have begun work on a scheme to assist with this project management of energy efficiency investments.

  Offshore Installations (Safety)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the number of industrial serious occurrences and lost time incidents in the east Shetland basin for each month in the current year up to and including September.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Provisional figures for accidents on or near to offshore installations on the United Kingdom continental shelf reported to my Department in the cur rent year to September are as follows:

  Fatalities

  Serious accidents

  Dangerous occurrences

  January

  —

  6

  37

  February

  —

  8

  32

  March

  1

  6

  39

  April

  —

  6

  38

  May

  —

  5

  30

  June

  —

  5

  26

  July

  17

  5

  36

  August

  1

  5

  32

  September

  1

  6

  33

  1 Includes six fatalities resulting from the helicopter crash on the Brent Spar.

  Separate figures for the east Shetland basin could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Figures in respect of disablement from work for three days or more are not readily available. I shall write to the hon. Member with this information as soon as possible.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (I) how many visits his Department's safety inspectors made to offshore installations in August and September; how much notice they gave in each case; and how long each visit lasted;

  (2) what is the policy of his Department's safety inspectors as regards giving notice to the operators of offshore oil and gas installations before visiting; and what information he has on Norwegian practice.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Twelve offshore inspections were undertaken in August 1990 and six in September 1990. My Department does not maintain records of the precise duration of each inspection.
  273
  The Offshore Installations (Inspectors and Casualties) Regulations 1973 require inspectors to give offshore operators reasonable notice of their need for conveyance offshore for the purpose of carrying out an inspection. In practice approximately four days' notice are normally given. Inspectors also have the discretion to undertake surprise visits where virtually no advance notice is given and they do this from time to time.

  I understand that Norwegian practice is similar.

  PRIME IVIINISTER
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Prime Miniser if she will make a statement on the interdepartmental progress being made in terms of United Kingdom preparations for the preliminary conference and the twin inter-governmental conference meetings starting in December in Rome.

  The Prime Minister
  Interdepartmental preparations for both intergovernmental conferences continue in the usual way.

  Electronics Industry
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she treats the international electronics industry as an appropriate area for special ministerial co-ordination.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are primarily concerned with creating the right climate in which all British business can prosper. We see no need for special ministerial co-ordination of the electronics industry.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to a national health service hospital.

  The Prime Minister
  I visit a number of hospitals during the course of each year. I have at present no plans for further visits.

  Engagements
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.

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

  Women's Issues
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will state the terms of reference, the current membership, and the criteria for membership for the ministerial group on women's issues; and if she will indicate the issues that this group has recently dealt with.

  The Prime Minister
  The ministerial group was established in 1986 to provide a co-ordinated examination 274
  of policy issues of special concern to women, and with a particular duty to consider the Government's response to the forward-looking strategies for the advancement of women (adopted during the United Nations decade for women).

  The group is chaired by the Home Office Minister of State with special responsibility for equal opportunities, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold). The vice-chairman is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard), who is also co-chairman of the Women's National Commission. Other members attend on the basis of their departmental responsibilities for matters within the remit of the group.

  The group has recently:

  —reviewed the Government's policy in areas covered by the forward looking strategies;

  —issued guidance designed to ensure that civil servants recognise the equal opportunities implications of policy proposals;

  —taken steps to increase the number of women appointed to public bodies;

  —drawn up two 5-point plans to improve the range and quality of child care options;

  —developed a package of initiatives aimed at tackling domestic violence;

  —among the issues the group are now discussing the problems faced by those caring for elderly or disabled relatives.

  Children and Young People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Prime Minister which cabinet committees have responsibilities which include policy and/or co-ordination of policy on matters relating to children and young people under 18 years.

  The Prime Minister
  Policy issues requiring co-ordination are the subject of collective discussion by Ministers as appropriate.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will update the answer of 29 July 1988 she gave to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor),Official Report, column 629, on the responsibility of different Government Departments for matters relating to children and young people under 18 years.

  The Prime Minister
  Current departmental responsibilities in England are as follows:

  Department of Education and Science

  Promotion of education, including primary, secondary and further education and the youth service; school curriculum and assessment policy and public examinations.

  Department of Employment

  Responsibility for training, employment and vocational education initiatives for young people, such as YT, training credits, TVEI, inner city compacts and other educational programmes.

  Central responsibility for the careers service in England delivered by the local education authorities.

  Department of Environment

  Out of school sporting activities for children and young people.

  Grants under the Urban Programme for projects benefiting children.

  Department of Health

  Health services for children and young people in hospital and in the community, including child health surveillance and dental and school health services.

  275

  Policy for social services for children, prevention of child abuse, adoption, regulation of day care services for under fives (including inspection of facilities).

  Nutrition including infant feeding.

  Care and protection of children.

  Social services for socially deprived families and children in care.

  Care, control and treatment of juvenile delinquents.

  Home Office

  Criminal justice policies.

  Arrangements for offenders given custodial sentences.

  Magistrate's court proceedings involving the custody and maintenance of children.

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Family law relating to children.

  Department of Social Security

  Policy on social security benefits affecting children and young people, including benefits for disabled people, unemployment benefits, family credit, child benefit, and one-parent benefit, the social fund, state and occupational pensions, income support and housing benefits.

  (payments of benefits is undertaken by the Department and by local authorities. Payment of unemployment benefits is undertaken by the Department of Employment on an agency basis).

  In Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, some of the functions are carried out by the Departments listed; others or their equivalents are, subject to appropriate legislation, performed by the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Offices.

  Further breakdown by departmental divisions would be possible only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Prime Minister what formal arrangements exist for co-ordinating policy among the Departments involved on matters relating to children and young people under 18 years of age.

  The Prime Minister
  There are official interdepartmental co-ordinating committees concerning children and young people on juvenile delinquency, child abuse and services for pre-school children. Issues concerning children arise at other interdepartmental committees.

  There is an interdepartmental group on Women's issues whose discussions involve a variety of subjects of particular interest to women. These discussions have also included various aspects of child care.

  Visits (Cost)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will publish(a) the total cost of her visit to Wales on 26 September and (b) the total cost of her visit to the Brecon and Radnor constituency that was paid for by the public purse.

  The Prime Minister
  The costs of visits of this nature are not readily identifiable.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Housing Possession
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what is his policy on the use of duty solicitors in housing possession cases.

  The Attorney-General
  We have no proposals to extend the duty solicitor scheme to cover housing possession cases.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the expenditure in the last financial year of legal aid and advice for criminal cases in the courts and on duty solicitor schemes for police stations and at courts; and what was the comparable expenditure immediately before the operation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

  The Attorney-General
  The access to legal advice provisions as laid out in section 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 were implemented on 1 January 1986. The financial year 1984–85 has therefore been used for the purpose of comparison with 1989–90. The table shows gross expenditure during the two years:

  1989–90

  1984–85

  £ million

  £ million

  Criminal Legal Aid:

  Magistrates' Courts

  151·478

  68·056

  Higher Courts

  134·956

  68·039

  Duty Solicitor Schemes:

  Magistrates' Courts

  6·522

  0·537

  Police Stations

  30·969

  —

  323·925

  136·632

  County Courts
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to improve county court procedures to accelerate hearings.

  The Attorney-General
  On 6 April 1989 the Lord Chancellor announced the Government's acceptance of the civil justice review body's proposals and his strategy for implementing them. The proposals, which are to be implemented over a period of five years, include a wide range of measures to improve the handling of cases and speed up their progress to trial or hearing. A number have already been introduced administratively and by rule changes in June and October this year.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the average length of time it takes to obtain a county court hearing and judgment; and if he will list his answer in tabular form by courts.

  The Attorney-General
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the time between a request being received for hearing and the next available date for trial is monitored on a monthly basis. Table A shows the average waiting time measured on this basis, for the county courts and the High Court. Table B shows the figures for county court trial centres at 31 May 1990 and 30 September 1990. Trial centres provide continuous hearings and it can be taken that judgment follows very shortly after the conclusion of the trial. Actual waiting time in particular cases varies according to the circumstances of a particular case, including such factors as the availability of key witnesses or the appearance of new evidence.

  Table A

  County Court and High Court Waiting Times

  1. County Court Trial Centres

  Average 11 weeks (ranging from 4–26 weeks depending on sitting pattern).

  2. High Court

  15 weeks.

  277

  3. Queen's Bench general list in London

  Warned list to hearing: 8 weeks. Fixed dates: 11–12 months.

  Table B Average waiting time for judges hearings county court trial centres

  Court name

  Waiting time in days

  30 Sep 1990

  31 May 1990

  Barnsley

  22

  20

  Birmingham

  48

  24

  Blackpool

  26

  28

  Bolton

  35

  35

  Brighton

  14

  22

  Bristol

  27

  39

  Bromley

  53

  20

  Burnley

  18

  15

  Caernarfon

  8

  40

  Canterbury

  78

  54

  Cardiff

  31

  35

  Carlisle

  20

  33

  Chester

  38

  28

  Coventry

  26

  40

  Croydon

  49

  23

  Darlington

  27

  36

  Derby

  75

  32

  Doncaster

  30

  32

  Dudley-Wolverhampton

  46

  40

  Durham

  39

  23

  Exeter-Tiverton

  7

  58

  Gateshead

  35

  34

  Guildford

  40

  38

  Hartlepool

  34

  30

  Holywell

  35

  38

  Lancaster

  16

  14

  Leeds

  70

  116

  Leicester

  24

  26

  Lincoln

  47

  31

  Liverpool

  42

  42

  Llanelli

  32

  28

  Macclesfield

  41

  34

  Manchester

  46

  43

  Mansfield

  47

  59

  Mayors and City

  37

  39

  Medway

  33

  18

  Merthyr Tydfil

  44

  28

  Middlesbrough

  51

  55

  Milton Keynes

  39

  40

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  14

  32

  Newport (Gwent)

  30

  51

  Northampton

  25

  20

  Norwich

  78

  43

  Nottingham

  26

  21

  Oldham

  54

  44

  Oxford

  43

  38

  Peterborough

  39

  32

  Plymouth

  26

  36

  Portsmouth

  17

  62

  Preston

  23

  29

  Scarborough

  59

  40

  Sheffield

  34

  63

  Slough

  29

  43

  Southampton

  33

  59

  Stafford

  30

  18

  Stockton-on-Tees

  35

  35

  Stoke on Trent

  8

  12

  Sunderland

  37

  15

  Swansea

  55

  27

  Telford-Wellington

  43

  34

  Thanet

  40

  36

  Truro

  63

  51

  Wakefield

  41

  44

  Walsall

  16

  18

  Warrington

  25

  37

  Warwick

  20

  38

  Watford

  27

  8

  Westminster

  49

  35

  Worcester

  30

  41

  York and Malton

  19

  18

  278
  NB This information is in the form of a "snapshot" view of the position. It can vary significantly from month to month.

  County Court Bailiffs
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to remunerate county court bailiffs by commission.

  The Attorney-General
  County court bailiffs are salaried members of the Lord Chancellor's Department. There are no plans to remunerate them by commission.

  Judgment Debts
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make it his policy to re-establish the practice where a judgment debt was required to be paid into the court and not to the plaintiff.

  The Attorney-General
  There are no plans to re-establish the practice where a judgment debt was required to be paid into court and not to the plaintiff. The present arrangements introduced in April 1990 have led to significant savings in court staff time and brought advantages to court users through a wider spread of payment methods and places to pay.

  Debt Enforcement
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received about county courts regarding debt enforcement.

  The Attorney-General
  The largest number of representations was received in response to the civil justice review body's consultation paper on the enforcement of debt. A total of 120 responses were received.

  The consensus of those responses was that the nature and value of business conducted by High Court sheriffs and county court bailiffs were significantly different and that these two separate functions should be maintained. The enforcement area identified as being most in need of reform was the administration order procedure.

  Young People (Complaints)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will specify what formal procedures for making complaints and representations, specifying where appropriate under which sections of which Acts, are available locally and nationally to children and young people under 18 years of age who wish to make complaints about matters which are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  The Attorney-General
  A formal, non-statutory procedure exists whereby all complaints made, including those made by or on behalf of children, to the Lord Chancellor are fully considered and investigated by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  In addition, a provision in the Courts and Legal Services Bill will extend the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to the administrative functions of court and tribunal staff appointed by the Lord Chancellor, except in relation to acts undertaken at the direction or on the authority of a person acting in a judicial capacity.

  National Union of Mineworkers
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Serious Fraud Office will conduct a thorough investigation into the national and international affairs of the National Union of Mineworkers in the light of the conclusions of the Lightman inquiry.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Metropolitan police fraud squad is conducting a number of inquiries and will consider whether there is a case for investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. It has not yet completed those inquiries.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Young People (Complaints)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will specify what formal procedures for making complaints and representations, specifying where appropriate under which sections of which Acts, are available locally and nationally to children and young people under 18 years of age who wish to make complaints about matters which are the responsibility of his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  Provision is made in sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944, as extended by section 219 of the Education Reform Act 1988, for complaints to be made to the Secretary of State about the conduct of local education authorities and the governing bodies of maintained schools (including grant-maintained schools), higher education corporations and certain institutions of further

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991 (est)

  IACR3

  803

  783

  789

  774

  750

  680

  557

  523

  480

  477

  449

  433

  IAH

  328

  311

  314

  310

  299

  307

  252

  283

  282

  264

  292

  283

  IAPGR

  343

  330

  338

  327

  326

  345

  331

  270

  254

  266

  337

  321

  IER

  131

  129

  138

  129

  124

  122

  133

  123

  97

  115

  115

  103

  IFR

  380

  394

  420

  434

  451

  447

  496

  473

  450

  435

  381

  245

  IGER

  431

  432

  441

  425

  435

  442

  388

  378

  381

  364

  308

  285

  IHR2

  443

  430

  440

  438

  452

  425

  353

  323

  326

  318

  (295)2

  (260)2

  IPSR4

  266

  282

  278

  274

  282

  279

  309

  373

  274

  271

  234

  234

  Total

  3,125

  3,091

  3,158

  3,111

  3,119

  3,047

  2,819

  2,746

  2,544

  2,510

  2,116

  1,904

  (2411)

  (2,164)

  Notes:

  1 Abreviations:

  IACR—Institute of Arable Crops Research

  IAH—Institute of Animal Health

  IAPGR—Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics

  IER—Institute of Engineering Research

  IFR—Institute of Food Research

  IGER—Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research

  IHR—Institute of Horticultural Research

  IPSR—Institute of Plant Science Research

  2 IHR became part of the British Society for Horticultural Research (BSHR) on 1 April 1990. The figures in brackets show the number of AFRC scientific staff seconded to BSHR.

  3 The figures for IACR for 1980–84 include the former Letcombe Laboratory and the Weed Research Organisation, which closed in 1985 and 1986 respectively. They also include the former Soil Survey and Land Resource Centre, which was transferred to the Cranfield Institute of technology in 1986–87.

  4 The figures for IPSR for 1980–86 include that part of the former Plant Breeding Institute which was purchased by Unilever plc in 1986–87.
  280
  or higher education maintained or assisted by local education authorities, in the exercise of their functions under the Education Acts. Where the complaint relates to the curriculum or religious worship the complaint must first be made at local level, under arrangements made by the local education authority pursuant to section 23 of the Education Reform Act. None of these provisions imposes any formal restriction on the age of the complainant.

  Research
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the number of scientists employed at each of the Agricultural and Food Research Council institutes since 1980, including those expected to be employed in 1991 and 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Agricultural and Food Research Council-funded institutes were restructured during the period 1985 to 1987. For ease of reference, the figures for science group staff in post are shown on the basis of the present institutes of research.

  The figures for actual numbers employed at 1 April in the relevant years to 1990 and estimates for 1991 are shown in the table. The number of staff employed in 1992 will depend on a number of factors including the funding available to the council through the science budget and the extent of commissions from the Ministry of Agriculture and other externally funded research. The present estimate is that the total number of scientific staff will be about 1,960, including Agricultural and Food Research Council staff employed in the British Society for Horticultural Research (BSHR).

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to enable primary schools to close for an extra day in order to allow training to take place for national curriculum assessments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I asked local education authorities in 1989 to set aside two or three of this school year's existing school closure days for training to prepare teachers who will undertake the first national assessments of seven-year-olds in 1991. As a result, most local education authorities have already developed coherent plans for such training. I am encouraged by the commitment and professionalism of primary school teachers as they prepare for the implementation of the national curriculum assessment arrangements.

  However, not all LEAs are equally well-prepared. In response to representations, particularly from the NAHT, and in order to ensure the success of training arrangements in all local education authorities, I therefore intend shortly to make regulations to permit primary schools, if they wish to do so, to close for one extra day in the spring term of 1991 for the purpose of training teachers in the assessment of seven-year-olds and the development of school policies for reporting the results to parents.

  I stress that this is an exceptional step. It responds to the unique challenge facing primary schools who have never before been involved in comprehensive national assessments. I also wish to emphasise that this is solely to make the option of an extra closure day available to those local education authorities for whom it will be helpful. It is not obligatory. Many local education authorities and schools with already settled training plans may see no need to exercise the option and will be under no compulsion to do so. The availability of an extra day in the spring term will provide those schools that need it with useful additional flexibility to exploit effectively the training materials shortly to be issued by the School Examinations and Assessment Council and to promote the development of effective school arrangements for reporting the results of assessments to parents.

EMPLOYMENT

  Young People (Complaints)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will specify what formal procedures for making complaints and representations, specifying where appropriate under which sections of which Acts, are available locally and nationally to children and young people under 18 years of age who wish to make complaints about matters which are the responsibility of his Department.

  Mr. Jackson
  Under the legislation and programmes for which my Department is responsible any formal procedures for making complaints and representations which exist are open on the same basis to those under 18 as to those over 18.

  In the case of those programmes aimed mainly at those under 18: Youth Training (YT); a contractual requirement is placed on YT providers to ensure that non-employed trainees have access to clear written grievance procedures, including the right to make representations to the
  282
  Department or to the careers service. Where training and enterprise councils (TECs) have been established contractual requirement is placed upon TECs to ensure that YT providers make similar arrangements for non-employed trainees, including the right to make representations to the TEC or to the careers service.

  Careers Service and the Department's Vocational Education Programmes such as TVEI: local education authorities operate these programmes in their area. I would expect issues about provision in a particular area to be raised with the relevant authority in the first instance. No formal procedures exist for making representations to my Department in these cases, although we will naturally consider any representations that are made to us, whether by those under or over 18.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentage of total Government expenditure on child benefit goes to families with incomes below the mean, on an equivalent income basis;

  (2) what percentage of families receiving child benefit have income levels below the mean, on an equivalent income basis.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The proportion of families receiving child benefit with household incomes below the mean of equivalised income before housing costs has changed little since 1979 and remains in the region of 70 per cent. About 74 per cent. of total Government spending on child benefit went to these families.

  National Insurance
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what increases in national insurance contributions have been imposed specifically on sub-postmasters since 1987; for what purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No increases in national insurance contributions have been imposed specifically on sub-postmasters since 1987. The treatment of their earnings for national insurance contribution purposes and the rates at which their national insurance contributions are paid are identical to those of other workers in similar circumstances.

  European Court of Justice
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the implications for British pensioners of the Barber decision of the European Court of Justice.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The European Court of Justice ruled on 17 May 1990, in the case of Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange, that benefits from occupational pension schemes are pay for the purposes of article 119 of the treaty of Rome. This means that occupational pension schemes must treat men and women equally. Schemes need to take legal advice as to how the terms of the judgment apply to their particular circumstances.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to change the total funding of, and categories of, people eligible to claim from the independent living fund.

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

  Computerisation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the Government's estimate of the profit-cost of the social security computerisation programme made in each of the past eight years and his latest estimate.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available estimate of the cost of the social security computerisation programme is in the order of £1,800 million up to the end of March 1999. The computerisation programme is helping to produce savings in administration costs which are expected to amount to around £150 milion per annum by 1995. Earlier estimates of the profit-cost of the programme were examined by the Committee of Public Accounts in its 24th report (HC179) following the Comptroller and Auditor General's report (HC111). I refer the hon. Member to these reports.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the Government's estimates of job losses that would result from the computerisation of the social security system made in each of the past eight years and his latest estimate.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  When the operational strategy project was announced in 1982, very early estimates of the reduction in manpower amounted to approximately 25,000 posts.

  In 1988 a more detailed analysis was undertaken to reflect changes to workloads and future system functionality.

  The latest estimte of the number of posts to be lost is 21,000, as published in the 1989 annual review of the operational strategy.

  Young People (Complaints)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will specify what formal procedures for making complaints and representations, specifying where appropriate under which sections of which Acts, are available locally and nationally to children and young people under 18 years of age who wish to make complaints about matters which are the responsibility of his Department.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In general, only persons aged 16 or over are entitled to social security benefits in their own right. All such persons have the same rights of making complaints or representations irrespective of age. Where children are entitled to benefit any rights of redress will be exercised by the person claiming on their behalf.
  284
  Claims for social security benefits are decided by independent adjudication officers (section 98 of the Social Security Act 1975). Claimants unhappy with benefit decisions can ask for a review of that decision (section 104) or appeal to an independent tribunal under the presidential system (sections 100 and 109). There is a further right of appeal, on a point of law, from the tribunal decision to the social security commissioner (sections 101 and 112) and from the commissioner's decision to an appropriate court (section 114).

  Entitlement to income support is restricted to persons over 18 and to those of ages 16 and 17 who are not required to be available for employment including lone parents, blind and disabled persons and pregnant women. A 16 or 17-year-old who is required to be available may also be entitled where it appears to the Secretary of State that severe hardship will result unless income support is paid. Decisions on the severe hardship question are made centrally at the severe hardship cases unit in Glasgow and can be reviewed and possibly revoked following representation.

  The attendance allowance board determines medical questions arising from claims to attendance allowance (section 105) and a dissatisfied claimant can seek a review of the board's decision (section 106). There is then a right of appeal on a point of law against any review decision to the social security commissioner.

  Certain questions, mainly concerned with contribution matters, are decided by the Secretary of State. Claimants can seek a review of such decisions or appeal on a point of law to the appropriate court (section 94).

  The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration can investigate complaints of maladministration but has no power to challenge decisions of the independent adjudication authorities (PCA Act 1967).

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether sums of money paid by an employer to a person receiving invalidity benefit in respect of the cost of travelling to work are treated as earnings for the purposes of the therapeutic earnings rule; and whether the actual travelling costs are deductible.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The amount paid by an employer to reimburse a person for the cost of travelling to and from work is not taken into account as earnings in considering the application of the therapeutic earnings rule. Where the employee pays his own travelling costs these are generally deducted in full from his earnings before the therapeutic earnings test is applied.

  Mrs. M. Pilgrim
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make inquiries into the delay in arriving at a decision on the application for night rate attendance allowance in respect of Mrs. M. M. Pilgrim of 25 St. Augustone's avenue, Southend, reference ZX252490D; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  There was no delay in arriving at a decision on the application for night rate attendance allowance. There was delay in making payment while inquiries were made into the status of the two nursing homes involved. I can confirm that all arrears due to Mrs. Pilgrim were paid on 11 October.

  Pensions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the amount lost per week and per year which (i) a single pensioner and (ii) a married couple would have received over and above the price-indexed pension increase each year since 1979 if the earlier formula had been maintained of increasing pensions each year in line with either prices or earnings whichever was higher; and if he will set out these sums both on a weekly and annual basis for each year since 1979 at(a) current prices and (b) 1990 prices.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 15 October 1990]: Similar figures for pension rates were given in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) on 15 October at col. 741, together with an estimate of the increased national insurance contribution rates—£7·50 a week in respect of an employee on average earnings, including the employer's contribution—which would be entailed in meeting the additional cost in the present year.

  It would be inappropriate to make the further calculations requested, since they would rest on the wholly unrealistic assumption that additional expenditure on the scale implied would have taken place without economic and financial effects, including higher rates of inflation and taxation than have in fact occurred, with seriously adverse consequences for pensioners themselves.

  Social Security Commissioner
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many appeals to the social security commissioner were lodged during the last year for which statistics are available concerning mobility allowance; what proportion of all claims for mobility allowance in that year they represented; and how many such appeals resulted either in the case being remitted for reconsideration by the medical appeal tribunal or in the commissioner substituting his or her own decision for that of the medical appeal tribunal;

  (2) how many appeals to the social security commissioner were lodged in the last year for which statistics are available concerning attendance allowance; what proportion of all attendance allowance claims in that year they represented; and how many such appeals resulted in the case being remitted to the attendance allowance board for reconsideration.

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is given in the table. No figures are available for the number of cases remitted to medical appeal tribunals. Commissioners are not empowered to substitute their decisions for those given on medical questions by medical appeal tribunals.

  Appeals to the Social Security Commissioner

  (England, Wales and Scotland)

  Figures for year 1989

  Benefit

  Attendance allowance

  Mobility allowance

  Number of claims lodged with DSS1

  365,219

  203,590

  Number of appeals to OSSC

  Direct

  3

  72

  Deemed2

  491

  217

  Total

  494

  289

  Appeal as percentage of claims lodged

  0·135

  0·142

  286

  Benefit

  Attendance allowance

  Mobility allowance

  Total number of appeals decided

  225

  246

  Number decided in claimant's favour

  3175

  202

  Number remitted2

  170

  4

  1 Department of Social Security figures.

  2 Successful applications for leave converted to appeals (Reg. 5(2) SI 1987 No. 214).

  3 The difference between the number decided in the claimant's favour and the number remitted to the Attendance Allowance Board reflects the time delay in handling over the period.

  4 Not available.

DEFENCE

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the atomic weapons establishment is suffering from any difficulties of recruiting enough graduate scientists in any or all areas.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The science group as a whole at AWE continues to experience difficulties with the recruitment of graduate scientists. The position has not changed significantly over the past year.

  SRAM-T Missiles
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there are any plans to deploy SRAM-T missiles in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The London declaration, following the NATO summit meeting here in May, made clear the alliance's continuing requirement for nuclear forces, based in Europe and kept up to date where necessary. However, the question of the detailed deployment of United States SRAM-T missiles has not yet arisen.

  Radar
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United States Congress has removed from the 1990–91 budget United States financing of the joint United States/United Kingdom over-the-horizon radar proposed for the former St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We understand that, as part of congressional scrutiny of United States Government spending proposals for fiscal year 1991, the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee has requested the United States Government to re-examine the requirement to locate this system in the United Kingdom. The reponse to this request is a matter for the United States Government.

  Thai Army
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many employees of his Department were attached to the Thai army, and for what purpose, for each year from 1985, inclusive.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 22 October at column 90.

  Diving Clearance Service
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of the Royal Navy specialised diving clearance service based in Portsmouth.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In the light of my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 25 July on "Options for Change", the future of the whole of the naval estate and support services, including diving services, is under consideration.

  Any announcements of changes will be made when our examination is finished.

  Gulf Crisis
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what stage his Department assessed that the risk of attack against Saudi Arabia had become sufficiently grave to justify the dispatch of an armoured brigade for the defence of that country.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The initial military need in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was to strengthen quickly the defences of the Gulf states and to enforce the United Nations embargo. To achieve this the United Kingdom, together with the United States and other countries, sent air and naval forces at the request of countries in the region. Substantial Iraqi forces, including large concentrations of armour, still occupy Kuwait. The deployment of 7 Armoured Brigade is to help counter the continued threat to the Gulf states from these forces.

WALES

  Rents into Mortgages Scheme
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of his flexi-ownership—rents into mortgages—scheme.

  Mr. Grist
  We are extremely encouraged by the progress made by the Development Board for Rural Wales in the first 10 months of operating the experimental flexi-ownership scheme. Seventeen per cent. of the eligible tenants have expressed an interest and almost 60 (7 per cent.) have applied to become flexi-owners. Ten sales have been completed and the board estimates that about 5 per cent. of the eligible stock will have been sold by the end of the first year. We are currently considering whether the scheme should be extended.

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Average income of Welsh farmers assessed for tax

  £7,939

  £7,739

  £9,110

  £11,002

  Average manual workers earnings in Wales

  £7,090

  £7,548

  £7,990

  £8,510

  Average income of Welsh farrmers assessed for tax expressed as a perscentage of available manual workers' earnings in Wales

  112 per cent.

  102 per cent.

  114 per cent.

  129 per cent.

  Local Authorities (Car Usage)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money was allocated by each district council and county council in Wales for(a) the purchase of cars and (b) car allowance schemes for chairpersons and chief executives during 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Farmers' Incomes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the income of farmers in Wales accrued from non-farming sources for each of the past 10 years for which records are available.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Based on the Inland Revenue survey of personal incomes, details of which are only readily available for the years 1983–84 to 1986–87, the percentage of the income of farmers in Wales which accrued from non-farming sources for each of the four years was as follows:

  Year

  Percentage of income from non-farming sources

  1983–84

  42

  1984–85

  41

  1985–86

  37

  1986–87

  50

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the average income of farmers in Wales in each of the past eight years for which records are available, expressed as a percentage of each year's average manual worker's earnings in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Informattion on Welsh farmers' incomes is based on the results of the Inland Revenue survey of personal incomes and relates to incomes assessed for tax of individuals registered as having a self-employed income from agriculture and horticulture as their main or principal other source of self-employment income. Separate figures for Wales are not readily available prior to 1983–84, and the latest results of the survey are for the year 1986–87.

  The average earnings of manual workers in Wales are derived from the Department of Employment new earnings survey.

  The two series are not strictly comparable, there being conceptual differences in the way income and earnings are calculated.

  Housing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many units of housing accommodation were completed by all Welsh local authorities for each of the past 10 years for which records are available.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is given in the following table:

  Local authority completions

  Year

  Number

  1980

  3,493

  1981

  3,370

  1982

  1,771

  1983

  1,543

  1984

  1,997

  1985

  992

  1986

  744

  1987

  810

  1988

  793

  1989

  566

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of hospital beds available in every Welsh health authority area in each of the past 10 years for which records are available.

  Mr. Grist
  Details of average daily available beds in each Welsh health authority for the years 1980 to 1988–89 are published in the relevant issues of "Hospital Bed Use Statistics" copies of which are in the Library. The information for 1989–90 (the latest available) is given in the table:

  Average daily available beds—year ending 31 March 1990

  Health authority

  Number

  Clwyd

  2,442·8

  East Dyfed

  1,578·8

  Gwent

  3,208·0

  Gwynedd

  1,586·6

  Mid-Glamorgan

  4,047·2

  Powys

  908·0

  South Glamorgan

  3,271·8

  West Glamorgan

  2,343·1

  Pembrokeshire

  469·1

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out in tabular format(a) the number of civil servants in his Department devoted to the planning, building and maintenance of roads, (b) the number of civil servants in his Department devoted to the development and maintenance of railways, (c) the number of civil servants in his Department devoted to the development of public transport other than railways and (d) the number of civil servants in his Department devoted to the promotion of cycling.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Secretary of State has statutory responsibility for the construction and maintenance of motorway and trunk roads in Wales. The Welsh Office highways directorate which carries out these functions has a staff complement of 172·5. With minor exceptions statutory responsibility for matters relating to public transport rests with the Secretary of State for Transport.
  290
  The Welsh Office transport policy division, which has oversight of all transport-related issues affecting Wales, including public transport and cycling, has a staff complement of 20.

  Young People (Complaints)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will specify what formal procedures for making complaints and representations, specifying where appropriate under which sections of which Acts, are available locally and nationally to children and young people under 18 years of age who wish to make complaints about matters which are the responsibility of his Department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The following formal procedures provide for complaints to be made by children and young people or their representatives:

  Section 26(3) of the Children Act 1989, which comes into force in October 1991, provides that any complaint or representation about the provision of services to children and their families under part III of the Act should be considered through local authorities' procedures. Section 59(4) requires voluntary organisations to set up similar procedures to consider representations including complaints made by children accommodated by them but not looked after by local authorities, and by other people connected with the child. Paragraph 10(2)(b) of schedule 6 to the Act places a similar requirement on registered children's homes.

  Any person who is or has been a patient at a hospital or a person acting on behalf of any such patient is eligible to make a complaint about the care and treatment received, under the Hospital Complaints Procedure Act 1985. If not satisfied there is the right to make representations to the Health Service Commissioner to investigate a complaint, under section III of the National Health Services Act 1977. There is no age constraint.

  The National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations 1974 (as amended) made under sections 26, 36, 39 and 42 of the National Health Service Act 1977 provide for a complaint to be formally investigated if it has been made by or on behalf of any person entitled to family health services and alleges that a family practitioner has failed to comply with the relevant terms of service.

  Section 120 of the Mental Health Act 1983 provides for the investigation of any complaint by a detained or formerly detained patient, of whatever age. By virtue of section 121 of the Act, such investigation would be carried out by the Mental Health Act Commission.

  There is nothing to prevent a child or young person from using the provisions of sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944, as extended by section 219 of the Education Reform Act 1988, providing for complaints to be made to the Secretary of State about the conduct of local education authorities and the governing bodies of maintained schools (including grant-maintained schools), higher education corporations and certain institutions of further or higher education maintained or assisted by local education authorities, in the exercise of their functions under the Education Acts. Where the complaint relates to the curriculum or religious worship the complaint must first be made at local level under arrangements made by the local education authority pursuant to section 23 of the Education Reform Act.

  British Urban Development
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether, in view of the cancellation of some of British Urban Development's projects, together with the imminent departure of the deputy chairman, he has sought a definite date to discuss the future of the proposed project in Swansea.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, I have issued an open invitation to British Urban Development to discuss developments on the Tawe Vale project. That invitation remains open.

  School Psychological Services
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has anything to add to his reply to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West on 18 October,Official Report, column 870, in respect of figures published in the report by Her Majesty's inspectors on a survey of school psychological services in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are no current statistics available on the number of educational psychologists in post in Wales, but local education authorities have been asked for details.

  Housing Revenue Account
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will consult representatives of local government and relevant professional bodies on his proposals for housing revenue account subsidy in 1991–92; and what proposals he will be making.

  Mr. Grist
  The Welsh Office is today consulting local authorities, the Council of Welsh Districts and other interested bodies on proposals for determining each authority's entitlement to subsidy for 1991–92. The proposals include some important technical changes to the rules for calculating subsidy entitlement. Comments on the bulk of the proposals are invited within six weeks. I shall be placing a copy of the consultation papers in the Library together with a list of the guidelines and allowances for each authority.

  For rent guidelines, we propose an average rent increase of just 2 per cent. above the allowance for inflation. This means an average increase per week of £1·87 ranging from £1·41 to £2·50 over the guideline rent which applied this year. This will continue the process introduced last year or encouraging authorities towards charging sensible levels of rents which better reflect the value of property in different parts of the country while remaining within the reach of ordinary tenants.

  For management and maintenance allowances, we propose to introduce a system of targeted allowances which will better reflect the condition of each authority's stock. This will be of particular benefit to a number of authorities while no authority will have an allowance lower in cash terms than for the current year. Across Wales overall, the average increase in allowances will maintain them at this year's level in real terms.

  The rent guidelines and management and maintenance allowances are no more than the assumptions the Government will make in calculating each authority's entitlement to subsidy. It is for each council to set its own
  292
  rents and to decide how much to spend on managing and maintaining its stock within its obligations under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Changes are also proposed which affect authorities' subsidy entitlement in respect of properties held on leasehold terms. The aggregate cost of leases acquired after midnight tonight will have to be met within annual limits. Authorities can continue to use short-term leasing in appropriate circumstances subject to the plans being agreed with the Department. This is in addition to a change proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security which was announced earlier this week and deals with an anomaly in the present subsidy rules.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Interest rates
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are current short-term interest rates in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) West Germany.

  Mr. Maude
  On 24 October three-month interbank rates were 13·8 per cent. in the United Kingdom and 8·6 per cent. in Germany.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the results of his interest rate policy to date.

  Mr. Major
  Monetary indicators and evidence from the real economy both point firmly to a reduction in inflationary pressures, as a result of the Government's sustained policy of high interest rates.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on present interest rates.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Maples
  Bank base rates are 14 per cent.

  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has had any recent representations from the Confederation of British Industry about interest rates.

  Mr. Maples
  Yes.

  National Savings
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of his last Budget on national savings.

  Mr. Maples
  The Budget was above all a Budget for savers and I am confident that it will encourage the saving habit.

  Inflation
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his forecast for the annual rate of inflation to the fourth quarter of the current year.

  Mr. Maples
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will publish a new forecast with his autumn statement.
  293
  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many countries in the EEC currently have a higher inflation rate than the United Kingdom.

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

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the rate of inflation and what is the average rate of inflation for those countries which were in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system on 1 July, measured on a comparable basis.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the underlying rate of inflation; and what is the average rate of inflation for those countries which were in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system on 1 July, measured on a comparable basis.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the underlying rate of inflation; and what is the average rate of inflation for those countries which were in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system on 1 July, measured on a comparable basis.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the underlying rate of inflation; and what is the average rate of inflation for those countries which were in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system on 1 July, measured on a comparable basis.

  Mr. Maples
  The underlying rate of inflation for the United Kingdom, as measured by the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments (MIPS) and community charge, was 8·3 per cent. in September 1990. For those countries in the ERM on 1 July 1990, average consumer price inflation was, in August, 4·2 per cent. on a comparable basis.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current underlying rate of inflation; and what are the rates of inflation for the same period measured on a comparable basis for(a) France, (b) West Germany and (c) Italy.

  Mr. Maples
  The following is the annual rate of consumer price inflation, excluding owner occupiers' costs from all indices:

  September 1990 per cent.

  United Kingdom

  8·3

  France

  3·8

  West Germany

  2·9

  Italy

  6·3

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the rates of inflation in(a) Britain, (b) France, (c) West Germany and (d) Holland, measured on a comparable basis.

  Mr. Maples
  The following is the annual rate of consumer price inflation, excluding owner occupiers' costs from all indices:
  294

  September 1990 per cent.

  United Kingdom

  8·3

  France

  3·8

  West Germany

  2·9

  Holland1

  2·7

  1 Partly estimated.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage change in the retail prices index since June 1979.

  Mr. Maples
  The all-items RPI has risen by 132 per cent. since June 1979, an average annual increase of 7·8 per cent.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cumulative balance of payments deficit for the current year to date.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The cumulative deficit on the United Kingdom current account for the first nine months of this year is estimated at £13·6 billion.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times the monthly balance of payments deficit has been under £1 billion in the last two years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Twice, most recently last month.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives from the Trade Union Congress to discuss child benefit.

  Mr. Major
  I have not met representatives of the TUC to discuss child benefit.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any proposals to use tax incentives to stimulate energy conservation work.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to introduce such tax incentives. The White Paper on the Environment outlines a number of measures designed to encourage energy efficiency.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the effect of high interest rates on the level of unemployment.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) earlier today.

  Taxation
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans for further reforms of the income tax system.
  295
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans for further reforms of the income tax system.

  Mr. Maude
  We shall continue to keep under review all options for reforming the income tax system.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross earnings a married couple with one earner on average earnings, with two children, paid in tax, treating child benefit as negative income tax, in 1978–79 and in 1989–90.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) earlier today.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the percentage of total tax revenue collected from higher band taxpayers; and what was the comparable figure in 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  In 1978–79, income tax liability at the higher rate accounted for 9 per cent. of total income tax liability. In 1990–91 it is estimated that this proportion will be about 20 per cent.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the Child Poverty Action Group to discuss the effects of the Government's policies on child poverty.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I last met representatives of the CPAG on 8 June.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his preparations for the intergovernmental conference in December.

  Mr. Maude
  As the hon. Member knows, my right hon. Friend set out proposals for a hard ecu and a European monetary fund on 20 June. We have been promoting these ideas since then, and will continue to argue forcefully for them in the run-up to the intergovernmental conference.

  Share-owners
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the adult population now owns shares.

  Mr. Maude
  The latest Treasury and stock exchange survey carried out in January and February 1990 estimated that 24 per cent. of the adult population in Great Britain now own shares.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the United Kingdom adult population now owns shares.

  Mr. Maude
  The latest Treasury and stock exchange survey carried out in January and February 1990 estimated that 24 per cent. of the adult population in Great Britain now own shares. Information for the United Kingdom as a whole is not available.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of shares was owned by individuals in 1979 and currently.
  296
  Mr. Maude
  The stock exchange survey of share ownership carried out in 1981 estimated that 28·2 per cent. of shareholdings were in the beneficial ownership of the United Kingdom personal sector. More recent comparable figures, and figures for 1979, are not available. The Central Statistical Office expects to publish its latest share register survey in "Economic Trends" in December.

  Profitability
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest information on the profitability of non-North sea industrial and commercial companies.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The net real rate of return on capital of non-North sea industrial and commercial companies in 1989 was 8·3 per cent. With the exception of 1988, that is higher than for any year since 1973. In 1981 the rate was 2·7 per cent.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest information on the profitability of non-North sea industrial and commercial companies.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The net real rate of return on capital of non-North sea industrial and commercial companies in 1989 was 8·3 per cent. With the exception of 1988, that is higher than for any year since 1973. In 1981 the rate was 2·7 per cent.

  Savings
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any further plans to encourage savings.

  Mr. Maples
  Tax-exempt special savings accounts (TESSAs) will be introduced on 1 January 1991. Composite rate tax will be abolished in April 1991. The Government's objective is to encourage the saving habit over the medium term.

  Input-output Analyses
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study he has made of the applicability of the input-output analysis techniques initiated by Professor Wassily Leontief and developed by the Japanese Government to be used by the European Community.

  Mr. Maples
  Input-output tables for the United Kingdom are produced by the Central Statistical Office. The latest published set relates to 1984.

  The Japanese Government (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) are developing internationally linked input-output analyses. They have been in touch with a number of countries, including the United Kingdom Central Statistical Office who have been collaborating as resources permit.

  Productivity
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the productivity improvements in British industry since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Manufacturing industry's productivity grew by an average of 4·2 per cent. a year between 1979 and 1989; faster than in all other major
  297
  industrialised countries. In the sixties and seventies the United Kingdom was at the bottom of the manufacturing productivity league table.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to encourage further manufacturing productivity growth.

  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to encourage manufacturing productivity growth.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  This Government will continue to implement economic policies designed to encourage enterprise and efficiency and thus to promote manufacturing productivity growth. The proof of these policies' success has been the marked improvement in manufacturing productivity growth over the last decade. Since 1979, it has grown faster than any other major industrialised country. In the sixties and seventies we were at the bottom of the international league for manufacturing productivity growth.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest information on the output per hour worked in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Japan.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest information on the output per hour worked in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Japan.

  Mr. Maples
  Output per hour worked in the United Kingdom in 1986, the latest year for which data are available, is estimated to have been around 50 per cent. higher than in Japan.

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made during discussions on European monetary union; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress during recent discussions on his proposals for a European currency unit.

  Mr. Major
  Since I set out our proposals for a hard ecu on 20 June, I have met my fellow Finance Ministers a number of times to promote the United Kingdom approach to progress beyond stage 1. A consensus is emerging that, as I have argued, more convergence in economic performance is needed before moving beyond stage 1; and there is growing support for our view that objective criteria are needed to determine when sufficient convergence has been achieved.

  I will continue to argue forcefully for the United Kingdom approach in the run-up to the intergovernmental conference.

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his estimate of the trade deficit for 1990; and what are the comparable volume and real terms figures for 10 years earlier.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The visible trade balance in the first three quarters of 1990 was a deficit of 14·8 billion, or about 3½ per cent. of GDP. In 1980 there was a visible trade surplus of £1·4 billion, or ½ per cent. of GDP.

  Investment
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the growth in total investment of European Community countries during the 1980s.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the growth in total investment of European Community countries during the 1980s.

  Mr. Maples
  Since 1980, growth of total investment in EC countries has averaged 2·2 per cent. a year. Over the same period United Kingdom investment growth averaged 4·7 per cent. a year.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals to encourage a higher level of investment by manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Government's economic policies are designed to reduce inflation while encouraging enterprise and efficiency. This is the best way to encourage sustainable growth of manufacturing investment.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest information on the corporation tax take from the major businesses privatised during the 1980s.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest information on the corporation tax take from the major businesses privatised during the 1980s.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply that the Paymaster General gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) on 24 July 1990 at column 128.

  Incomes
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in real personal disposable income during the last 12 months for which figures were available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in real personal disposable income during the last 12 months for which figures were available.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in real personal disposable income during the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maude
  During the second quarter of 1990 aggregate real personal disposable income is estimated to have been 3·9 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period in 1989.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for the share of gross domestic product to be taken by general Government expenditure in 1990–91.
  299
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  A new forecast for the ratio of general Government expenditure to gross domestic product will be given in the autumn statement.

  VAT
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the implications of the imposition of value added tax on the purchase of new buildings used for charitable purposes.

  Mr. Ryder
  There have been very few representations following the Government's decision last year to shield charities from the full force of the 1988 European Court judgement on the United Kingdom's zero rates and to allow continued VAT relief for new self-contained buildings used for charitable non-business activities.

  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much value added tax was paid by charities in each of the last three financial years.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have no more up-to-date information than that which I gave to my hon. Friend on 15 February at col.338.

  Take-home Pay
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in real take-home pay of a married man with two children during the 1980s.

  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth in real take-home pay of a married man with two children during the 1980s.

  Mr. Maude
  A married man with two children on average male earnings enjoyed an increase in real take-home pay of over 26 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1989–90.

  EC Finance Ministers
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his most recent meeting with European Community Finance Ministers.

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

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the growth of manufacturing exports since 1983.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the growth of manufacturing exports since 1983.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Manufacturing exports have grown on average by 7·1 per cent. per year since 1983. In 1989 they rose by 10·5 per cent.—the fastest growth in any year since 1973. Supply side reforms have transformed industry's ability to compete on world markets, and allowed manufacturers to maintain their share of world trade after decades of decline.

  Investment Trusts
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received any recent representations about the role of investment trusts in the savings market.

  Mr. Maude
  I have received a representation from the Association of Investment Trust Companies on this subject.

  National Income
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total income to the Exchequer since May 1979 from(a) North sea oil revenues and (b) privatisations.

  Mr. Maude
  In the period from 1979–80 to 1989–90, North sea revenues amounted to some £67 billion. In the same period net privatisation proceeds amounted to some £28 billion.

  Investment and Consumption
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the growth rate of(a) total investment and (b) total consumption during the 1980s.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the growth rate of(a) total investment and (b) total consumption during the 1980s.

  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the growth rate of(a) total investment and (b) total consumption during the 1980s.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Total fixed investment grew by 44 per cent. in volume terms between 1979 and 1989. Over the same period, the volume of total domestic consumption grew by 31 per cent.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Neubert
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to visit eastern Europe before Christmas to discuss the development of market economies.

  Mr. Maples
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the growth in gross domestic product of European Community countries during the 1980s.

  Mr. Maples
  Since 1980 of the EC countries has grown at an average annual rate of 2·2 per cent. Over the same period United Kingdom gross domestic product growth averaged 2·7 per cent. a year.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the rates of growth of the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom, France, Italy and West Germany in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's, respectively.
  301
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Data for the gross domestic product of France, Italy and West Germany are published by the OECD in "National Accounts 1960–88" and in "Main Economic Indicators". Data for United Kingdom gross domestic product are published in the CSO "Blue Book".

  Civil Service Relocation
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for the period since 1979, Department by Department, the number of civil servants relocated from the south-east, the number planning to be relocated and for which locations have already been chosen and over what time scale, and the numbers of which will be relocated and for which no location has yet been decided.

  Mr. Ryder
  Table 1 below lists for the period since 1979 the number of civil service posts located or relocated out of the south-east, which total more than 15,000 posts. However, the list probably understates the total as some 6,000 posts created or relocated away from the south-east on Departments' own initiative prior to 1988 were not monitored in detail.

  Table 1

  Department dispersal location

  Posts dispersed

  Employment group

  Sheffield

  2,152

  Bootle

  1,025

  Runcora

  304

  Total

  3,481

  Land registry

  Peterborough

  780

  Telford

  440

  Coventry

  350

  Weymouth

  350

  Durham

  290

  Swansea

  240

  Hull

  180

  Leicester

  180

  Total

  2,810

  DSS

  N. Fylde

  1,200

  Newcastle

  600

  Lytham

  243

  Glasgow

  50

  Wigan/Manchester

  43

  Belfast

  20

  Total

  2,156

  MOD

  Glasgow

  1,400

  Swindon

  210

  Bath

  164

  Harrogate

  70

  Cheadle Hulme

  60

  Yeovilton

  54

  Sutton Coldfield

  50

  Llangennech

  40

  Total

  2,048

  IR

  Various

  DTI

  Newport

  560

  302

  Department dispersal location

  Posts dispersed

  Birmingham

  134

  Billingham

  53

  Cardiff, Edinburgh

  25

  Total

  772

  FCO/ODA

  East Kilbride

  657

  Home Office

  Bootle

  301

  Liverpool

  126

  Glasgow

  88

  Total

  515

  ECGD

  Cardiff

  433

  DOE

  Salisbury

  70

  Bootle

  63

  Bristol, Manchester, Leeds

  73

  Total

  206

  HM CUSTOMS

  Liverpool

  200

  OFFER

  Birmingham

  89

  Various

  88

  Total

  177

  D/TRANSPORT

  Nottingham

  127

  OTHERS

  Various

  495

  Total

  15,111

  Table 2 lists, with the likely timings, the relocation plans which departments have announced but which have still to be implemented; these cover more than 17,000 further posts.

  Table 2

  Department and dispersal location

  Number of posts

  Likely timing

  MOD

  Bristol

  3,800

  1993-on

  Teesside

  1,600

  1993–95

  Bath/Bristol

  600

  1992–93

  Sutton Coldfield

  200

  1990–91

  Llangennech

  180

  1990–91

  Bath

  156

  1990–91

  Harrogate

  18

  1990

  Total

  6,554

  Inland Revenue

  Nottingham

  1,800

  1992–93

  Various

  976

  1990–92

  Total

  2,776

  DSS

  Leeds

  800

  1992–93

  Glasgow

  450

  1990–91

  Belfast

  330

  1990–91

  Wigan

  220

  1990–91

  303

  Department and dispersal location

  Number of posts

  Likely timing

  Newcastle

  64

  1990–92

  Manchester

  37

  1990–91

  Total

  1,901

  HM Customs

  Liverpool

  1·250

  1993–94

  Manchester

  430

  1990–93

  Total

  1,680

  Home Office

  Midlands

  1,000

  1993–95

  Merseyside

  120

  1991–93

  Total

  1,120

  D/Health

  Leeds

  cl,000

  1992–93

  Employment group

  Runcorn

  469

  1990–93

  Sheffield

  203

  1990–93

  Total

  672

  IBAP

  Newcastle

  350

  by March 1992

  DTI

  Newport

  290

  1990–91

  OPCS

  Southport

  230

  1991–92

  Land registry

  Birkenhead

  200

  1992

  Charity commission

  Taunton

  c130

  1990–91

  Treasury solicitor

  Taunton

  116

  1991

  Others

  Various

  86

  1990–91

  Total

  17,105

  Details of current relocation reviews by departments are being collated as part of the 1990 public expenditure survey and I shall be making a further announcement in due course.

  Invisible Trade
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors have led to the ending of the surplus on the United Kingdom's invisible trade.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The invisibles account is estimated to have been in surplus by £2·3 billion in 1989 and £1·2 billion in the first half of 1990.

  Iraq
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury co-operated with UNO in the preparation of a study on the impact of the United Nations sanctions against Iraq on other countries; and what is the assessment of the windfall gain for the United Kingdom in a year.

  Mr. Maples
  The United Kingdom, like most other countries, suffers overall rather than gains from higher oil 304
  prices. We have been prepared to commit very substantial resources, human and financial, to the international military effort in the Gulf region and to helping those countries most directly affected by the costs of making United Nations Sanctions against Iraq effective. The United Kingdom has played a very active part in the United Nations in dealing with Suddam Hussein's aggression. We were not consulted over the particular United Nations report to which the question refers and which appears to have been a purely internal United Nations document.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to make a detailed reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne of 21 July on the matter of Mr. John D. Brock.

  Mr. Maude
  I replied to my hon. Friend's letter on 23 October.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Exports
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much is spent by each member state of the European Community on the marketing of agricultural exports to other member states within the Community.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is not available in the form requested. Information on the export marketing budgets of the national food and drink marketing organisations of certain member states is as follows:

  Export marketing budgets1

  Country and organisation

  Year

  £ million

  France

  SOPEXA

  1990

  37

  Germany2

  Central Marketing Agency

  1990

  10

  Republic of Ireland

  Irish Exports Board

  1989

  3

  Holland

  (Government and sectoral promotion bodies)

  1990

  334

  Spain

  ICEX

  1990

  57

  1 Export marketing budgets (all markets).

  2 Forecast before reunification of Germany.

  3 Budget for home and overseas marketing.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a breakdown of the money spent on marketing United Kingdom agricultural products abroad during 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  Comprehensive information is not collected; marketing is a necessary activity of all food and drink export businesses. The estimated amounts spent on export marketing spent by Food From Britain, the national food marketing organisation, are as follows:
  305

  £ millions

  Year ending 31 March

  1989

  1990

  11991

  4·0

  5·0

  5·3

  1 Forecast.

  Livestock (Metal Poisoning)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate the cause of the restrictions imposed on the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibition) (Copper or Other Metal Poisoning) Order 1990 as well as the type of animals and number of animals involved and the contaminants involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  These restrictions were introduced by an order made under part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 to protect consumers from the risk of eating contaminated food following a case of copper poisoning among a group of 19 lambs on a farm in East Sussex.

  Tobacco
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many ecus have been transferred to the tobacco sector of EAGGF in(a) 1989 and (b) 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Community Budget Authority (the Council and the European Parliament) transferred the following amounts to the tobacco sector:

  Million ecus

  1989

  165

  1990

  200

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has given his support to additional money being transferred to the tobacco sector of the EAGGF; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  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 I shall be arguing for substantive change. However, tobacco is grown in some of the poorest parts of the Community and alternative crops cannot be easily identified.

  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 when the budget was fixed in 1988. As the expenditure was legitimately incurred within the rules for the 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.

  Casualty Animals
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations and controls cover the procedure whereby casualty animals are disposed of or are prevented from entering the human food chain; whether he has plans to review or change the procedure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is an offence to sell for human consumption meat which is unfit. In addition the Slaughterhouses (Hygiene) Regulations 1977 require that a veterinary health certificate be issued for animals known or suspected to be injured or diseased, and for carcases of such animals, which are intended to be presented at the slaughterhouse. This certifies that the animal is not affected with any condition, nor has received any medication, which is liable to render the whole carcase unfit for human consumption. The requirement for compulsory certification is subject to certain exemptions relating to injuries of recent origin (such as during transit when a veterinarian will not be available) and, for welfare reasons, to sheep and lamb carcases, where a declaration by the owner is required. It is an offence to allow casualty animals or their carcases to enter a slaughterhouse under any other circumstances.

  Meat from carcases which does not pass post-mortem examination or from knacker animals must be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Meat (Sterilisation and Staining) Regulations 1982.

  I am already considering whether any changes to the regulations in this area may be desirable.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance he proposes to give farmers in the provision of incinerators and other means of disposing of casualty animals in the light of the new regulations regarding the use of offal.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is the responsibility of farmers to ensure that their casualty animals and fallen stock are disposed of properly in accordance with existing statutory provisions.

  Livestock Premiums
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received proposing that the steer premium should be paid at store cattle marts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I have received no representations suggesting that the beef special premium should be payable in respect of male cattle sold through store markets. This is not an option under the EC regulations which govern the operation of the scheme. These provide only for the payment of premium on-farm (as is done in Northern Ireland) or at slaughter or on first marketing for slaughter (as is done in Great Britain).

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will arrange for the next ewe premium payment to be advanced in order to assist farmers' cash flows.

  Mr. Curry
  As we announced on 24 September, the second advance payment of sheep annual premium has been brought forward, and will be paid as soon as possible.
  307
  The final balancing payment cannot be determined by the European Commission until the necessary data are available, after the end of the marketing year in January 1991. Once the final rate has been set, payments should be completed quickly.

  Food Imports
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on recent levels of food imports from(a) Hungary, (b) Poland, (c) Czechoslovakia and (d) the former East Germany.

  Mr. Curry
  Food imports in the last three years (by value) have been:

  Hungary

  £ million

  1988

  1989

  11990

  Live animals chiefly for food

  0·080

  0·051

  0·036

  Meat and Meat preparations

  4–126

  5·411

  1·849

  Dairy Products and Eggs

  —

  —

  —

  Fish and Fish Preparations

  0·006

  0·001

  0·008

  Cereal and Cereal Preparations

  0·183

  0·110

  0·065

  Fruit and Vegetables

  8·732

  8·735

  5·674

  Sugar, Sugar Preparations and Honey

  0·297

  0·209

  0·132

  Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, Spices and manufactures there of

  0·232

  0·210

  0·090

  Miscellaneous Food Preparations

  0·067

  0·029

  0·019

  Oilseeds, Oils and Fats

  0·258

  0·307

  0·173

  Beverages

  1·115

  1·653

  1·712

  Total

  15·096

  16·716

  9·758

  1January to August.

  Poland

  £ million

  1988

  1989

  11990

  Live animals chiefly for food

  0·076

  0·088

  0·096

  Meat and Meat preparations

  7·624

  7·095

  6·277

  Dairy Products and Eggs

  —

  —

  0·020

  Fish and Fish Preparations

  3·510

  2·349

  1·753

  Cereal and Cereal Preparations

  0·025

  0·019

  0·021

  Fruit and Vegetables

  6·095

  4·431

  7·041

  Sugar, Sugar Preparations and Honey

  0·992

  1·195

  1·881

  Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, Spices and manufactures there of

  0·311

  0·320

  0·511

  Miscellaneous Food Preparations

  —

  —

  0·032

  Oilseeds, Oils and Fats

  3·863

  1·889

  11·635

  Beverages

  0·317

  0·248

  0·087

  Total

  22·813

  17·634

  29·354

  1January to August.

  Czechoslovakia

  £ million

  1988

  1989

  11990

  Live animals chiefly for food

  0·054

  0·068

  0·57

  Meat and Meat preparations

  1·892

  2·300

  0·078

  Dairy Products and Eggs

  —

  0·007

  —

  Fish and Fish Preparations

  0·073

  0·005

  0·010

  Cereal and Cereal Preparations

  0·002

  —

  —

  Fruit and Vegetables

  1·045

  0·736

  0·686

  Sugar, Sugar Preparations and Honey

  0·068

  0·051

  0·063

  Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, Spices and manufactures there of

  0·222

  0·072

  0·044

  Miscellaneous Food Preparations

  —

  0·008

  —

  Oilseeds, Oils and Fats

  —

  —

  0·003

  Beverages

  0·642

  0·714

  0·021

  Total

  3·998

  3·981

  1·562

  1January to August.

  308

  GDR (former East Germany)

  £ million

  1988

  1989

  11990

  Live animals chiefly for food

  0·042

  0·21

  0·010

  Meat and Meat preparations

  —

  —

  —

  Dairy Products and Eggs

  —

  —

  —

  Fish and Fish Preparations

  —

  —

  0·055

  Cereal and Cereal Preparations

  0·011

  0·009

  0·003

  Fruit and Vegetables

  0·360

  0·286

  0·416

  Sugar, Sugar Preparations and Honey

  0·346

  0·402

  0·224

  Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, Spices and manufactures there of

  —

  —

  —

  Miscellaneous Food Preparations

  —

  —

  —

  Oilseeds, Oils and Fats

  0·004

  0·639

  0·840

  Beverages

  0·683

  0·670

  0·293

  Total

  1·446

  2·027

  1·841

  1January to August.

  Research Projects
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list any other research and development projects he is planning to cut other than those carried out under the Barnes review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The content of my Department's research and development programme is subject to continuous review and adjustment as projects are completed and new work commenced in the light of current priorities. The level of funding of research and development by my Department is substantial and is set at £121 million this year.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline his methods for deciding which research projects are categorised as near-market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  In general, projects are categorised as near-market if they offer the prospect of commercial application or exploitation whether as a product, process or system within a short enough time scale to justify investment by industry. Such near-market work is most appropriately funded by industry since it is the direct beneficiary and therefore better placed to judge priorities.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the research projects that have been closed or are due to be closed as a result of the Barnes review; if he will indicate in each case which year they are to be closed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  A comprehensive list is not available and can be produced only at disproportionate cost. The following two lists provide details of projects in the fisheries and food sectors which have been identified as near-market research for which funding by my Department has been, or is being, phased out in line with Government policy.

  List 1

  Projects for Termination in 1990

  1. Effects of Frozen Storage on quality and processing meat.

  2. Carcase characteristics that determine value.

  3. Effects of poultry breeding, husbandry, handling and processing on carcase composition and quality.

  4. Flavour of cheese, fats, oils and confectionary.

  5. Identify of flavours and taints resulting from processing, packaging and storage of cheese, fats, oils, confectionary and beverages.

  309

  6. Factors controlling meat restructuring processes.

  7. Protein solubilisation and adhesion in reformed meats.

  8. Adhesions and cohesion in meat products.

  9. Effects of breeding, husbandry and poultry plant operations on the further processing quality of turkey meat.

  10. Crystallisation behaviour of triglyceride mixtures in bulk phase and emulsion systems.

  11. Temperature and mass change in meat cooking.

  12. Electrical stimulation, hot boning and accelerated ageing.

  13. Electrical stimulation, hot boning and processing properties of beef, pork and poultry.

  14. Industrial development and technology transfer.

  15. Optimum conditions for maintaining quality in packaged fruit and vegetables.

  16. Use of microbial enzymes for the upgrading of sugar beet.

  17. Carcase composition and meat quality in cattle.

  18. Carcase composition and meat quality in sheep.

  19. Techniques for assessment of carcase composition.

  20. Effects of pre-slaughter handling practices on value of carcase and fresh meat.

  21. Microbial spoilage of packaged fish and shellfish.

  22. Innovation of fish and shellfish products and relevant process technology.

  23. Shellfish processing.

  24. Textural modification of recovered flesh.

  25. Improved chilling and handling of sea fish and farmed fish.

  26. Innovation and characterisation of added value products from industrial and waste fish resources and development of relevant new pilot plant processes or existing processes.

  27. Improvements in the efficiency of processing fish—smoking.

  28. Investigation of chemical/physical methods of reducing the rate of deterioration of bulk stored fish at sea.

  29. Assessment of the requirements for the introduction of freezing-at-sea on small fishing vessels.

  30. Study of cultured fish in relation to general quality aspects and to their suitability for processing.

  31. The efficient use of recovered fish flesh for human consumption.

  32. Applications of electronics and physical sensors in fish processing.

  33. Plant design—Development of monitoring and control systems.

  34. Refrigeration—the design and development of a mulitpass freezer.

  35. Plant design—Energy utilisation in fish processing.

  36. Plant design—A study of fundamental principles in the design and development of new smoking processes.

  37. Processing machinery—Development of a machine to produce uncoated formed fillets.

  38. Processing machinery—Separation of meat from shellfish.

  List 2

  Projects for Termination in 1991.

  1. Utilisation of proteins as functional ingredients in processed food products.

  2. Chemical composition and processing conditions on functional properties of food emulsions.

  3. Compositional factors and processing conditions of fat in food emulsions.

  4. Heat and mass transfer in meat refrigeration.

  5. Robotics in meat handling and processing.

  6. Meat process engineering.

  7. Quality control robotic vision and meat grading by video image analysis and fibre.

  8. Production of savoury flavour-enhancing peptides by enzymes.

  9. Improve yield and quality of cheese and other fermented dairy products using cultures and enzymes derived from biotechnology programmes at IFR.

  10. Packaging techniques for improved storage and display.

  11. Optimum conditions for maintaining quality in bulked storage of vegetables.

  Fish Hygiene Regulations
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of draft European Community Fish Hygiene Regulations Com (89) 645; and what steps he is proposing to take to assist fish markets to adapt to them.
  310
  Mr. Curry
  Discussions on these measures in a Council working group began in July and are continuing. Grant aid will continue to be available through a range of national and EC schemes to assist improvements in certain market and port facilities, including projects designed to raise hygiene standards.

  Intervention Stocks
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the products from intervention stores in the United Kingdom, both public and private, which have been sold to other countries outside the EC, giving the quantities and price for which they were sold.

  Mr. Gummer
  In the 12 months to 30 September the following products were released from intervention and aided private storage under export arrangements.

  Intervention

  Aided private storage

  Tonnage

  Price

  Tonnage

  Price

  £ per tonne

  £ per tonne

  Beef

  3,589

  1795–6,362

  2,712

  2—

  Barley

  36,000

  372·50

  —

  —

  1 According to cut.

  2 Not available.

  3 Average.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the quantities of(a) skimmed milk powder, (b) butter, (c) beef and (d) cereals in (i) public and (ii) private intervention in (1) the United Kingdom and (2) the EC in October 1989 and October 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is available from the monthly notes deposited in the Library of the House.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was spent on the storage of(a) skimmed milk powder, (b) butter, (c) beef and (d) cereals in public and private intervention in the United Kingdom for the periods January to September 1989 and January to September 1990.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is as follows:

  January to September 1989

  January to September 1990

  £'000

  £'000

  Skimmed Milk Powder

  Public storage

  —

  8

  Aided private storage

  —

  —

  Butter

  Public storage

  757

  567

  Aided private storage

  1,601

  836

  Beef

  Public storage

  2,316

  1,287

  Aided private storage

  1,636

  1,657

  Cereals

  Public storage

  16,491

  7,112

  Aided private storage

  —

  —

  Animal Feedstuff's
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the measures that cover the quality and content of animal feedstuffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The quality and content of animal feedingstuffs is controlled by wide-ranging EC legislation and implemented by United Kingdom legislation. The following is the legislation for which my department is responsible.

  Agriculture Act 1970:

  Feeding Stuffs Regulations 1988 as amended.

  Medicines Act 1968: (as amended by the Animal Health and Welfare Act 1984)

  Medicated (Medicated Animal Feeding Stuffs)

  Regulations 1989 (as amended)

  Medicines (Veterinary Drugs) (Pharmacy and Merchants' List) (No. 2) Order 1989 (as amended)

  Animal Health Act 1981:

  The Disease of Animals (Waste Food) Order 1973 (as amended)

  The Importation of Hay and Straw Order 1979

  The Importation of Processed Animal Protein Order 1981 (as amended)

  The Meat (Sterilisation and Staining) Regulations 1982 (as amended)

  The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (No. 2) Order 1988 (as amended)

  The Zoonoses Order 1989

  The Processed Animal Protein Order 1989

  There are also voluntary codes of practice in place for the control of Salmonella in animal feedingstuffs and for the use of veterinary medicated feedingstuffs.

  The metabolisable energy working party, which is sponsored by my Department, has issued guidance to farmers on energy values of ruminant feeds.

  Proposals for new regulations have been issued this week which will improve the labelling and composition requirements of animal feedingstuffs.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the location and capacity of all abattoirs in the United Kingdom, indicating those which are up to European Community standard for the slaughter of animals for export.
  312
  Mr. Maclean
  I am placing in the Library of the House a current list of abattoirs in England and Wales which identifies those which are export approved. The capacity of individual abattoirs will vary according to a variety of factors, although it is estimated that approximately 43 per cent. of British meat production is accounted for by export approved abattoirs.

  The Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland have responsibility for abattoirs in those parts of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what European Community and national assistance is available to abattoir owners to bring them up to European Community standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Grants for the improvement of facilities have been available in the past to abattoir owners to help them meet necessary standards. They remain available for investment projects which qualify for assistance under the regional selective assistance scheme or the regional enterprise grant scheme, both of which are administered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what conclusions he has reached following the review of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation which he announced on 21 June; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have considered the comments which I have received in response to my earlier announcement about the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation very carefully. I am satisfied that it would be generally beneficial to remove the present statutory restrictions on the corporation, including those on the range of financial services which it can offer. This will require legislation, which I hope to introduce at the first convenient opportunity.

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

EC Ministers Council: Consumer Affairs
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What items were discussed at the European Community Council of Ministers meeting on consumer affairs on 22nd October 1990, and what progress was made.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the draft product safety directive was the main item of discussion. Some progress was made and the directive was referred to the Committee of Permanent Representatives for further consideration. The Council adopted a decision to continue the European Home and Leisure Accident Surveillance System demonstration project for 1990 and 1991 and to provide the necessary funding. The Commission gave a short presentation of the proposed directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am glad about the decision that was taken on the European Home and Leisure Accident Surveillance System. I congratulate the Government on the support they have consistently given to this project right from the beginning. However, I hope the Minister can help the House on the matter of the draft product safety directive. As he is aware, the Council of Ministers has discussed this directive four times. What are the main areas of disagreement? Do we ourselves have any disagreement on the matter? What can the Government do to hasten matters?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the negotiations have identified the main difficulties as being the scope of the directive, its interaction with other safety directives, the additional burdens imposed on business and the handling of safety emergencies at a Community level. It must be said that although steady progress continues to be made, all of those issues remain to be resolved.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I am delighted that one of the matters on the agenda was that of consumer guarantees. That was in line with the undertaking given by the Government which is now obviously being fulfilled. Will my noble friend confirm that that is the case?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful for the commendation from my noble friend as regards the Government's achievements in this area in Brussels.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, has the Minister studied the excellent report of a House of Lords Select Committee on product safety? If he has done so, is he
1520
in agreement with its conclusions? Two of those conclusions were that secondhand goods should be included in the directive and that supply should be broadly defined to include the whole supply chain. Is the Minister in agreement with those recommendations?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, since taking up my new position as the Minister responsible for consumer affairs some 12 weeks ago, I have met with a number of consumer groups which have all drawn that point to my attention. As usual, the scrutiny committee provided the House with a full and detailed report which has been fully taken into account as the negotiations progress. We also need to consider the views expressed when the directive was debated in another place.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I hope I may ask the Minister again—I am sure he forgot these points—what steps the Government propose to take to get some movement on this whole affair. When is the date of the next Council meeting? Which countries support particular disagreements, or must it remain a collective disagreement?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I understand that the Italian presidency is talking about holding the next meeting in December. The noble Baroness will be aware that the United Kingdom is a leader in consumer advocacy. However, there are 11 other partners who must be party to any progress. Much as the United Kingdom likes to take a lead, there is no possibility of encouragement by diktat.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will those representing consumer affairs include miss Esther Rantzen?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, one of the joys of living in our country is that anyone who chooses to do so may be a representative of consumer affairs.

Algeciras/Gibraltar Ferry Service
3.6 p.m.
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present position in relation to the Algeciras to Gibraltar ferry service, following the response they have received from the director- general in the Commission responsible for transport matters, and their decision to take up the matter with the EC commissioner for transport, bearing in mind the directive establishing freedom of maritime services.
Lord Reay: My Lords, following the Commission's reply, we will continue to take all active measures open to us to bring about the introduction of the ferry service.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he say whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has yet received a legal opinion on this matter which would support its interpretation of the directive, as it is now three months since I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, on the matter?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we wrote to the European Commission on 9th February and again on 7th May asking it to examine the refusal by the Spanish Government to allow a Spanish company to operate a ferry service between Algeciras and Gibraltar. The director-general for transport in the European Commission replied to our letters on 29th May saying that the Spanish action was not in conflict with the guarantees on the freedom of maritime transport provided by European Community Regulation No. 4055/66 and that therefore there were no grounds for seeking an explanation from the Spaniards. We are disappointed and surprised by the views of the director-general and we are considering what further steps we should take.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the real answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, is closely linked to the question of the airport? If Gibraltar were seen to be moving more towards sharing the airport with the Spaniards, there would perhaps be movement as regards the ferry service too. Are not the two matters connected?
Lord Reay: My Lords, they are connected in the sense that they constitute agreements which were reached at the same time under the Brussels process. However, in our view one is not dependent on the other: Spain should implement the ferry agreement regardless of the attitude taken by Gibraltar towards the airport agreement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, this is an unfortunate and longstanding dispute and I am sure that the Government are doing their best to resolve it. When did British Ministers last meet Spanish Ministers to discuss this matter? As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will the Minister say whether the attitude of the Government of Gibraltar towards the airport remains the same?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot, I am afraid, give a date as regards the last occasion on which we raised this matter with Spain. However, we have done so on a number of occasions and we shall continue to do so. There is no sign that Gibraltar has yet changed its mind on the airport issue, but we take every opportunity to ask it to do so, and most recently did so during the visit of my honourable friend in September.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, what justification do the Spanish Government give for their refusal to allow this service to be reconstituted? The service dates back many years. Is this part of the futile Spanish attempt to grab Gibraltar?
Lord Reay: My Lords, Spain has said that it turns down the application to operate the ferry service for international policy reasons. We understand that this may be because Gibraltar has declined to implement the airport agreement which was reached at the same time as the ferry agreement on 2nd December 1987.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, if I missed my noble friend's first reply, I apologise, but can he say when Her Majesty's Government will write to the EC commissioner for Transport?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are considering what further action we should take in the light of the Commission's letter. There are several options, one of which is the option mentioned by my noble friend.

Gibraltar: Air Routes
3.10 p.m.
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What justification there is for the suspension of the application of the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2343/90 on access for air carriers to scheduled intra-Community air service routes to Gibraltar compared with the temporary exemptions applicable to the Greek islands, the autonomous region of the Azores and the airport of Porto.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the cases are not comparable. The application of the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2343/90 to Gibraltar is suspended until there is agreement on the use of the airport by all the parties concerned. The temporary exemptions for the Greek islands and the Azores are to allow the development of their air traffic control systems. Porto is exempt until the end of 1992 to allow time for the infrastructure of its airport to be expanded.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his not unexpected reply. Will he bear in mind the action brought on 28th September 1989 by the Government of Gibraltar against the Council of the European Communities? Will he also bear in mind that the infrastructure—the air terminal—at Gibraltar airport has been expanded and that the regulation states that,
"provision should be made to prevent unjustifiable economic effects on air carriers"
and that the derogation only affects the regional airport of Gibraltar? Should it not therefore be rescinded on grounds of discrimination and the fact that it runs counter to the welfare of the Gibraltar economy?
Lord Reay: My Lords, Article 1(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2343/90 makes it clear that the application of the provisions of the regulation to Gibraltar shall be suspended until the arrangements in the declaration made by the foreign ministers of the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom on 2nd December 1987 have come into operation. The Gibraltar Government have only to implement the airport agreement and the suspension will be lifted immediately.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, has the action taken by Gibraltar against the EC Council which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, been settled? What is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards that action? Do they support it?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I understand that Gibraltar has challenged in the European Court of Justice its exclusion under the regulation. We regret that it should have done so. The United Kingdom is a party to the European Community decision and supports it.

1523
The Government consider that it is in Gibraltar's best interests that the airport agreement should be implemented. Further, I understand that the European Court of Justice has yet to decide whether the application is admissible.

NHS: Numbers Awaiting Surgery
3.13 p. m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many patients were awaiting operations in NHS hospitals in March 1990 and in September 1989.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness.Hooper): My Lords, figures published yesterday which relate to all hospital admissions and not just to operations show that 710,300 patients were awaiting admission as inpatients and 202,500 as day cases in England at 31st March 1990. The equivalent figures for September 1989 were 698,600 and 182,300. However, the number of patients waiting for more than 12 months has been reduced significantly.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not deplorable that after this Government have been in power for 11 years hospital waiting lists are at their highest since the National Health Service was created, following the biggest six-month jump since the last general election? To what extent is that due to the massive bed closures —mostly temporary—due to the shattering effect of high inflation rates? Why does the noble Baroness refuse to answer questions that I put down asking for information about temporary bed closures in the London area?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I was not aware that I was refusing to answer any of the noble Lord's questions. I am always delighted to try to answer his questions.
To answer the main thrust of the noble Lord's supplementary question, it is not the total number of patients on the waiting list which is the main issue. The National Health Service treats more and more patients and, therefore, inevitably the total number of patients who go on waiting lists before admission will also rise. What matters is the time the individual patient has to wait. Half the total admissions to hospital are immediate, let us not forget, and half of those admitted from waiting lists are admitted within five weeks.
However, having said that, we recognise that patients in some districts have to wait too long for treatment. That is why we introduced the waiting-list initiative in 1986 and that is why the National Health Service Management Executive is now agreeing tough targets for reducing waiting time in each of the 14 regional health authorities.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, what percentage of admissions are for serious operations and what percentage are for minor operations? Secondly, is there any hope of speeding up the arrangements for people to be operated on on the day of admission and discharged the same day?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, not only is there hope but there has been an enormous increase in day care cases. The numbers are currently 11 per cent. higher than in September 1989 and are considerably higher than when we came into office in 1979. That is due in part to new techniques and new technology. So far as concerns the specific information which the noble Lord requested, we shall shortly be publishing a book of waiting-list information by district and specialty. The details of the different types of cases on waiting lists may be of interest to the noble Lord.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that as well as considering the numbers on waiting lists it is important to consider the number of operations which are carried out? Can she give any figures as to the increase in the number of operations, since the two are closely related?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend has made an important point. What matters is, indeed, the increase in the number of patients being treated. In 1988–89 approximately 6.6 million in-patients were treated, which is 22 per cent. more than in 1979. As I have already said, the number of day cases has increased by 72 per cent. over the same period. I believe that those figures represent real advances in all forms of care.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Underhill were here he would have referred to his own experience. He is, alas, away ill. Appointments at the Westminster Hospital have frequently been postponed because the hospital has been forced to close 64 beds to meet Department of Health requirements. Has the Minister seen the letter that was sent to my noble friend Lord Underhill which states that the hospital has no option but to reduce further the number of staff and out-patient clinics? Has she also seen in that letter that because of similar financial pressures the majority of London hospitals are now in the same position? Does the Minister agree that waiting lists have lengthened as wards have been closed, and would she care to explain to waiting patients, many in pain, why their suffering should be necessary?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have not had the pleasure of seeing the letter to which the noble Baroness referred. Extra money has gone into the health service since this Government came into office in considerable amounts. We have recognised that there is a problem regarding waiting lists and a need for a review. That review has led to the reforms with which many of your Lordships will be familiar. The National Health Service reforms put issues of quality such as waiting lists at the top of the management agenda and provide incentives for improving them.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in one of the health authorities in the North the waiting list for serious operations is nil and that in the neighbouring authority the waiting list is at its lowest for four years? Is she aware that most of those waiting are, for example, women waiting for sterilisation for whom other options are available?

1525
Furthermore, is she aware that day facilities for operations are under-used and the waiting-list initiative has been very much appreciated?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out that the waiting-list initiative has been very much appreciated. Indeed, it has had considerable success. One specific region, the Mersey region, has been particularly successful in reducing its longest wait patients. It is the first region to have no patient waiting longer than two years on a waiting list. It is our aim by March 1992 to have no one anywhere waiting for over two years. However, the Mersey success shows what can be achieved through good management. We congratulate the chairman and officers of the regional health authority and those responsible for the other health authorities who are having considerable success in this field.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that it is the Government's intention to continue the waiting-list initiative, that is to say, to direct earmarked funds at this specific problem; and will there be another tranche?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, we plan to continue the waiting-list initiative and health authorities that have already used the waiting-list fund to experiment with a variety of initiatives will continue. The reforms that we are introducing through the National Health Service and Community Care Act will allow further developments along those lines to enable waiting-list patients to be treated more quickly.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the noble Baroness know how many acute surgical beds are being blocked by disabled people who may, for example, have had an amputation or have a broken back and have to use a wheelchair and who must remain blocking those acute beds because there is no suitable housing for them to which they can be discharged?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I do not have any figures or information on that point but if the noble Baroness wishes to pursue the matter I shall be very happy to answer her on another occasion should she choose to table a Question.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the widespread closure of beds in hospitals throughout the country is one of the main factors in the situation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the reasons for the National Health Service reforms to which I referred are to improve the efficiency of the service and to ensure that quality issues such as waiting lists are at the top of the agenda.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am one of the no doubt many recipients of the letter from the Westminster Hospital to which reference was made and which the Minister said had not been brought to her attention. Perhaps she would be good enough to let me know whether she has any difficulty in seeing the letter, in which case I can show her a copy. Rather more seriously, with regard to the information that she said
1526
was being prepared by the Government, does she agree that one of the elements of a waiting list in which everybody is interested is the period of waiting as well as the seriousness of the operation? Will she use her best offices to ensure that something relevant, such as a weighted average, could be statistically produced so as to give people a quick view of how the totality of waiting varies from period to period?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind offer to produce a copy of the letter referred to. I agree with him on the importance of the waiting time as opposed to the total numbers on the waiting list. I shall look into the question of how the statistics are presented in the future.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that our concern about the length of waiting lists is largely because of the anxiety which it causes the patients who have to wait? Not many people like having to go into hospital and the longer one has to wait the worse the anxiety becomes. Would she examine whether anything can be done about the supporting services—for example, X-ray and physiotherapy—for which there are now long waiting lists and where practitioners are having to work with outdated equipment because there has not been the capital expenditure to bring it up to date?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said earlier, one of the reasons why waiting lists are longer is that more people than ever before are being treated. Inevitably the waiting lists have responded to that situation. I take this opportunity to mention, in response to the noble Countess, that the figures which have been quoted for total numbers include a number of self-deferred people —that is to say, people who simply do not turn up for their appointments—and day cases for which statistics were not collected before 1987. In a sense that distorts the total figures.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, would the Minister—
Lord Denham: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. There is no right of any noble Lord to have a final word on his own Question. If the noble Lords who ask Questions want to ask further supplementary questions, perhaps they could do so a little earlier. We have now taken 11 minutes on this Question, having got through the first three Questions in 12 minutes. If the noble Lord wishes to ask his question, I shall of course give way but after that and after my noble friend has answered, perhaps we can move on.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the very courteous way in which he dealt with the matter. The Minister referred to the fact that it was not a question of numbers. Does she agree that if one happened to be among the nearly 1 million people waiting for an operation one would feel that the question of numbers had some importance? Secondly, she said that she did not know that she was not giving me the information for which I had been asking. She gave me a reply on 23rd October when I asked about the number of temporary bed closures in Greater London during 1990. She said that the information was not available centrally. It must be

1527
available. Will the Minister confirm that it is quite extraordinary that it should not be available? Finally—
Lord Denham: My Lords, that would make three questions.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's earlier courtesy, I shall show him the same consideration.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I consider that the noble Lord has received a reply from me to his question. The fact that we do not have the information available must be the most appropriate reply in the circumstances. With regard to his other point, of course it is important to the person on the waiting list at what time he has his operation. It is also very important to all those other people who have received treatment over the past years as a result of the increased activity and the increasing numbers of people being treated.

Business
3.27 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, Parliament will be prorogued on Thursday 1st November.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the Consideration of Commons Amendments to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill may be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about an hour. In that event the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1990, the European Commission and Court of Human Rights (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1990, the Crown Agents (Additional Powers) Order 1990 and the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1990 will be taken in that break.

Avon Light Rail Transit (Bristol City Centre) Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I am afraid that I have to bother the House with a few more carry-over Motions for Private Bills. The first concerns the Avon Light Rail Transit (Bristol City Centre) Bill, which is a House of Lords Bill waiting to go before a Select Committee. I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, 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;
1528
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House 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 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;
That any petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session shall stand referred to the Select Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no petitioners shall be heard before the Select 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 109 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 110 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 109" were omitted.— (The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons requesting their concurrence therewith.

London Local Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, this Bill has completed its Committee stage and is awaiting Third Reading in this House. I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, that the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, 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 such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to

1529
every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged 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 requesting their concurrence therewith.

Shard Bridge Bill

  Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, these two Bills have only just arrived from another place. I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the promoters of the Bills have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bills, 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 any of the Bills are brought from the Commons in the next Session, the agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments 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 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;
  That any petitions relating to such Bills presented in the present Session shall stand referred to the Committees on the Bills in the next Session; and that the last day for the deposit of a petition against such Bills shall be the day following the day on which the Bills are brought from the Commons.—(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.

Clyde Port Authority Bill
Dormant accounts of charities in banks etc
—(1) The Secretary of State may appoint a person to be the Scottish charities nominee (in this section referred to as "the nominee") who shall have the functions conferred by this section.
(2) Where the nominee receives from a relevant institution the following information—

(a) that every account held by the institution in the name of or on behalf of a named body is dormant; and

(b) the amount of the balance standing to the credit of the body in each such account,

and he is satisfied that the body is a recognised body, subsection (3) or, as the case may be, subsection (5) below shall apply as regards the body and such accounts.
(3) Where the aggregate amount standing to the credit of the body in such accounts as are mentioned in subsection (2) above does not exceed £5,000, unless it appears to the nominee—

(a) that a person is concerned in the management or control of the body; or

1554

(b) that there are circumstances relating to the body which would make it inappropriate to do so,

he shall transfer the balance standing to the credit of the body in such accounts to such other recognised body as he may determine, having regard to the purposes of the body in whose name or on whose behalf the accounts are held and those of the body to which it is proposed to transfer the funds; and the body to which the funds are transferred under this subsection or subsection (4) below shall be entitled to apply such funds for its purposes as it thinks fit.
(4) Where, in the case of a body to which subsection (3) above applies, the nominee is unable to ascertain the purposes of the body in whose name or on whose behalf such accounts are held, he shall transfer the balance standing in the name of the body concerned to such other recognised body as appears to him expedient.
(5) Where the aggregate amount standing to the credit of the body in such accounts as are mentioned in subsection (2) above exceeds £5,000 or in any case to which paragraphs (a) or (b) of subsection (3) above applies, the nominee shall advise the Lord Advocate of the information received by him in respect of the body and of any other matter which appears to him to be relevant in the circumstances.
(6) Where the Lord Advocate receives information in pursuance of subsection (5) above he shall inform the nominee—

(a) in the case of a body which is a trust, whether he intends to exercise his power under section 11(2) of this Act to appoint new trustees to the body; or

(b) in any case, if he intends to apply to the Court of Session for the appointment of an interim judicial factor under section 6(4) (c) of this Act,

but if the Lord Advocate informs the nominee that he does not intend to proceed under either paragraph (a) or (b) above, subsection (3) above shall apply as regards the body and such accounts as are mentioned in subsection (2) above as if the aggregate amount of the balance referred to in subsection (3) did not exceed £5,000 and neither paragraph (a) nor (b) of that subsection applied.
(7) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment or rule of law to the contrary, the nominee shall, by virtue of this subsection, have the right to effect any transaction (including a transaction closing the account) in relation to any account to which subsection (3) above applies; and the receipt of the nominee in respect of any funds withdrawn or transferred from an account by virtue of this subsection shall, as regards the interest of the nominee in respect of such funds, be a full and valid discharge to the relevant institution holding the account.
(8) No liability (other than liability for a criminal offence) shall attach to the nominee in consequence of any act or omission of his in the performance of his functions under this section.
(9) The power of the nominee to effect transactions in relation to the accounts of a body shall cease to have effect—

(a) when the Lord Advocate notifies him of his intention to proceed under subsection (6) above;

(b) if the relevant institution by which the accounts are held notifies the nominee that the accounts held by or on behalf of the body are no longer dormant; or

(c) where the nominee becomes aware of the identity of a person concerned in the management or control of the body, when he informs the institution of that fact,

and in any case to which paragraph (c) above applies, the nominee shall also inform the Lord Advocate of that fact.
(10) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made under this section—

(a) make provision as to the procedure to be followed by the nominee in exercising his powers under this section;

(b) require the nominee to make to the Secretary of State an annual report as regards the exercise of his functions and such regulations may specify the form and content of such report; and the Secretary of State shall lay a copy of such report before each House of Parliament;

1555

(c) prescribe the circumstances in which and the extent to which the nominee may apply any interest accruing to any account as regards which subsection (3) above applies during any period for which he is entitled to effect transactions in respect of the account for the purpose of defraying his expenses in connection with the exercise of his functions under this section;

(d) require the nominee to keep accounts as regards his outlays and expenses in connection with the exercise of his functions under this section; and

(11) Where every account held by or on behalf of a body which appears to a relevant institution to be a recognised body is a dormant account, no obligation of confidentiality or requirement of secrecy (whether imposed by any enactment or rule of law or otherwise) shall prevent the institution from supplying to the nominee information such as is mentioned in subsection (12) below.
(12) Information referred to in subsection (11) above is information relating to any account such as is mentioned in that subsection which consists of any of the following:—

(a) the amount of the balance of the account as at the date the information is supplied;

(b) the last date on which a transaction (other than a transaction consisting only of the accrual of interest to the account) was effected in relation to the account;

(c) so far as is known to the institution, the terms of the trust deed or other document constituting the body or any information as to the nature of the purposes of the body.

(13) For the purpose of this section—

(a) a "relevant institution" is—

(i) an institution which is authorised by the Bank of England to operate a deposit-taking business under Part 1 of the Banking Act 1987;

(ii) a building society which is authorised by the Building Societies Commission under section 9 of the Building Societies Act 1986 to raise money from its members;

(iii) such other institution mentioned in Schedule 2 to the Banking Act 1987 as the Secretary of State may, by regulations made under this section, prescribe;

(b) an account is dormant if—

(i) in the period of ten years preceding the date on which the institution reviews the account, no transaction (other than a transaction consisting only of the accrual of interest to the account) has taken place in respect of the account; and

(ii) the institution has no knowledge of the identity of any person concerned in the management or control of the body in whose name or on whose behalf the account is held.'.

4.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clyde Port Authority Bill

  Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, these are two Bills that are both waiting to go before a Select Committee. The effect of the Motion is to carry over petitions that have already been deposited against them. I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That any petitions relating to the Bills presented in the present Session shall stand referred to the Select Committees on the Bills in the next Session;
  That no petitioners shall be heard before the Select Committees on the Bills, unless their petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 109 relating to Private Business;
  That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 110 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 109" were omitted.—(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.

  Zetland Masonic Sick and Widows and Orphans Fund Order Confirmation Bill
  Considered on Report
  City of Dundee District Council Order Confirmation Bill
  Considered on Report.

  Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before we move to the consideration of the Commons amendments, perhaps I may lodge a final protest about the form of this very important Bill in relation to the affairs of Scotland. It does not relate only to legal affairs. At the outset of consideration of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill

  1531
  noble Lords on this side of the House made the observation that the format, not necessarily the content, of the Bill was an insult to Scotland. I do not withdraw one word that was said on that occasion. The forebodings as to the progress of the Bill have proved to be more than true.
  In another place the legislation has been treated with all the hallmarks of an auction in the market-place where the Government were torpedoed by their own mutinous crew. I shall not go through the additions to and subtractions from the Bill. That will become self-evident in the course of consideration of the many amendments now before your Lordships' House. We suspected, and still suspect, that certain elements in the Bill were conceived in an unholy alliance between the DTI and the Government, producing an embryo which kept changing its shape. Of course embryos do that, but not in the way that this Bill hay changed. We now see the final baby being produced today. Whether the child will ever find legitimacy in Scotland is another issue.
  I find it galling that much of the valuable work undertaken by Members on all sides of the House has been absolutely wasted and has gone down the drain in another place during what was a complete political fiasco. We are now faced with a very much altered piece of legislation—some of which had been valiantly defended by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—with clauses dropped and other clauses added, albeit to meet some of the points raised in both Houses.
  A protest has been made in another place about the way the Bill was dealt with. Amendments received on a Saturday had to be dealt with the following week by Members in another place. There was no time to give proper consideration to important matters. I do not make a nationalistic point. However, with regard to the Bill and the way in which amendments have been placed before the other place and this House, it appears that Scotland is being treated as a second class nation where the legislation does not matter very much.
  The House is now faced at short notice with 278 amendments —albeit some are technical and formal, but others are major and substantive—being presented in the closing days of this Session of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was kind enough to send me a copy of the Notes on Clauses. It landed on my desk yesterday afternoon. I do not know how on earth I am supposed to go through that and assimilate it. To be honest, I have not tried, but we shall see what emerges during consideration of the Bill.
  I make these remarks because I believe it is important that the House should add its protest with regard to the Bill and having regard to the protest made by my noble friend Lord Mishcon in relation to the progress of the Courts and Legal Services Bill in your Lordships' House yesterday. Noble Lords on this side of the House could submit that all that can be said about the Bill has been said at other stages. We do not
  1532
  propose to take that negative attitude. We shall continue to try to make constructive observations on the progress of the Bill.
  Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly intervene at this stage. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate may remember that at a late stage of the Bill's passage through this House I had the temerity to move an amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie. The Government were good enough to indicate that it would be their pleasure to bring it in in another place. However, on reading the proceedings of another place I understand that it elicited a considerable amount of what I can only describe as ribald comment. No doubt Members in another place had considerable fun.
  However, what is the Government's intention now on the licensing laws with regard to the matter that I raised?
  Lord McCluskey: My Lords, perhaps I may express my dismay at the situation which the House faces today. The original Bill was introduced into this House on 19th December 1989. It consisted of 49 clauses and six schedules. It extended to 76 pages. When it left this House it consisted of 64 clauses (compared with 49), seven schedules (an addition of one) and 105 pages. It returns in that form and with 52 pages consisting of 278 amendments, including 18 new clauses and two new schedules. Eight clauses which were originally in the Bill and were fully discussed in this House are to be dropped without a word of explanation. Many of those clauses contain useful miscellaneous provisions about law reform which enjoyed a certain amount of support in this Chamber and elsewhere.
  However, the constitutional reforms contained mainly in Part II of the Bill and those that impinge upon the Act of Union of 1707 have survived but in a form that, alas, makes them extremely difficult to understand. It is clear that they are still badly thought out, obnoxious and unsupported by any significant body of informed opinion. The Bill will end up with 74 clauses and nine schedules. I suppose that we should congratulate the Government upon achieving growth in at least one area of activity. It is no way to treat the House. It is no way to treat the legal profession and the judiciary. In my judgment it is no way to treat the law and the courts.
  Yesterday when similar protests were made by various noble Lords about the Courts and Legal Services Bill the Leader of the House—I am happy to see him in his place— said at the end of those protests:
  "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 Lordship's House, my noble and learned friend [the Lord Chancellor] characteristically sent out a massive briefing on a personal basis to all noble Lords who have been involved in the Bill". [official Report, 24/10/90; col. 1340.]
  First, the Scottish Bill did not leave the Commons at the end of July. It left the Commons at 6.49 p.m. last Wednesday, less than eight days ago. The amendments were ordered to be printed on 18th October;

  1533
  that is last Thursday. They first became available to me and to others this week. Secondly, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or another Minister in charge of the Bill, did not see fit to send any briefing material on a personal or other basis to any noble Lords who have been involved with the Bill. In particular, I have not even had the pleasure of seeing the Notes on Clauses to which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, referred.
  That is one aspect of the matter. The Bill was mutilated in the Commons because the Government's supporters in the Commons Committee were revolting. I should not like noble Lords to misunderstand what I just said. I mean that they possibly revolted against what the Bill contained. The timetable was threatened. It was widely reported in the Scottish media and newspapers that your Lordships had delayed the Bill while it was in this House. Prima facie that seemed to be so, because the Bill came to this House on 9th December 1989 and did not leave it until the end of May 1990. It looked as though we had indeed wasted time.
  However, the true timetable is this. The Bill had its First Reading on 19th December; it had its Second Reading six weeks later on 30th January; it had its first Committee day seven weeks after that on 20th March. It had four days in Committee within a fortnight. Inexplicably there was then a delay of one month before the final Committee day. The Bill then went to Report on 15th May and Third Reading on 24th May. The delay must be laid at the door of the Government and not at the door of your Lordships' House. We were not responsible for the delays; the Government chose the timetable. I hope that today the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will acknowledge that in view of all the spurious information that has reached the press, although from whatever source I know not.
  I do not wish to speak in detail about the amendments to which I shall turn in a moment. When the Bill was before this House in Committee and on Report we considered about 700 amendments. We must now consider a further 278 amendments. The Bill will emerge as historical and unique. It is the most amended Bill in the history of legislation in Scotland. As a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill it should contain non-contentious matters.
  I believe that I know why this state of affairs has come about. The draftsmen in the Lord Advocate's office received their instructions less than three weeks before the Bill was published. They were required to produce a Bill dealing with six or seven aspects, including constitutional matters, so naturally they made a rushed and botched job. As the Bill progressed through this House we saw that it was rushed and botched. That is why there were hundreds of amendments in Committee and why we now face a further 278 amendments. The Bill now before us is not recognisable when compared with the Bill which came before this House in December 1989.
  1534
  I am happy to see the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his place. His report dealt with matters upon which I am now impinging. However, this is no way in which to frame legislation applicable to the law in Scotland; it is no way to treat this House; and it is no way to treat the courts, the judiciary and the legal profession in Scotland.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, before turning to the amendments which are most anxiously awaited I shall respond briefly to what has been said. It needs to be recalled that in another place the Bill was given unopposed Second and Third Readings. Approximately 80 hours were taken in Committee in another place scrutinising the Bill. In such circumstances the complaint that it has been too briefly considered is unwarranted.
  I must point out to the noble and learned Lord that the reason for one delay in Committee was that he and other noble Lords were to speak at a conference of the Law Society of Scotland at Gleneagles. While the Government and I understood that the rest of the House was prepared to deal with the Bill in Committee, a request was made and a day in Committee was lost. It is not fair for the noble and learned Lord to indicate that delays were caused only by the arrangements of the Government Front Bench—
  Lord McCluskey: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the first Committee day was postponed by 48 hours in response to a request by the Law Society of Scotland?
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord indicated that delays arose only from this side of the House. I and everyone else was prepared to go ahead. However, the request was made and it was acceded to. It is ungracious to indicate that all the delay was caused by this side of the House when the postponement of one day in Committee was intended to assist the noble and learned Lord and the Law Society of Scotland.
  Let me say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tordoff—no, he is not learned and he is "un-Scottish", as appeared from the problems that he encountered when his amendment was considered in another place—that I regret that what appeared to be an entirely reasonable proposal met with the greatest of hostility, which indicated that the noble Lord ought to go for a common riding in the Borders in order to understand the difficulties. There was such united opposition and hostility from Members, including some Members of his party, which may be startling to the noble Lord, that the better approach was taken. It was decided to leave the matter aside for the time being. Clearly, the noble Lord will appreciate that there remain some issues relating to licensing in Scotland which must be reviewed at a future date.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  3.45 p.m.

  AMENDMENTS AND MOTIONS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [References are to Bill 153 as first printed for the Commons.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  1 Clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave out from 'body' to end of line 12 and insert 'such as is mentioned in subsection (1A) below;'.
  2 Page 2, line 16, at end insert:
  '(lA) A recognised body referred to in subsection (1)(a) above is a body—

  (a) which appears to the Commissioners to be or to have been carrying on activities which are not charitable or to be or to have been applying any of its funds for purposes which are not charitable;

  (b) which is certified by the Lord Advocate as being a body in respect of which information has been provided to the Scottish charities nominee by a relevant institution in pursuance of section [Dormant accounts of charities in banks etc.] of this Act.'.

  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 39. The new clause was introduced in response to an amendment tabled in another place to require banks to identify accounts of recognised bodies which had lain unused and to require the Inland Revenue to list such bodies. The object was to allow moribund charitable funds to be brought back into use. This principle was warmly supported and the Government undertook to explore with the banks how such monies might be brought back into charitable use.
  The Committee of Scottish Clearing Bankers and the Building Societies Association were co-operative in exploring how moribund charitable funds might be brough into use. The clause removes any duty of confidentiality from the relevant institution in respect of dormant accounts and enables them to inform an authorised person—the Scottish Charities nominee —of such accounts. They will pass to the nominee details of the account holders' funds and information as to the founding document. The nominee is to be satisfied that the account holders are recognised bodies. He will be concerned only with those that are recognised bodies. The nominee will have a right to effect transactions in respect of accounts.
  Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are consequential. They enable the Inland Revenue to pass to me details about moribund charities whose accounts have been dormant and have been referred to me in the first instance by the Scottish Charities nominee. In some such cases the Inland Revenue might be the only body to have details of the trust deed of such a body. Without this provision it would be unable to provide me wit h the necessary information.
  Given the assurances and co-operation of the relevant institutions I am confident that this new provision will prove a very worthwhile innovation in ensuring that good use is made of charitable funds.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. I and 2.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, on the face of it the idea included in Amendment No. 39 is good. However, it illustrates the point to which my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey has already referred. It is quite ridiculous that a new idea which has never been considered for English law should suddenly be introduced into a Bill. Although the principle was discussed in Committee in another place it was introduced only last Tuesday in an amendment.
  Amendment No. 39 runs to almost three pages of closely-typed print. The way that the matter has been put forward makes it impossible for this House to give it detailed consideration. However much we might approve of the principle of the new idea it is iniquitous to be asked suddenly to agree someone's drafting without any real consideration of all the various issues that may be concerned. While I wholly approve of what has happened it illustrates the fact that all the provisions in the Bill relating to charities were rushed through without adequate consideration or consultation with those in Scotland involved with charities. That was done merely because for one reason or another the Government decided that charities should be included in a miscellaneous provisions Bill. It is wholly inappropriate. However, the principle is good and we must see whether the Government's drafting works.
  Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I join the debate on the general matter of principle. One of the main justifications for the continued existence of this House is that it performs a revising function. People who are experts and impartial and do not have to be looking over their shoulders at their constituency interests are able to bring an impartial critique to hear on the provisions of the Bill,
  This is a prime example, but there are dozens of others in these Commons amendments where this House cannot perform its revising function in any sensible way at all. We were told before the start of the proceedings on this Bill that it is intended that Parliament should prorogue a week today. There is no possibility of discussing this massive amendment to the Bill in any sensible way in this House. That will be true not just of these provisions but of a great many others.
  I have a great deal of confidence in the draftsmen in the Lord Advocate's office, with whom I have had the privilege of working in the past. However, draftsmen can and do make mistakes and this Bill has seen many such mistakes. Bills like this need the critical examination of your Lordships and that cannot be given to a Bill brought before us in this particular form with entirely new provisions of this character.
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I have always been a firm believer in the adage that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I must commend these amendments. They seem to add an important and sensible new provision to this part of the Bill.
  I should like to make one remark which affects the whole of this part of the Bill. In Part I we are making very important changes to charity law in Scotland. We have always recognised that in this House. They will

  1537
  involve new duties and obligations upon trusts and trustees. I am aware that, if the Bill becomes law, the provisions in this part of the Bill will not be brought into effect until such time as the Secretary of State, by order, determines. However, I urge the Government to allow proper time for trustees to understand what are the implications of this Bill and these provisions as regards technicalities and also to allow guidance to be issued in order that, when this part becomes law, those who must deal with charities will be fully aware of what is involved.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I add my welcome to this new provision. I agree with what has been said by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Cameron, Lord Morton and Lord McCluskey. It is a large clause with great implications. However, it is an imaginative step which could lead to the uncovering of much money in the bank vaults of Scotland which is presently being lost to charities. Within a short time now, that could be rechannelled and put to positive use in the community.
  One matter has been drawn to my attention as an example of why this clause requires closer attention, albeit that the principle is accepted on this side of your Lordships' House; that is, as far as I have been able to ascertain in the short time which I have had to consider the amendment, it may well be that the 20-year prescription in favour of the banks in relation to dormant charities is too long. It is not clear from the clause what will happen—and I am not saying that it will happen since the noble and learned Lord Advocate has said that he has complete co-operation from the banks and clearing houses—if there is a massive amount of charity money lying dormant to which a bank has acquired a legal right by the exercise of the prescription. What is to happen to that if the institution is required under this clause to hand over to the Scottish charities' nominee the fund lying in its vaults and the bank says, to put it colloquially, "You're not on. This is ours"?
  What power exists in the clause as it stands for the nominee to take action against the bank if the bank does not choose to co-operate with the nominee? One would presume that a bank would not lay claim to a charitable fund, but we are living in very commercial times. Perhaps 30 years ago a bank would not have done that but it cannot be said that the banks can be trusted not to do so nowadays.
  Clause 10 states:
  "The Secretary of State may, by regulations made under this section—(a) make provision as to the procedure to be followed by the nominee in exercising his powers under this section".
  His powers under "this section" are spelled out in the previous subsections and nowhere there can I see any right for the nominee to take action in any court, whether it be the sheriff court or the Court of Session, to recover any funds to which he decides he has the right in terms of this clause, if it is enacted.
  I suggest also—and perhaps the Government might consider this—that a period of 10 years is reasonable. It may be better to shorten that because, if I am
  1538
  correct—and I do not say that I am correct about the running of the prescription against the charity fund —at this moment that prescriptive right might be running in favour of the banks. Has the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate any information or estimate at this stage as to how much money might be recovered by the exercise of this admirable clause now proposed for insertion into the Bill?
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, although there has been complaint about the time at which this measure has come before the House, I am grateful that such a broad welcome has been given to the proposal.
  I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that there is no provision within this proposal which would affect the law of prescription. I must say that the situation is not entirely clear when one looks at deposit or current accounts. However, it is no part of this provision to change that law.
  I should emphasise, as I did in opening, that every indication which we have had from the banks and clearing institutions in Scotland is that far from trying to get their own sticky little paws on to these funds, they are extremely anxious to do what they can to ensure that the funds are properly applied. They welcome the opportunity now being given to them to be released from the duty of confidentiality which they might otherwise have.
  I should say also that it is not yet known how many accounts might be uncovered. However, I am certainly aware on an anecdotal basis that in banks and branches all over Scotland managers and solicitors have accounts in the name of charities where little or nothing is being done. I am fairly confident that this new clause and its accompanying consequentials will prove to be very valuable.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  3 Page 2, line 36, leave out 'trust deed or other' and insert 'explanatory'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. This is a drafting amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  4. Page 3, line 4, leave out 'conclusive' and insert 'sufficient'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. Clause 1(7) makes provision that, for the purposes of any proceedings under Part I of the Bill, a certificate by a person authorised to do so by the commissioners of Inland Revenue shall be conclusive evidence of that fact that the revenue have recognised the body as a charity. The Government accepted a suggestion in another place that the word "sufficient" would be preferable. "Conclusive" was thought to be final; "sufficient" would permit the test of sufficiency which would be consistent with other legislation, hence this amendment.

  1539
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  5 Clause 2, page 3, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
  `(2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, any body which is not—

  (a) a recognised body; or

  (b) a body which is—

  (i) registered as a charity in England and Wales under section 4 of the Charities Act 1960; or

  (ii) a charity which is not required to register by virtue of subsection (4) of that section,

  is a non-recognised body.'.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. Clause 2(2) defines the expression "non-recognised body". The subsection was criticised in another place on the grounds that the number of negatives in the clause was confusing. The amendment is a drafting amendment which avoids the use of multiple negatives. The amendment at Clause 13 is consequential.
  Moved. That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  6 Page 3, line 27, leave out subsection (4).
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. Clause 2 deals with non-recognised bodies. Subsection (4) provided that it would be an offence for a non-recognised body to represent itself or hold itself out as a charity, and would be liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. Strong concern was expressed in another place about the possible effect on small charities. A particular concern was that such small organisations might unwittingly find themselves on the wrong side of the law by describing themselves as charities, without having obtained recognition for tax purposes from the Inland Revenue.
  Powers already exist to deal with major fraud. The Government accepted that Clause 2(4) could be deleted because the public interest would be adequately safeguarded by the interdict provisions in Clause 2(3). If a local community believed that a small charity of the type mentioned above was not using the money for the purpose stated, it could report the matter to me.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Lord Fraser of carmyllie.)
  Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and I tried unsuccessfully to get rid of this clause when it was before your Lordships at Committee. I am glad that at last wisdom has prevailed, and I welcome the amendment.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, perhaps I may add a brief welcome for this deletion. The Government are wise in recognising not only the matters raised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate but the various difficulties in interpretation contained within the clause as it existed. It is clearly an issue which may need to be faced at some future time, but this was not the way to resolve it. I am glad that the Government recognised that.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  7 After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

  Designated religious bodies
  ".—(1) The Secretary of State may from time to time, by order, designate for the purposes of this section such recognised bodies as appear to him—

  (a) to have as their principal purpose the promotion of a religious objective;

  (b) to have as their principal activity the regular holding of acts of public worship; and

  (c) to be bodies which satisfy each of the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below.

  (2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) (c) above are—

  (a) subject to subsection (4) below, that the body has been established in Scotland for not less than 10 years;

  (b) that the body can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that it has a membership of not less than 3,000 persons resident in Scotland who are 16 years of age or more; and

  (c) that the internal organisation of the body is such that one or more authorities in Scotland exercise supervisory and disciplinary functions in respect of the component elements of the body and, in particular, that there are imposed on such component elements requirements as to the keeping of accounting records and the auditing of accounts which appear to the Secretary of State to correspond to those required by sections 3 and 4 of this Act.

  (3) Where a body is, for the time being, designated under subsection (1) above the following provisions of this Part a this Act shall not apply to the body nor to any component or structural element of the body which is, itself, a recognised body—

  section 1(5);

  section 3;

  section 4, other than subsections (6) to (8) and subsection (12);

  section 5(2) and (6);

  section 6; and

  section 7.

  (4) The Secretary of State may determine that the condition mentioned in subsection (2) (a) above shall not be required to be satisfied in the case of a body—

  (a) which has been created by the amalgamation of two or more bodies each of which, immediately before the amalgamation, either was designated under this section or appears to the Secretary of State to have been eligible for such designation; or

  (b) which has been constituted by persons who have removed themselves from membership of a body which, immediately before such removal, was so designated or appears to the Secretary of State to have been eligible for such designation.'.

  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.
  The new clause seeks to provide a measure of exemption from the supervisory and accounting sections of Part I for religious organisations with a substantial following in Scotland. Your Lordships will recall that this matter was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, during earlier

  1541
  proceedings in this House when I undertook to consider the matter further. This clause is the outcome of the Government's further consideration.
  Forceful representations were made to the Government that charities for the advancement of religion—Churches—are in some respects a special case. Religious freedom is of course a fundamental right of people in this country and we must be very careful that in establishing a system of supervision we do not prejudice or appear to prejudice that freedom.
  A most important consideration is that if we were to provide a blanket exemption for all bodies established for the advancement of religion many undesirable cult-like bodies would escape control. Some unscrupulous people might indeed deliberately set up charities with spurious religious purposes to escape the controls contained in the Bill. That must be avoided.
  A distinction also needs to be drawn between taking action to intervene in a Church's affairs or to enforce compliance, on the one hand; and simply including the Churches within the purview of those provisions concerned with disclosure, accounts and my right to investigate, on the other.
  A further consideration, and one which was of particular concern in another place, is that for obvious reasons we do not wish to discriminate in favour of one religion over another on grounds of religious doctrine. That is certainly no business of the state. The new clause affords religious organisations capable of meeting certain criteria the opportunity of opting out from the supervisory and investigatory functions of the Lord Advocate and the courts. It enables them to continue to prepare accounts in the manner they have in the past, provided such accounts are generally of a standard similar to those provided for in Clauses 3 and 4. It removes the possibility of sanctions being applied for non-compliance but retains a right for members of the public to seek copies of accounts and the explanatory document.
  The provisions are necessarily a compromise but I believe they strike a reasonable balance between ensuring that there is internal control within the religious body as regards discipline and requirement for production of accounts; preserving a right for the public to be informed but removing from such bodies anxiety, however misplaced that anxiety may seem, about interference by the state.
  The clause has the support of the Scottish Churches Committee, a body representing all the major Churches in Scotland, whose combined membership of people over the age of 16 amounts to an estimated 1,600,000. Despite widespread press reporting of the consideration of the former clause in another place, and having since consulted the minor Christian Churches including Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, the Society of Friends, the Salvation Army and the non-Christian religions in Scotland including the Hebrew Congregation, members of the Islamic faith and Hindu faith, and a wide variety of smaller bodies, we
  1542
  have received no representations that the provisions are unacceptable. On the other hand, we received very strong representations from the Scottish Churches Committee, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and various parish ministers that the clause should be introduced.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend how people will know when a religion has been recognised. Will that information be officially made public so that we know what is on the list and what is not?
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, this is a peculiarly worded amendment the purpose of which is perfectly clear, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate explained. We all agree that cult-like bodies —a phrase used at an earlier stage in the consideration of the Bill—should not benefit along with what may be called legitimate religious bodies. Perhaps the Lord Advocate could identify, not necessarily by name but by number and constitution, each cult-like body which exists in Scotland at the moment and which would not benefit from the clause. It is always difficult to draw a dividing line between a legitimate body and a cult-like body. A cult-like body does not necessarily become irreligious because it is a cult. It may therefore be a circular argument.
  I appreciate that the Scottish Churches Committee has not raised objection to the figure of 3,000 persons. I noted that the Lord Advocate said that the major Churches in Scotland had been consulted. Perhaps he could identify as a matter of information and record which Churches in Scotland are regarded as major and took part in the consultative process.
  The conditions laid down are that the body must be established in Scotland for not less than 10 years. That appears to be the starting point. If we take it from the time of the inception of the Bill a body would need to be in existence for 10 years. There is then a requirement for a membership of not fewer than 3,000 persons—that is, 3,000 or more—resident in Scotland who are 16 years of age. That appears to raise difficulties of interpretation and application.
  Why should a member of a perfectly legitimate Church in Scotland who is exiled in London or Manchester for example, not be counted among the membership of that Church? Why is it a necessary qualification to be counted among the 3,000 that one must be resident in Scotland? It was estimated that at one time one in every 10 persons in London was a Scot or of Scottish origin. Those people, and people in other parts of the United Kingdom, for economic and personal reasons have no choice but to live in a place outwith Scotland. It would therefore appear that the provision that the member should be resident in Scotland is onerous not only to that person and deprives him of a right under the law, but is onerous to the Church in attempting to achieve the membership of 3,000.

  1543
  The other issue worthy of consideration is the age qualification of 16 years. Why should membership be confined to persons of 16 years of age or more? Is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate suggesting that a person cannot be a Christian unless he is over 16? I am sure many young people have, to use a religious phrase, seen the light well before the age of 16. They may very well lose the light after that, but there are many young people attached to Churches who could be regarded, if not in the full sense, as part of the membership, certainly in the nominal sense of the word.
  One of the problems in that section is that the word "member" is not defined. The Lord Advocate may or may not be aware that certain Churches have members and adherents to them: adherents being persons who attend the church regularly but who have not taken part in communion. Are they to be excluded from a e category of membership and not count in the figure of 3,000 which has been set down?
  It may be that the figure will have to fluctuate as the attendance at Churches goes down. At present Church attendances are plummeting drastically and they may have to be closely monitored to ascertain whether the figure of 3,000 is reasonable bearing in mind that Church membership, in the broad sense of the word, can fall one way or another, perhaps by division within the Church or otherwise.
  It is well known that in certain Churches young people take communion as early as the age of eight. Are those young people who have entered into a Christian commitment within a Church at the age of eight to be included within the membership of the Church or are they and their Church to be excluded from the benefits of the new clause? I do not raise these issues just to be awkward. These are genuine matter; arising from the amendment, which, perhaps I may say, does its best to meet the problem that we all recognise. However, these matters are of great concern not only to the Churches themselves but to persons who regard themselves as members of a Church, whether or not they are communicants, and who by being excluded from membership may affect the right of their Church to have the benefits outlined in the new clause.
  Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, as I tabled the original amendment I welcome the present amendment so far as it goes. I am sorry that the Government have not accepted my suggestion that the easy way would be for the Secretary of State to nominate certain bodies as religious organisations because the present amendment raises complications.
  One of the reasons why this is a constitutionally important matter is the Act of Union, which no doubt my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey will refer to in another context. The Church of Scotland has a separate existence from legislation in this House and another place. By an Act of 1926 this place recognised the Church of Scotland's right to control its own discipline, and so on. Therefore, the whole business of controlling the Church of Scotland as the established Church raised all sorts of constitutional issues.
  1544
  This amendment has been agreed by the Scottish Churches Committee. From memory—subject to correction, as I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has the information—that is the Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, the Baptist Union, the Congregationalists, the Episcopal Church in Scotland and others. There is a difficulty of definition that has always existed over who is a member of a Church and how one arrives at the numbers in a Church. That is why the new clause as drafted will create more difficulties than it perhaps solves. An easier and simpler method is available to the Government.
  There is also the difficulty that subsection (3) of the new clause refers to various clauses in the Bill that do not apply. Thus we have the curious situation that, if a Church decides not to respond to a request for its explanatory document—and one can see why, if it has difficulties—or not to respond to a request for its accounts, there are no sanctions. All that happens is that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue note the fact as often as they care to do so. It seems to me that we are on a more detailed point and raising difficulties if we pass into legislation a requirement that has no sanctions if it is not met. That is a criticism of the way in which the new clause is drafted.
  I have no doubt that all the Churches will produce their accounts to anyone who wishes to see them, but one can easily foresee a body holding anti-religious feelings or one which is against one specific religion taking the view that it will make trouble by continuously writing and asking for information. There is no way to stop that and there is no way to enforce the requirement. The new clause has not been fully thought through, but so far as it goes I welcome it.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, clearly the structure of different denominations within the Christian faith and others faiths varies very widely indeed. What is considered to be full membership or what are considered to be adherents can be very different in various circumstances. We have sought to lay down a broad set of conditions which are likely to apply to most of the major denominations in Scotland. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, correctly—
  Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords—
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to finish the sentence.
  Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord completes the sentence, and in order to ensure that he does not offend others, perhaps when using the word "denominations" he will say "denominations and religions". It is important that religions other than the Christian religion should be recognised.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I thought I had made clear in my opening remarks that this is not

  1545
  a clause that relates simply to the Christian faith and denominations within it but also to Hindus, Moslems and others who are established in Scotland.
  I was about to say that all the major Churches in Scotland, and all those mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, are members of the Scottish Churches Committee and are aware of and have approved the broad set of conditions that we have indicated as being appropriate. Indeed, as I said, the Moderator of the General Assembly has given strong support for our proposals.
  To answer the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, the Secretary of State is under a duty to designate, and because of that it will be possible to know that he has designated, a particular body as falling within this new clause and it will thus be excluded.
  This is a question of seeking to achieve a balance. The Government have no inclination to involve themselves in the activities of a Church or in doctrinal matters, and so on. Nevertheless, there is a proper public interest in making sure that those who have the advantage of charitable status under our law should meet a set of conditions in regard to keeping accounts and ensuring that money contributed to them is put to proper purposes. We would be unwise to assume, particularly in Scotland, that there have not been bodies claiming to be cults or small Churches that have grossly abused the status conferred upon them by our law. I hope that the arrangements we have established, while perhaps not entirely meeting the needs of any particular Church, will broadly speaking provide a standard and uniform test.
  The age of 16 is generally agreed to be the age in Scotland at which a person knows his or her own mind. At that age they can leave school and get married. Of course some of the most important and largest of our denominations accept that a person can have a knowledge and appreciation of religious matters at an earlier age; but we consider the age of 16 to be right for this condition.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, for many years I represented in another place a constituency which was one of the melting pots for various religions; in many cases world religions, including Sikhs, Moslems, Hindus and so on. I saw such religions in the area growing from relatively small groups of under 3,000 members, but they were branches or parts of religions far bigger than the Church of Scotland and other established Christian religions in Scotland. It seems to me that they would be covered. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister can give me an assurance about that. I saw the groups building up from 40 to 50 people to fairly large congregations. However, I suspect that some of them are still not much more than about 3,000 strong. I shall be happy if the Minister can reassure me on that point for the sake of the people who will certainly be asking me about it.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I indicated that I cannot say whether any small Moslem community in the West of Scotland is already at a level
  1546
  that would meet the conditions referred to. What is important is that the new clause at subsection (2) (c) states that there should be an
  "internal organisation of the body (that) is such that one or more authorities in Scotland exercise supervisory and disciplinary functions in respect of the component elements of the body and, in particular, that there are imposed on such component elements requirements as to the keeping of accounting records and the auditing of accounts".
  It seems that whether one is Moslem, Hindu or a member of any other faith, there is no good reason why such people should not meet that requirement if they so desire.
  The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, is it intended to have an advisory committee on this matter or will it be a decision which is purely and simply for the Secretary of State? It is an extremely difficult decision to make in some circumstances. It is not necessary for it to be in this Bill, but it might be helpful to have some kind of an advisory circle.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there is no provision made for such an advisory body. In deciding whether to designate such a body as a religious one the Secretary of State would have to have regard to the statutory conditions that are set down. It would be extremely dangerous for him to have a body that might advise him to depart from such conditions set out in primary legislation. I have no doubt that with this new arrangement being introduced in Scotland the Secretary of State, the Churches and other religious organisations will wish to monitor the progress very carefully indeed.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  8 Clause 4, page 5, line 19, after 'body' insert 'which belongs to a class'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. It is purely a drafting amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  9 Page 6, line 2, leave out from second 'that' to end of line 3 and insert 'the failure has been rectified'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. This is a clarifying amendment intended to make clear the meaning of Clause 4(13). That subsection provides a sanction against bodies who have failed to prepare a statement of accounts under subsection (9) within a time limit which I will be able to stipulate, or who have failed under subsection (12) to have provided a copy of its accounts or information as to its accounting reference date to a person who requests it.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9:—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  10 Clause 5, page 6, line 44, leave out from 'it' to end of line 45.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. Clause 1(2) provides that the Inland Revenue shall include in the information it makes available to the public any matter which I have required it to note under various provisions of Part I. Clause 1(4) includes provision for such markings to be made where a body has failed to provide a copy of its explanatory document; Clause 4(8) where a body has failed to prepare annual accounts; Clause 4(12) for failure to provide copies of accounts or to inform an inquirer of its accounting reference date; and, under Clause 6(11), where penalties have been imposed by the court following mismanagement by the charity.
  In all these instances, the charity will have failed to comply with some requirement of the Bill and it seems appropriate that the public should have that information.
  Strong concern was expressed in another place that where interim measures were taken notwithstanding such a failure, it will be inappropriate to instruct the Revenue to note at that time the record until the court is satisfied that there has been misconduct or mismanagement. The Government decided on further consideration that under Clause 5(2) it would be inappropriate to instruct a marking, as a person under interim suspension may be considered at that stage as being merely under suspicion.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  11 Page 7, line 17, after 'apply' insert 'by summary application'.
  12 Page 7, line 19, after 'attend' insert 'and'.
  13 Page 7, line 27, at end insert:
  `() A person shall not be excused from answering such questions as he may be required to answer by virtue of subsection (6) above on the ground that the answer may incriminate or tend to incriminate him, but a statement made by him in answer to any such question shall not be admissible in evidence in any subsequent criminal proceedings against him, except in a prosecution for an offence under section 2 of the False Oaths (Scotland) Act 1933.'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 13. These are all essentially procedural matters under Clause 5. The first amendment is a clarifying matter which makes it clear that the application by a nominated officer to the sheriff for an order under Clause 5(6) is by summary application procedure. Amendment No. 12 is also a clarifying amendment. The third amendment, Amendment No. 13, inserts a new subsection after subsection (6). It reflects concern expressed in Committee in another place that a person required by a court order to provide answers to the nominated officer might be faced with the choice of obeying the order and incriminating himself by answering the
  1548
  questions or possibly committing an offence by refusing to make a statement and thus breaching the court order.
  It is important to bear in mind that these are civil and not criminal proceedings. They relate to the investigation of an officer appointed by me for the purposes of discovering whether there appears to have been misconduct or mismanagement of a charity's affairs. The Government recognised the concerns expressed that there should be no room for dubiety here. The amendment accordingly makes it clear that a person must answer truthfully questions put to him by the nominated officer when an order has been made under subsection (6) and that he may not refuse to answer on the grounds that his answer might incriminate him. The new provision which the amendment seeks to insert also makes clear that no answer to a question under subsection (6) may be used in any subsequent criminal proceedings against the person.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 13.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I wish to make some observations on Amendment No. 13. It appears to be a rather dangerous amendment and to make intrusions into the present law of Scotland, as I understand it. The object of Clause 5 of the Bill is clear as to the supervision of charities. Subsection (2) of that clause reads:
  "Where it appears to the Lord Advocate (a) in the case of a body referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above—(i) that there is or has been any misconduct or mismanagement in its administration".
  I pause there because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate tended to suggest that this was merely a civil matter and not a criminal one. Umpteen cases have been through the courts where what might appear primarily to be misconduct or mismanagement of a fund, has in fact turned out to be major fraud. Amendment No. 13 appears to meet an evidential difficulty. I appreciate that the reason behind the amendment is to devise a method of getting to the root of the misconduct or maladministration of the organisation.
  However, when read closely, the provision appears to be an erosion of the right to silence insofar as it applies in a criminal case. I see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate shaking his head. The difficulty with this amendment is that it ties in the civil with the criminal procedure. The amendment reads:
  "A person shall not be excused from answering such questions as he may be required to answer by virtue of subsection (6) above on the ground that the answer may incriminate or tend to incriminate him,".
  There we move immediately from the civil to the criminal field because the word "incriminate" can only have a criminal context and not a civil one. The wording of the amendment continues:
  "but a statement made by him in answer to any such question shall not be admissible in evidence in any subsequent criminal

  1549
  proceedings against him, except in a prosecution for an offence under Section 2 of the False Oaths (Scotland) Act 1933".
  The only sanction on a person who fails to comply with this provision is contained in Clause 5(7) which states:
  "A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (6)"—
  and no doubt under the provisions of the new amendment—
  "shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale".
  Therefore, the sanction for saying nothing is not very much.
  There have been cases in Scotland—indeed, there was the classic case some years ago in connection with the Post Office which I believe was Morrison v. Burrell and which, so far as I know, is the leading case—where answers given to investigators into Post Office affairs were founded upon in subsequent criminal proceedings. However, there is one difference between those proceedings; namely, that the investigating officers in Post Office and bank frauds issue a caution to the person whom they are interviewing so that he knows he has the right to remain silent. There is no mention in the amendment that any caution should be administered to a person who has been brought before the investigating officer.
  What is happening is that this very dangerous clause is giving an out to a possible crook within an organisation. For example, what is to happen if the leading administrator of a large fund is taken before the appropriate officer and this clause is read to him, so that he is told that he is not excused from answering such questions on the ground that they may incriminate him or tend to incriminate him, but he is then told that it is all right and that he can say what he likes because it cannot be founded upon in any subsequent criminal proceedings? What happens if the person who has been asked to answer the questions has been guilty, or is apparently guilty, of appropriating £1 million of funds? Does it mean that by taking advantage of this new clause he can walk away from his guilt? Further, how is guilt to be proved in the criminal court once it becomes clear that he has walked away with £1 million which may either be in his suit pocket or invested in offshore companies, and so on?
  If in subsequent criminal proceedings an attempt is made to prosecute such a person on the grounds that he is the major perpetrator, will he be able to found on the fact that he acted under the law by answering questions in terms of this subsection with the guarantee given to him by law; and would he be able to say, although his answer is not admissible in the criminal proceedings which may bring him before the High Court, that he is prejudiced by subsequent proceedings? Surely he would have taken advantage of the right to silence if he had known that ultimately he would be prosecuted. This raises fairly major evidential problems. I have tried to focus them as best I can with a view to being of some assistance to the
  1550
  House. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would like to consider whether this is an appropriate way to get to the root of misconduct or mismanagement within the charities field.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, on a more simplistic note, if the person required to answer the question says, "I decline to answer the question" can he then be prosecuted under the terms of subsection (7); or is such an answer one which cannot be used in evidence in terms of this new clause? If that is the case, we have gone round in a complete circle and no one has got anywhere.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, with respect, it appears to me that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is pulling in two directions. In the restricted context of the examination of charitable matters in respect of a nominated officer we are seeking to ensure that, following application to the sheriff for an order, the person should attend to answer questions and furnish him with extracts, and so on.
  In such circumstances, if the person concerned gives an answer which incriminates him—and, yes, that is intended to convey that he has made an admission which indicates that he was guilty of a criminal offence—that answer would never be used in any subsequent criminal prosecution. As a member of the Bar, the noble Lord will appreciate that there are frequently circumstances in which statements are made which for one reason or another are not admissible. The amendment sets out on the clearest statutory basis that if such an answer is required—and of course it is then in those circumstances a breach of the right to remain silent —the consequences of the breach of the right to remain silent are not affected because that cannot be used in subsequent criminal proceedings.
  This is not the first occasion upon which this provision has been deployed in the law of Scotland. I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Cameron of Lochbroom may have some distant memory of a provision along not dissimilar lines. It attempts to keep the two matters apart. However, there is undoubtedly a difficulty when the noble Lord turns and pulls in the other direction. What happens in such circumstances if such a person makes a most significant admission of the grossest criminal conduct? The answer I must face up to bravely is that it is too bad, so far as concerns the Crown as the prosecutor of crime in Scotland. That answer, however valuable it may be, could not be part of the evidence against that individual in subsequent criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, that does not of itself exclude the possibility of criminal proceedings if there is otherwise sufficient evidence to prosecute the person.
  So far as concerns the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, if the person fails or refuses to comply with such a requirement it seems to me that he could be guilty of an offence under subsection (7), which is set at level 5; and that, I understand, currently stands at about £2,000.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  14 Clause 6, page 10, line 30, leave out from 'the' where it second occurs to '; and' in line 31 and insert 'charitable purposes of that body, or the charitable purposes which are purported to be the purposes of that body'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14. This is a drafting amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  15 Clause 6, page 11, line 44, leave out 'original'.
  16 Page 12, line 4, leave out 'original'.
  17 Page 12, line 6, leave out 'original'.
  18 Page 12, line 17, leave out 'original'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 18. At the same time, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23.
  These amendments to Clauses 8 and 9 are clarifying amendments in response to a point raised at Report stage in this House by my noble and learned friend Lord Cameron of Lochbroom. Clause 8 provides statutory rules for reorganisation or amalgamation of public trusts where the original purposes of the trust have become exhausted, outmoded or unsuited to modern conditions. The amendments seek to make clear t hat in the case of any trust which had been reconstructed under these provisions and in later years wished to further reorganise or amalgamate, the requirement will not be to look to the original trust deed or document but to the one formulated at the time of reorganisation. Similar amendments are made to Clause 9.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 18.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question. Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  19 Clause 9, page 13, line 16, leave out 'which is a recognised body'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 to 26, 28 to 30 and 32 to 36.
  As originally drafted, Clause 9 made provision enabling small public trusts which were recognised bodies and which had an annual income of no more than £5,000 to reorganise their objects without the necessity of going to court. This will be of major benefit to such bodies which may find it difficult to carry out the purposes for which they were established because of the inadequacy of their endowment or simply changes in social circumstances. Although your Lordships were warmly supportive of this provision, it was suggested that there was no need to restrict the facility to recognised bodies but that all
  1552
  public trusts meeting the criteria of the clause should be able to benefit. That will be the effect of these amendments.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  20 Page 13, line 19, leave out 'original'.
  21 Page 13, line 25, leave out 'original'.
  22 Page 13, line 27, leave out 'original'.
  23 Page 13, line 38, leave out 'original'.
  24 Page 14, line 7, leave out 'which is a recognised body'.
  25 Page 14, line 13, leave out 'charitable'.
  26 Page 14, line 16, leave out 'charitable'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20 to 26 en bloc.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20 to 26.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  27 Page 14, line 19, leave out 'intentions' and insert 'spirit'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27. This is a purely drafting amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  28 Page 14, line 25, leave out 'charities' and insert 'trusts'.
  29 Page 14, line 26, at the beginning insert 'As regards a trust which is a recognised body,'.
  30 Page 14, line 38, leave out 'charitable'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 en bloc.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28 to 30.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  31 Page 14, line 41, leave out 'intention' and insert 'spirit'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31. This is a drafting amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  32 Page 15, line 1, at beginning insert 'where the trust is a recognised body,'.
  33 Page 15, line 6, leave out paragraph (c) and insert:
  '(c) ascertain that the trustees of the trust to which it is proposed to transfer the assets will consent to the transfer of the assets.'.
  34 Page 15, line 11, leave out 'charitable'.
  35 Page 15. line 20, at beginning insert 'where any of the trusts to be amalgamated is a recognised body,'.
  36 Page 15, line 38, leave out 'charitable'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 to 36 en bloc.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 to 36.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  37 Clause 10, page 16, line 7, after 'any' insert 'public'.
  38 Page 16, line 12, leave out 'charitable'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 and 38.
  Clause 10 makes provision enabling trustees of small trusts with an annual income of less than £1,000 to spend capital where their founding deed prohibits the expenditure of such capital. The conditions which trustees must observe in proceeding with such expenditure are contained in subsections (2) and (3). These include a requirement of unanimous resolution by the trustees, a requirement to advertise their intentions, and a requirement to notify me.
  In the Bill as originally drafted the powers to expend capital were limited at subsection (2)(a) by a requirement to have regard to the charitable purpose of the trust. However, the trust may not in fact be charitable. We have extended the provisions at Clauses 8 and 9 to embrace public trusts whether or not they are charitable. In the spirit of the earlier amendments I would not wish to limit Clause 10 to. charitable trusts.
  Moved That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 and 38.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  39 After Clause 10, insert the following new clause: Dormant Charities

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
40 Clause 11, page 16, line 34, leave out 'both the Lord Advocate and'.
41 Page 16, line 37, at end insert:
'(2) Where in the case of any trust which is a recognised body—

(a) the number of trustees is less than three; and

(b) it appears to the Lord Advocate that the trustees will not, or are unable to, exercise their power under subsection (1) above,

if it appears to the Lord Advocate expedient to do so, he may exercise the power in place of the trustees.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. These are drafting
1556
amendments brought forward in response to a suggestion made in another place. It was thought that it was not altogether clear whether the power given to me was a joint power for the trustees and myself or a parallel power. These amendments make clear that it is a joint power.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40 and 41.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
42 Clause 13, page 17, line 15, after 'court,' where it second occurs insert 'in relation to an unincorporated body'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42. The amendment ensures that any reference in Part I of the Bill to the institution of proceedings in any court or order of a court in relation to an unincorporated body refers to persons concerned in the management and control of the body.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
43 Page 17, line 22, after 'sheriff', insert 'court'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43. This is a drafting amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
44 Page 17, line 23, leave out 'has the meaning given by' and insert 'shall be construed in accordance with'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
45 Clause 14, page 19, line 8, leave out 'providing such services in the course of practising as solicitors'.
46 Page 19, line 14, leave out 'providing such services in the course of practising as solicitors'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45 and 46.
These amendments are intended to deal with concerns which were expressed here and in another place about the demarcation of regulatory responsibilities between the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board and the Law Society. They make absolutely clear that the jurisdiction of the board does not extend to solicitors, who will be regulated by the Law Society alone. It will not be

1557
possible for a solicitor to register as a qualified conveyancer or an executry practitioner without first having his name removed from the roll of solicitors.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45 and 46.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I welcome these amendments, which are very much in the public interest. They clarify the disciplinary situation between the two sets of operators.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
47 Leave out Clause 15.
48 Clause 16, page 22, line 4, after 'them', insert 'by a natural person'.
49 Page 22, line 5, after 'determine,' insert 'and on the provision of such information in connection with the application as they consider necessary,'.
50 Page 22, line 12, leave out '(4)' and insert `(9D)'.
51 Page 22, line 15, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
52 Page 22, line 19, leave out subsection (4).
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 52 en bloc. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 55 to 58, 60 to 62, 77 to 79, 81, 82, 84 to 87, 89, 91, 100 to 103, 105 to 108, 110 to 113, 145, 147, 194, 195, 197, 198, 200, 202, 204, 206 and 237.
The conveyancing provisions in the Bill have been amended substantially in another place in order to remove financial institutions from the categories of bodies and persons who will be permitted to offer conveyancing services to the public. Extensive provision is now made to allow independent qualified conveyancers to compete with solicitors for conveyancing business. In addition, qualified conveyancers may be employed by solicitors or independent qualified conveyancers. There are detailed provisions for regulating these new categories of practitioner: education and training qualifications, financial protection, standards of practice and conduct. Complaints and disciplinary arrangements are covered either specifically or in broad outline with detailed rules and regulations. The regulatory authority will, as before, be the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 52.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
53 Page 22, line 26, after 'may' insert within 21 days of the date on which the Board's decision is intimated to him,'.
54 Page 22, line 28, leave out `if he is not satisfied' and insert 'within 21 days of the date on which the outcome of such review is intimated to him'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 53 and 54. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 63, 64, 96 and 97.
1558
These amendments introduce a standard time-limit for appeals against decisions of the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board relating to disciplinary matters and to refusal of applications for registration as a qualified conveyancer or as an executry practitioner. I am sure that the House will agree that 21 days is a reasonable period within which an agreed practitioner can be expected to appeal against the decision of the board. It corresponds exactly with similar provisions in the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, which is perhaps the most relevant comparable piece of legislation.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 53 and 54.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
55 Page 22, line 29, at end insert:
'(7A) Where a qualified conveyancer informs the Board that he intends to provide conveyancing services to the public for a fee, gain or reward, and—

(a) satisfies the Board that he has made adequate arrangements for the satisfaction of any successful claims against him arising out of such provision by him of such services; or

(b) participates in the arrangements made by the Board for that purpose under subsection (9B) (b) below,

the Board shall make an annotation on the register against his name to the effect that he is an independent qualified conveyancer; and where he subsequently informs them that he intends to cease providing such services to the public for a fee, gain or reward, they shall remove that annotation.'.
56 Page 22, line 29, at end insert:
'(7B) Any person or body other than—

(a) an independent qualified conveyancer; or

(b) a solicitor; or

(c) an incorporated practice within the meaning of section 65 of the 1980 Act (interpretation); or

(d) a multi-disciplinary practice within the meaning of that section,

who employs a qualified conveyancer under a contract of employment for the purpose of providing conveyancing services for persons other than himself or, as the case may be, themselves, shall be guilty of an offence, and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.'.
57 Page 22, line 31, after 'shall', insert:

'(a) where, in the case of an independent qualified conveyancer, they are satisfied that he has made adequate arrangements with respect to the business he then has in hand; and

(b) in any other case, without further enquiry,'.

58 Page 22, line 37, at end insert:
`(9A) The Secretary of State shall, subject to section 33 of this Act and after consultation with such persons as he considers appropriate, by regulations make such provision as he thinks fit with a view to maintaining appropriate standards of conduct and practice of independent qualified conveyancers, and such regulations shall, in particular, make provision with respect to—

(a) the manner in which such conveyancers conduct the provision of conveyancing services;

(b)conflicts of interest;

(c) the contractual obligations of such conveyancers;

(d) the holding of clients' money; and

(e) the disclosure of and accounting for commissions.

(9AA) Regulations under subsection (9A) above shall be made by statutory instrument and no regulations shall be made under that subsection unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(9B) The Board shall, in relation to the provision of conveyancing services by independent qualified conveyancers, and subject to subsection (9C) below—

1559

(a) establish and maintain suitable procedures for dealing with any complaints made to them in connection with the provision of conveyancing services by such conveyancers; and

(b) make suitable arrangements (whether by means of insurance policies or otherwise) to secure that any successful claims made against such a conveyancer in connection with the provision of conveyancing services are satisfied.

(9C) Before establishing procedures or making arrangements under subsection (9B) (a) or, as the case may be, (b) above, the Board shall submit particulars of the proposed procedures or arrangements to the Secretary of State for his approval.
(9D) Before making any rules under subsection (3) or (9A) (c) above, the Board shall submit the rules to the Secretary of State for his approval, and before approving any such rules the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) the Director in accordance with section 33 of this Act; and

(b) such other persons as he considers appropriate.

(9E) It shall be the duty of—

(a) an independent qualified conveyancer to comply with the requirements of regulations made under subsection (9A) (c) above and any direction of the Board under section 19(3) (a) or (b) of this Act; and

(b) the Board to ensure such compliance.'.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 55 to 58. I spoke to these amendments when speaking to Amendments Nos. 47 to 52.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 55 to 58.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
59 Page 22, line 40, leave out 'and registering it in the Books of Council and Session'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59.
This is essentially a technical amendment to delete what is considered to be an unnecessary reference to the Books of Council and Session following discussion with the Keeper of the Registers as foreshadowed by me during the Report stage of the Bill in this House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
60 Page 23, line 7, leave out 'conveyancing practitioner or solicitor' and insert 'independent qualified conveyancer, solicitor or incorporated practice'.
61 Page 23, line 8, leave out 'a conveyancing practitioner' and insert 'an independent qualified conveyancer'.
62 Page 23, line 18, at end insert:
'(13) Any qualified conveyancer not registered as an independent qualified conveyancer under subsection (7A) above who—

(a) wilfully and falsely—

(i) pretends to be an independent qualified conveyancer; or

(ii) takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is an independent qualified conveyancer; or

(b) provides conveyancing services to the public for a fee, gain or reward,

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(13A) Where an offence under subsection (13) (a) above is committed by a body corporate and 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.
(13B) Where an offence under subsection (13) (a) above is committed by a partnership and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a partner, he (as well as the partnership) shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(13C) Any independent qualified conveyancer who provides conveyancing services upon the account of, or for the profit of, any person other than—

(a) a solicitor;

(b) an incorporated practice within the meaning of section 65 of the 1980 Act;

(c) a multi-disciplinary practice within the meaning of that section; or

(d) another independent qualified conveyancer,

knowing that person not to be a solicitor, incorporated practice, multi-disciplinary practice or independent qualified conveyancer, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(14) Any rule imposed by any professional or other body which purports to prevent a solicitor or any person mentioned in section 32(2) of the 1980 Act (unqualified persons who may draw and prepare documents relating to heritable estate etc) from—

(a) acting as an employee of an independent qualified conveyancer in connection with the provision of conveyancing services; or

(b) acting on behalf of an independent qualified conveyancer in connection with the provision of such services,

shall be of no effect.'.
63 Clause 17, page 24, line 2, after 'may' insert 'within 21 days of the date on which the Board's decision is intimated to it'.
64 Page 24, line 4, leave out 'if it is not satisfied' and insert 'within 21 days of the date on which the outcome of such review is intimated to it'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 60 to 64. I spoke to these amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 47.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 60 to 64.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
65 Page 24, line 11, after 'send', insert 'to the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland and'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65. In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 73.
The amendments will ensure that the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland has up-to-date information regarding those registered by the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board as

1561
executry practitioners or recognised financial institutions which have notified the board of their intention to offer executry services. When dealing with applications for registration in the Land Register for Scotland, the keeper requires to examine links in title such as confirmations and it is therefore important for him to be aware of who is entitled to prepare a confirmation as an executry practitioner or as a recognised financial institution. It will be noted that there is a similar obligation on the board as regards independent qualified conveyancers.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 65.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
66 Page 24, line 20, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
67 Page 24, line 23, leave out 'subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either' and insert 'and no regulations shall be made under that subsection unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 66 and 67. In moving these amendments, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 70 to 72 and to Amendment No. 75.
Of these amendments the most important is Amendment No. 71, which is designed to meet the concerns expressed in another place relating to the competence of a recognised financial institution which wishes to offer executry services. The amendment requires such an institution to notify the board that it complies with certain standards relating to the educational qualifications and practical training of its executry staff which will be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State. The provision will ensure that the recognised financial institutions under Clause 18 employ adequately trained staff for the purposes of offering executry services. Amendment No. 75 provides that the regulations under this clause will be subject to affirmative resolution.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 66 and 67.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
68 Page 24, line 25, leave out subsection (12).
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 68. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 98, 104, 109, 199, 201, 203 and 205.
This clause is intended to enhance the regulatory structure under which the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board is to operate. Similar provision exists in the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.
The new clause gives the board the power to intervene in the business of an independent qualified conveyancer or an executry practitioner where it
1562
appears to the board that the interests of that practitioner's clients are likely to be put at serious risk. While the power is not likely to be used often it could prove extremely valuable if a practitioner were to deviate from acceptable business practice to such an extent as to threaten the interests of clients or indeed prospective clients. The board's powers under this clause are backed up by an enforcement mechanism which allows it to go to the Court of Session for an order to secure compliance.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 68.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
69 Page 24, line 42, at end insert:
'(15) Where an offence under subsection (14) above is committed by a body corporate and 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.
(16) Where an offence under subsection (14) above is committed by a partnership or by an unincorporated association (other than a partnership) and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a partner in the partnership or, as the case may be, a person concerned in the management or control of the association, he (as well as the partnership or association) shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 69. In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 242 and 263.
These are technical amendments. They are designed to remove existing doubts about whether the law would allow the prosecution of individual partners and managers of organisations involved in the provision of legal services as well as of the organisations themselves.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 69.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
70 Clause 18, page 24, line 43, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (2A) below,'.
71 Page 24, line 45, after `so;' insert:
`(aa) it complies with such requirements as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State with respect to the educational qualifications and practical training of those of its employees who are to be engaged in the provision of executry services;'.
72 Page 25, line 19, at end insert:
'(2A) Where—

(a) a recognised financial institution ceases (for whatever reason) to comply with the requirements with respect to educational qualifications and practical training referred to in paragraph (aa) of subsection (1) above;

(b) a recognised financial institution ceases (for whatever reason) to be a member of, or otherwise subject to, a scheme referred to in a notice given by it under that subsection; or

1563

(c) such a scheme ceases to comply with the requirements mentioned in paragraph (b) (ii) of that subsection,

the recognised financial institution shall notify the Board of that fact and shall forthwith cease providing executry services.'.
73 Page 25, line 24, after 'above', insert 'to the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland and'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that thy; House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 70 to 73. I spoke to these amendments with Amendments Nos. 66 and 67.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 70 to 73.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
74 Page 25, line 25, at end insert:
'(4A) This section, so far as it relates to a body or subsidiary mentioned in subsection (2) (c) or (d) above, is without prejudice to section 16 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 (restriction of insurance companies to insurance business).'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 74.
The essential purpose of Amendment No. 74 is to put beyond doubt that Clause 18, which provides for recognised financial institutions to offer executry services, does not alter the statutory restriction on the activities of insurance companies contained in Section 16 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982.
I understand that the insurance industry is concerned lest the reference to a subsidiary creates uncertainty over the application of Section 16 of the Insurance Companies Act to subsidiaries of insurance companies. I do not believe that this concern is justified. Generally, subsidiaries of insurance companies do not come within Section 16; that is, they can carry on non-insurance business. This amendment refers to subsidiaries simply out of a cautionary approach. For example, it is at least possible to conceive of circumstances where a court might treat the activities of a subsidiary as those of its parent and the reference to a subsidiary could have effect in these circumstances. But it does not affect the position of the generality of subsidiaries who are not caught by Sectior 16.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 74.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
75 Page 25, line 26, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
'(5) Regulations under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument and no regulations shall be made under that subsection unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 75. I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 66.
1564
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 75.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
76 Clause 19, page 25, line 30, after 'them)' insert 'and after giving the practitioner concerned an opportunity to make representations'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 76. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 80, 92, 95, and 196.
This group of amendments introduces some important though straightforward procedural changes to the disciplinary arrangements for executry practitioners and qualified conveyancers. It is only fair that practitioners against whom a complaint has been made have a statutory right to make representations to the board; also, that they are told in writing the outcome of an investigation.
The provisions already give practitioners a right of appeal, first, to the board's own review procedures and then to the Court of Session. Amendment No. 92 requires the board to await the outcome of appeals before recording decisions on its registers. Amendment No. 95 provides for the board to review all its disciplinary decisions by adding in those which require work to be redone or fees repaid. Amendment No. 196 gives the board better access to information that it may need to conduct a review of a disciplinary decision.
All these amendments are in accordance with the principles of natural justice and have parallels in the Solicitors (Scotland) Act.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 76.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
77 Page 25, line 31, leave out 'conveyancing practitioner or an executry'.
78 Page 25, line 33, leave out 'or'.
79 Page 25, line 34, leave out from `with' to end of line 35 and insert:
`regulations made under section 16(9A) or 17(10) of this Act; or
(d) has been convicted of a criminal offence rendering him no longer a fit and proper person to provide conveyancing services as a qualified conveyancer or, as the case may be, executry services as an executry practitioner,'.
80 Page 25, line 37, at end insert 'and shall, without prejudice to subsection (8) below, intimate their decision to the practitioner by notice in writing'.
81 Page 25, line 38, leave out subsection (2).
82 Page 26, line 12, after `at', insert 'his or'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 77 to 82. I spoke to these amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 47.

1565
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 77 to 82.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
83 Page 26, line 20, at end insert:
'(ee) in a case where the practitioner has provided inadequate professional services, to direct the practitioner to pay to the client by way of compensation such sum, not exceeding £1,000, as the Board may specify;'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 83. In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 88, 99 and 238 to 241.
These amendments provide the Council of the Law Society, the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal and the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board with a power to order the payment of compensation by a practitioner against whom a complaint of providing inadequate professional services has been upheld. It is intended that this compensation will be for distress or inconvenience which the client has suffered, although it will be open to these disciplinary bodies to order the payment of compensation for a specific and quantifiable financial loss.
Amendments along these lines have been pressed by the Scottish Consumer Council since the introduction of the Bill and I am confident that the consumer lobby in Scotland will give them a warm welcome. The Law Society of Scotland has indicated that it does not dispute the principle on which the amendments are based.
The amendments also include a further refinement, included after detailed discussions with the Law Society of Scotland, which makes it clear that any decision of the board, the tribunal or the council cannot be founded upon in any proceedings in order to show negligence on the part of the practitioner; that any award of compensation will be totally without prejudice to the client's right of redress under civil law; and that the amount of any award of compensation can be taken into account in the calculation of any award of damages by a court. These provisos will, I hope, meet with the approval of the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 83.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
84 Page 26, line 27, leave out subsection (4).
85 Page 26, line 33, leave out 'or (4) (b)'.
86Page 26, line 35, leave out `or, as the case may be, the qualified conveyancer'.
87 Page 26, line 38, leave out `or (4) (b)'.
88 Page 27, line 1, leave out `or (b)' and insert `(b) or (ee)'.
89 Page 27, line 4, after 'which', insert `he or'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 84 to 89 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 47.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 84 to 89 en bloc. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
90 Page 27, line 5, at end insert:
'(8A) Where a practitioner—

(a) fails to comply with a notice under subsection (8) above; or

(b) complies with such a notice but the Board are not satisfied as to the steps taken by the practitioner to comply with the direction to which the notice relates,

the Board may apply to the Court of Session for an order requiring the practitioner to comply with the direction to which the notice relates within such time as the court may order.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 90.
This amendment simply provides the board with an additional enforcement power to enable it to ensure compliance with any disciplinary direction it may issue. It allows the board to invoke the power of the court in support of its disciplinary measures by providing for it to seek an order from the Court of Session requiring the practitioner to comply with a disciplinary direction. A similar power is available to the Council of the Law Society to secure enforcement of its disciplinary decisions by application to the solicitors' discipline tribunal.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 90. - (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
91 Page 27, line 6, leave out `or (4) (a)'.
92 Page 27, line 7, leave out from 'above' to third 'the' in line 8 and insert 'and—

(a) the period specified in subsection (12) (a) or (b) below has expired without an application for review or, as the case may be, an application to the Court of Session having been made; or

(b) where such an application is made, the matter is finally determined in favour of the Board's decision or the application is withdrawn,

they shall amend the register of executry practitioners or, as the case may be,'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 91 and 92. I have already spoken to these amendments with earlier amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 91 and 92.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
93 Page 27, leave out lines 10 to 12 and insert:
'(10) The Board shall—
(a) subject to subsection (11) below, publish every decision taken by them under subsection (1) above (including a decision that they are not satisfied as to the matters mentioned in subsection (1) (a) to (d)); and'.
94 Page 27, line 16, leave out subsection (11) and insert:
'(11) In carrying out their duty under subsection (10) above, the Board may refrain from publishing any names or other information which would, in their opinion, damage or be likely to damage the interests of persons other than—

(a) the practitioner to whom the decision relates; or

(b) where the practitioner is an individual, his partners; or

(c) his or their families,

but where they so refrain, they shall publish their reasons for so doing'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 93 and 94. In moving these amendments I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 246.
The question whether there should be named publicity for all disciplinary decisions of the Scottish Convey ancing and Executry Services Board and the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal has been keenly debated throughout all stages of the Bill. Opinions have ranged widely and have not been divided simply on party lines.
During this House's consideration of the matter in Committee on 1st May I said I would reconsider the matter. Thereafter, a government amendment was debated in another place to remove the requirement for named publicity where there had been no finding against the practitioner. In the course of that debate Members on the Opposition Benches were divided on the principle of the amendment and there was a degree of misunderstanding about its precise meaning. It was not possible on that occasion to bring the matter to a conclusion. Accordingly, the Government reviewed the matter again and, on Report in another place, there v, as further debate after which an amendment was carried to provide that there should be full publicity in all cases except where the interests of third parties might be threatened.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, would introduce discretion for the tribunal to withhold the solicitor's name in cases where a complaint is not withheld. It would leave the tribunal in a different position from the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board. I fully acknowledge the strong views held on this question but I am not persuaded of the case in favour of withholding names where there has been no finding. I clearly must do so against the background of the extended debate that has taken place at different stages of the Bill in another place.
In the course of debate on this issue in another place it was pointed out that in England and Wales where the discipline tribunal already publishes all its decisions in full there is little public interest in not guilty findings. If English practice is to serve as a guide it supports the Government's position and not that of the noble Lord. Any argument to the effect that Scotland should be treated differently on grounds of size does not, I suggest, bear up when applied to any
1568
local situation in England. All solicitors practise in some particular locality, irrespective of the size of the jurisdiction. I do not accept that the public interest is furthered by maintaining a cloak of secrecy over some decisions in tribunal prosecutions. Although there have been some considerable comings and goings on this matter at various times, I believe that the correct approach is that pursued by the amendment which was carried in another place. That would ensure a uniformity of approach on both sides of the Border.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 93 and 94.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, this amendment is also linked with Amendment No. 246A which stands in my name. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has correctly stated, the amendment standing in my name seeks to except the tribunal from the requirement to publicise decisions in cases where solicitors are found to be innocent.
The Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 provided for a Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal to be established. The Law Society of Scotland prosecutes solicitors before the tribunal in cases of alleged professional misconduct or inadequate professional services. At present the tribunal has a discretion in relation to the publication of its findings. The present provisions of the Bill remove that discretion. All decisions of the tribunal, whether a solicitor is found innocent or guilty, will now be subject to publicity.
It is true to say that in England the solicitors' disciplinary tribunal publishes all decisions, irrespective of guilt or innocence. I take it that the same applies in Wales from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said. However, that decision to publish all decisions may not be correct in relation to a person's professional standing and work within the community. I found on the fact that while England is a far larger country than Scotland and the impact in England of the publication of a decision might not have the same effect as it has in Scotland which constitutes a community of some 5 million people, the tabloid press in Scotland is not slow to jump upon anything that is detrimental to lawyers. Lawyers start off with a black mark in the public eye. We try nevertheless to make that black mark a little whiter. This measure does not assist us in that aim in that a person who has been wrongly complained against and who is acquitted by the tribunal finds his name plastered all over the papers with the complaint in the headlines. The finding, if it is published at all, may be hidden away in a corner of the paper somewhere.
It is as well to remember that solicitors and no doubt advocates on occasions are subject, like doctors, to malicious complaints which their professional bodies must investigate and adjudicate upon. The General Medical Council publishes all its findings, but the situation is different in that case in that the hearings of that council are open to the public. There was a classic example recently of a doctor who was wrongly accused in the eyes of the General Medical Council of having sexual relations with two

1569
patients. He was acquitted but his name was plastered all over certain sections of the press for several days. At this stage no one can know what good or evil that may have done to the doctor and his practice.
The insistence on the publication of all its findings would place the tribunal in a different position from all other Scottish professional disciplinary authorities. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland has a rule that whenever the disciplinary committee makes a decision, it shall:
"cause its decision to he published as soon as practicable in such manner as it may think fit provided that if the Discipline Committee has decided that no further action shall be taken on the complaint the decision shall not be published unless the defender so requests".
That is an interesting provision. It means that if word has got around that someone has appeared before the disciplinary body of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and albeit been acquitted, the stigma of having appeared before the professional body nevertheless attaches to that person, and he can ask the professional body to publish its findings in his case.
The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland receives reports from its disciplinary committee in camera and has discretion as to publicity. The Royal Institution, of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland has power to order publication of the penalty, but if there is no penalty there is no publicity because there has been no finding of guilt. In the Faculty of Advocates there is no statutory obligation upon the dean to publicise findings of guilt or innocence in respect of disciplinary findings. In comparison with those areas of Scottish professional life the Government's intentions to publish decisions of disciplinary tribunals, where a solicitor has been declared innocent. is out of step with Scottish public life, whatever may happen in other parts of the United Kingdom.
If a doctor is badly treated in the press so that it may not be pleasant for him in his own area, he can practise his profession in any part of the world, as can an architect, accountant or a surveyor. However, it is very difficult for a Scottish solicitor whose name has been publicised, albeit in the context of innocence, to practise anywhere outside Scotland. I suggest that the Government should take into account the size of the country within which Scottish solicitors practise.
I would be the last person to advocate secrecy and keeping important information from the public. The Law Society does not try to do that and exercises its right to publish its findings with great discretion.
I should like to raise a further matter in passing. Those who have been referred to in the course of debates in your Lordships' House, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, as barefoot pleaders who may attain rights of audience under Clause 23, will not apparently be subject to the same publicity of disciplinary findings as the practising solicitor. That seems rather strange and is a gap in the
1570
legislation. I ask the Government to reconsider this very important piece of legislation in the light of its consequences.
I also find it strange that in exercising discretion the tribunal has to take into account the interests of everyone but the solicitor and his family. It is to the solicitor and his family, and to his practice and his partner that the greatest damage is done. This legislation appears to point the gun at the solicitor whether he is guilty or innocent. It means that a solicitor who carries on his practice perfectly properly in the public domain may be pilloried for the rest of his professional life. Accordingly, I have put forward Amendment No. 246A.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 246A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, on the basis that there should be a similar provision in Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 because the same standards should apply in both cases.
In the case of a private tribunal such as the disciplinary tribunal, where the public are not admitted to hearings, there is no point in damaging a person by saying that a complaint has been made against him which has proved to be unfounded. That could be said of all of us who have not had complaints against us which have been upheld. It is quite wrong that there should be such publicity.
The position in the case of the General Medical Council is different because its hearings are public. However, there is the difficulty that people who are protected by anonymity can make allegations against a named doctor which are then found to be unfounded. Yet the doctor has all the publicity against him.
It is a difficult problem. We should be in favour of freedom. It is right that when a person has been found not guilty there should be no slur against his character as a result of publication of the fact that someone has made a complaint against him.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I find it very difficult not to support what the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has said on the subject. This seems to open a channel which is undesirable for everybody. One might hate a lawyer and present a first-class case against him. That case may be unproven but nevertheless it is made public. The lawyer could be damaged quite unreasonably.
I do not know on what grounds the proposal was put forward. It is suggested that it is copied from England. There may or may not be good grounds for it but it is most unfair for someone to be held up to abuse where their professional integrity is of the first importance. I should like to see the matter looked at again although it is very difficult at this stage of the Bill. I support the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. It does not seem to me that the provisions of the English Solicitors Act regarding the findings of the Solicitors Disciplinary

1571
Tribunal need to be regarded as relevant or as giving guidance as to what should happen on the other side of the Border.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it has been requested that there should be further consideration of the matter. I was at pains to point out that there has been the most elaborate consideration of the matter. Some of your Lordships will recollect that at least on one occasion when it was discussed in this House indicated that I would take the matter away and look at it again. However, when it went to the other place, without any prompting from the Government—and indeed the Government put down an amendment— the strangest views were expressed from various sides of the Committee, without regard to party allegiance, that a provision should not be introduced on the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. On that basis the Government considered that the matter should come back in another place at Report stage. The amendment that is now before us was carried.
There are a number of difficulties. One of them has been correctly identified by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton. If there is to be true equity in this matter it would be appropriate that such an exemption should also apply to those who are hauled before the board as well as to those who come before the solicitors disciplinary tribunal. The amendments would not permit that to happen.
The matter has been considered exhaustively. I believe that there is a comparison to be drawn with solicitors in England. England may be a very much larger country, but any solicitor in England who practises in a small county town will be in much the same position as regards damage that flows from publicity as a solicitor who practises in one of the smaller boroughs in Scotland.
Furthermore, as I understand it there have been no significant difficulties in England where this provision has been in place. The arrangement that we have allowed for in this provision, which ensures that there should not be publicity if there is to be damage to the interests of persons other than the practitioner, his close associates or their families, was a proviso which was very sensibly suggested, if I may say so with respect, by the Lord President of the Court of Session. We were more than willing to accede to that restriction. I believe that as best we can in this matter we have achieved the right balance.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
95 Page 27, line 22, leave out from '(3)' to end of line 23 and insert '(a) to (f) above, the practitioner'.
96 Page 27, line 25, after '(a)', insert 'within 21 days of the date on which the Board's decision is intimated to it or him,'.
97 Page 27, line 26, leave out 'following such review' and insert 'within 21 days of the date on which the outcome of such review is intimated to it or him,'.
98 Page 27, line 29, leave out 'inquiries under this section' and insert 'this section and section (Board's intervention powers)'.
99 Page 27. line 29, at end insert:
`(13A) The Secretary of State, after consulting the Board, may by order made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, amend subsection (2) (ee) above by substituting for the sum for the time being specified in that provision such other sum as he considers appropriate.
(138) The taking of any steps under subsection (2) above shall not be founded upon in any proceedings for the purpose of showing that the practitioner in respect of whom the steps were taken was negligent.
(13C) A direction under subsection (2) (ee) above to a practitioner to pay compensation to a client shall not prejudice any right of that client to take proceedings against that practitioner for damages in respect of any loss which he alleges he has suffered as a result of that practitioner's negligence, and any sum directed to be paid to that client under that provision may be taken into account in the computation of any award of damages made to him in any such proceedings.'.
100 Page 27, line 32, leave out 'subsections (3) (e) and (4) (b)' and insert 'subsection 3(e)'.
101 Page 27, line 33, leave out 'those provisions' and insert 'that provision'.
102 Page 27, line 36, leave out 'conveyancing practitioner'.
103 Page 27, line 38, leave out 'conveyancing practitioner'.
104 After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:—

Board's intervention powers
`.—(1) The powers conferred on the Board by this section may be exercised if, after such inquiry (if any) as the Board consider appropriate, it appears to them to be desirable to do so for the purpose of protecting the interests of the clients, or prospective clients, of an independent qualified conveyancer or an executry practitioner (each of whom is in this section referred to as a "relevant practitioner").
(2) The Board may, in particular, exercise any such power where it appears to them that a relevant practitioner—

(a) is no longer a fit and proper person to provide conveyancing services or, as the case may be, executry services;

(b) has ceased, for whatever reason, to provide such services; or

(c) has failed, or is likely to fail, to comply with regulations made under section 16(9A) or, as the case may be, section 17(10) of this Act.

(3) The Board may direct the relevant 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 practitioner and held by or under the control of the practitioner in connection with his business as an independent qualified conveyancer or, as the case may be, an executry practitioner; or

(b) any assets of the practitioner which are specified, or of a kind specified, in the direction.

(4) The Board may direct the relevant practitioner to transfer to the Board, or to such persons (in this section referred to as "the trustees") as may be specified in the direction—

(a) all assets belonging to any client of the practitioner and held by or under the control of the practitioner in connection with his business as an independent qualified conveyancer or, as the case may be, an executry practitioner; or

(b) any assets of the practitioner which are specified, or of a kind specified, in the direction.

(5) A relevant practitioner to whom a direction is given may, within 21 days of the date on which the direction is received by him, apply to the Court of Session, which may make such order in the matter as it thinks fit.
(6) A relevant practitioner to whom a direction is given shall comply with it as soon as it takes effect (and whether or not he proposes to apply to the Court of Session under subsection (5) above).
(7) If, on an application to the Court of Session by the Board, the court is satisfied—

(a) that a relevant practitioner has failed, within a reasonable time, to comply with any direction given to him; or

1573

(b) that there is a reasonable likelihood that a relevant practitioner will so fail,

the court may make an order requiring the 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.
(8) Any assets which have been transferred as a result of a direction given under subsection (4) above shall be held by the Board, or by the trustees, on trust for the client or, as the case may be, the practitioner concerned.
(9) The trustees may deal with any assets which have been transferred to them only in accordance with directions given to them by the Board.
(10) If the Board have reasonable cause to believe that a relevant practitioner or an employee of a relevant practitioner has been guilty of dishonesty resulting in pecuniary loss to a client of the relevant practitioner, they may apply to the Court of Session for an order that no payment be made by any bank, building society or other body named in the order out of any bank, building society or other account or any sum deposited in the name of the relevant practitioner without the leave of the court and the court may make such an order.
(11) Any direction under this section—

(a) shall be given in writing;

(b) shall 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 relevant practitioner); and

(d) may be varied or revoked by a further direction given by the Board.

(12) In this section—
"assets" includes any sum of money (in whatever form and whether or not in any bank, building society or other account) and any book, account, deed or other document held by the relevant practitioner on his own behalf in connection with his business as a relevant practitioner or on behalf of the client concerned; and
"independent qualified conveyancer" and "executry practitioner" respectively include any independent qualified conveyancer or executry practitioner whether or not he was registered as such at the time when the matter in relation to which the Board exercise or propose to exercise their powers under this section arose and notwithstanding that subsequent to that time he has ceased to be so registered.'.
105 Clause 20, page 27, line 44, leave out 'a conveyancing practitioner' and insert 'an independent qualified conveyancer'.
106 Page 27, line 45, after 'of, insert 'his or'.
107 Page 28, line 5, after 'the', insert 'conveyancer,'.
108 Page 28, line 13, leave out 'a conveyancing practitioner' and insert 'an independent qualified conveyancer'.
109 Clause 21, page 28, line 18, at end insert 'except where the context otherwise requires'.
110 Page 28, leave out lines 21 and 22.
111 Page 28, line 36, after 'person', insert `by executors'.
112 Page 28, line 45, at end insert:
'"independent qualified conveyancer" means a person registered as such under section 16(7A) in the register of qualified conveyancers;'.
113 Page 28, line 46, leave out 'conveyancing practitioner' and insert 'qualified conveyancer'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, when speaking to Commons Amendment No. 76 I also spoke to Commons Amendments Nos. 95 to 113. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 95 to 113 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 95 to 113.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
114 Clause 22, page 30, line 17, leave out 'establishing', and insert 'stating'.
115 Page 30, line 23, leave out 'possible', and insert 'reasonably practicable'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 114 and 115. I should also like to speak to Commons Amendments Nos. 116 and 117, Motion No. 116A and Amendment No. 117A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 117. Commons Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 are the result of undertakings given in this House. Commons Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 are drafting points.
Commons Amendment No.114 removes the requirement that the Council of the Law Society makes rules "establishing" the order of precedence of the supreme courts and replaces it with a requirement that they do so by "stating" it. This drafting amendment reflects the view expressed in this House that it was not appropriate for the council to be establishing the order of precedence of the supreme courts since that was more properly a matter for the courts themselves and most particularly the Lord President of the Court of Session.
Commons Amendment No. 115 replaces the requirement that the council secures representation for a person wishing to be represented by a supreme court solicitor where possible with one that they do so where reasonably practicable. That is because a requirement that they do so where possible might have proved to be more onerous than had been intended. For example, it might be possible for a solicitor with supreme court rights of audience to travel overnight to Inverness from Dumfries, leaving his client in the sheriff court to undertake a criminal trial. It is a different matter whether such course of action is reasonably practicable. The purpose of this amendment is therefore to avoid placing a duty on the council which it might be theoretically able to fulfil but which in practical terms was too onerous.
I should have thought that Commons Amendments Nos. 116 and 117, which are drafting amendments, would have met with the approval of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, but I shall listen to what he has to say.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 114 and 115. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord McCloskey: My Lords, I think that Commons Amendment No. 114 is an improvement and I welcome it. It derives from the debates in this House. Commons Amendment No. 115 is slightly more than a drafting amendment but it is an improvement and the improvement derives from the critical analysis of the provision when the Bill was before this House on a previous occasion. Those two improvements illustrate a point which I sought to make earlier; namely, that part of the function of this House is to improve a Bill by suggested revisions to the text.
Commons Amendment No. 116 wishes to insert "or body" after "person". Your Lordships should have before you the Bill itself. It will be seen that in Clause 22, which deals essentially with the rights of audience

1575
for solicitors and the role of various persons, two persons are mentioned: the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The only other creature (if that is the correct word) to appear there is the Council of the Law Society of Scotland.
I believe that the Council of the Law Society of Scotland is the body which is referred to in this amendment. No doubt the Lord Advocate could confirm that. However, I presume that the words "or body" intended to cover the council. In the clause the council has duties to make certain rules under subsections (4), (5), (6), (9) and (10). It also has a function to put the names of qualified solicitors, that is to say, qualified to appear in the High Court and the Court of Session, on a certain roll.
Subsection (12) reads:
"The Council may"—
I note the word "may" because usually the word in this clause is "shall"—
"bring into force the rules submitted by them to the Secretary of State under subsection (10) with the exception of any such rule which he has, in accordance with [another section] refused to approve".
So subsection (12) gives the council a discretion.
However, subsection (15) requires that function to be exercised,
"as soon as is reasonably practicable".
It seems to me that on a plain reading of the whole clause as it would be after this amendment, the discretion which is conferred by subsection (12) would be removed by subsection (15) unless the answer is to be that what is contained in subsection (12) is not a function but a power—if that is different.
I await the explanation with interest. In the meantime I must tell the House that I shall move that this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116, although I may be premature in doing so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
116 Page 31, line 29, after 'person', insert 'or body'.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 116
Lord McCluskeyrose to move, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment a moment ago. I apologise to the House for my unfamiliarity with the proceedings. I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116 for the reasons that I have just expanded upon.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I indicated, Amendment No. 116 seeks to insert the words "or body" after the word "person". I confirm to the noble and learned Lord, if such confirmation is for him necessary, that we are indeed talking about the
1576
Council of the Law Society of Scotland. However, as I understood his point when he spoke to Amendment No. 116, it dealt with the relationship between subsection (12) and what is required under subsection (15), which is a rather different matter, if I may say so.
Amendment No. 116 is only in relation to a "body". It was meant to be helpful in expanding upon a "person". I recollect making a serious error in your Lordships' House by saying that there was a difference between natural persons and unnatural ones and I got a flea in my ear. It is on that basis that it was expanded upon to indicate that it was a person or a body, rather than using that more curious language. There is nothing more sinister or complicated about it than that and as I see it the relationship between subsections (12) and (15) is in no sense affected by Commons Amendment No. 116.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, with respect I think I have the right of reply on this matter. As the Bill stands, without Amendment No. 116, when a function is conferred on any person by that section,
"he shall exercise that function as soon as is reasonably practicable".
There was no obligation upon the council, as I understand it. The obligation was imposed only upon "persons". The amendment—which is not just a drafting amendment—now apparently imposes upon the council, being the body referred to, a duty to act as soon as is reasonably practicable. It appears that instead of having an option to bring or not to bring into force the rules, with regard to any function the council is obliged to do so as soon as is reasonably practicable.
There is therefore a contradiction between subsections (15) and (12). That is the point that I sought to make. I have not yet had a reply. I hope —it may be improper for me to do so—that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate may be able to reply to the particular question that I asked.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply. I thought that I had indicated that the relationship between subsections (12) and (15) was unaffected by the amendment. I understand what the noble and learned Lord is saying. However, perhaps I ought to expand upon that.
If one considers subsection (12)—the noble and learned Lord explained it earlier—what is conferred under it is a power. Subsection (15) relates to a function.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, that is an extraordinary statement. However, I shall let it go. I do not press the matter to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
117 Clause 22, page 31, line 30, after 'he' insert 'or, as the case may be, they'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 117.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 117.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 117
117A Leave out ("they") and insert ("it").
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, the amendment at first sight appears to be a piece of pedantry on my part. I hope to explain to your Lordships that it is not.
The amendment seeks to insert the words,
"or, as the case may be, they".
It follows upon what we have just discussed. By accepting Commons Amendment No. 116, subsection (15) will refer to "a person or body". If Amendment No. 117. is accepted, the provision will state:
"He or … they shall exercise that function as soon as is reasonably practicable".
I suggest that "body" is singular. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will no doubt point out to me that when one refers to the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 the body—which is the Council of the Law Society—is in the plural and that is why the word "they" is inserted. It seems as though I am stymied by that answer.
However, Clause 1 with regard to the regulation of charities refers to singular bodies. Let us consider Clause 2(2) on page 3 of the Bill. A non-recognised body is,
"a body which is neither a recognised body; nor a body which is registered as a charity".
Therefore in Part I of the Bill "body" is singular and in Part II of the Bill and in the Solicitors (Scotland) Act "bodies" are plural.
Plainly that does not matter a row of beans except that it is another indication that in the preparation of the Bill the draftsmen have been so rushed that they have made a mess of it. No decent. respectable Bill turns a singular body into plural bodies in the course of a few pages. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 117A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 117, be agreed to.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there are strictures that I have to accept in what the noble and learned Lord has said. There has been a change. However, I rest my argument on this. As he pointed out from his own researches, where the body which is under consideration—namely, the Council of the Law Society—is referred to in legislation, it is referred to as "they". If the noble and learned Lord will permit, I respectfully suggest that while he has a point in the context of the Bill and its different parts, in the legislation in relation to solicitors a body is referred to as "they".
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, am I correct in understanding that Clause 22 inserts a new clause in earlier legislation; namely, the 1980 Act, where the body has to be referred to in the plural, although in Part I fortunately we have regard to the "body" as a singular person?
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, yes, absolutely. In the 1980 Act the council is plural. That is why the council is plural in these sections. But I find it comic that when the draftsman observed that and properly followed the house style of the 1980 Act, he did not at the same time decide that a charitable body should be plural.
However, at the present time there are more important things in the world than the plurality or singularity of the Council of the Law Society of Scotland. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 117A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 117, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
118 Clause 23, page 32, line 16, at end insert 'and shall state that the body have complied with the provisions of Schedule (Publication of applications under section 23) to this Act'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 118.
The amendments in this group give effect to an undertaking given both at Committee and Report stage in this House. As indicated at the time, the Government see great merit in the suggestion that applications for practising rights under Clause 23 should be open to a certain degree of public consideration.
A duty is placed on the Lord President and the Secretary of State in new Clause 30 requiring them to consider any written representations they have received before granting any application for practising rights under Clause 23. As a matter of practicality, I consider that some provision is also necessary to require the body in question to advertise its application. That is so that the attention of all those with an interest, whether they be other practitioners in the area of legal services or existing clients of the body making the application, can be drawn to it and they can take the opportunity to make whatever comments they feel appropriate. Such a provision appears at paragraphs 3 and 4 of the new schedule.
In moving Amendment No. 118, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 120 and 207. Those amendments together should allow for a fully adequate level of public debate on the merits of a body's application for further practising rights.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 118.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
119 Page 32, line 22, leave out 'subsection (16) below' and insert' section (Exercise of rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience) (4) of this Act'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 119. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 121, 122, 122A to 122E, 123, and 123A to 123F.
In order to understand the amendment it is necessary to give an explanation of the background. As a result of amendments carried in this House before the Bill began its passage in another place, Clause 23 had grown to some 20 subsections. Indeed, critical comment was made of that. Therefore, the present amendments divide the clause into three more digestible parts. I wish to emphasise that no substantial policy changes are introduced in the re-arrangement except those already dealt with to provide, for publication of draft schemes.
With reference to the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, the following amendments concern matters to which this House has already given consideration and come to an appropriate decision: they are Amendments Nos. 122A, 122B, 122D, 122E, and 123D. Amendments Nos. 123E and 123F are unnecessary as they raise only a point of drafting. Amendments Nos. 122C, 123A and 123C are inappropriate.
Arnendment No. 123E seeks to refer to provisions rather than rules in a code of practice. This concerns a point of drafting. It seems reasonable to specify that a code of practice contains rules. As regards Amendment No. 123F, the intention of subsection (5) of the new clause in Amendment 123 is to state that the High Court of Justiciary exercising its appellate function is a separate court. It is clear that the High Court of Justiciary as a court of first instance would be treated as a separate court in its own right.
As regards Amendment No. 122C, it would be inappropriate to direct the Lord President and the Secretary of State to have regard to this. The proper criteria to which regard should be had are set out in subsection (4) of the clause. As regards Amendments Nos. 123A and 122C, it is appropriate that only the governing body should have the role of assessing whether a member is a fit and proper person and conduct any disciplinary proceedings against a member. The Lord President should not have a role in disciplinary proceedings even where, as he can, he has requested suspension. He does not have such a role at present in relation to solicitors or advocates.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 119.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, the difficulty with that explanation is that it is incomprehensible to those who have listened to it. I, who have studied the matter, certainly did not understand what the noble and learned Lord said. That is partly because the grouping is wrong and we should not be discussing all these issues at the same time. The matters dealt with by the noble and learned Lord are separate and it is unfortunate that we should deal with them now. Therefore, I do not propose to deal with the matters until the noble and learned Lord moves specific amendments with which I am concerned.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will be aware that the House does not have to accept the groupings of amendments. It can insist on discussing amendments individually.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I am obliged. I do not wish to be obstructive but I believe that the points are separate. They are easier to understand when separated out and one does not save time by putting them together when they are not closely allied.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as has already been made clear, it is a matter for the House and not for me. However, there is a point which is validly made at this stage and which I hope the noble and learned Lord will accept. When one looks to the alteration of the provisions from a single clause of 20 subsections into three more digestible clauses one will see that there have been no substantial policy changes except those providing for the publication of draft schemes. The House has already considered that amendment and it met with approval.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
120 Page 32, line 29, at end insert:
'(5A) Schedule (Publication of applications under section 23) shall have effect in relation to the publication of applications made under subsection (1) above.'.
121 Page 32, leave out from beginning of line 30 to end of line 46 on page 34.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 120 and 121.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 120 and 121. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
122 Before Clause 24, insert the following new clause—

Consideration of applications made under section 23
'.—(1) The Lord President shall consider the provision made in any draft scheme submitted to him under section 23(1) of this Act in relation to the matters mentioned in section 23(2); and the Secretary of State shall, subject to subsection (5) below and to section 33 of this Act, consider the provision so made in section 23(2) (b) and (c).
(2) In considering the code of practice included in the draft scheme by virtue of section 23(2) (b) (ii), the Lord President shall have regard to the desirability of there being common principles applying in relation to the exercising of rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience by all practitioners in relation to the court or, as the case may be, the courts, mentioned in the application.
(3) The Lord President and the Secretary of State shall—

(a) consult each other in considering a draft scheme submitted to them under section 23(1); and

(b) consider any written representations timeously made to them under Schedule (Publication of applications made under section 23) to this Act,

and may, either jointly or severally, make preliminary observations to the body concerned in relation to that draft; and the body may make such adjustments to the draft as appear to them to be appropriate, and the Lord President and the Secretary of State (who shall, in accordance with section 33, consult the Director in respect of any adjustments made in relation to the matters mentioned in section 23(2) (b) or (c)) shall thereafter consider the draft scheme as so adjusted.
(4) In considering a draft scheme under subsection (1) or (3) above, the Lord President and the Secretary of State shall have regard to whether the provisions of the draft scheme are such as—

(a) to achieve; and

(b)to ensure the maintenance of,

appropriate standards of conduct and practice by persons who may acquire rights to conduct litigation or rights of audience in the event of the draft scheme being approved.
(5) In relation to any code of practice such as is mentioned in section 23(2) (b) (ii), the duty of the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above is limited to a consideration of any provision of such a code as would, in his view, directly or indirectly inhibit the freedom of a member of the body concerned to undertake all the work necessary for the preparation of a case or for the presentation of a case before the court, other than such a provision which has that effect only by reason of the provision made in the draft scheme with respect to the matters mentioned in section 23(2) (a).
(6) After they have considered a draft scheme under subsections (1) and (3) above, if the Lord President and the Secretary of State—

(a) are satisfied with the draft scheme, the Lord President shall grant the application, and shall so inform the body;

(b) are not satisfied with the scheme, the Lord President shall refuse the application, and shall so inform the body, giving written reasons for the refusal,

and the Lord President shall send a copy of the letter granting or refusing the application to any person who has made representations in relation to the draft scheme under Schedule (Publication of applications made under section 23) to this Act.
(7) Where the Lord President has granted an application under subsection (6) (a)above, in relation to—

(a) civil proceedings, the Court of Session may by act of sederunt; and

(b)criminal proceedings, the High Court of Justiciary may by act of adjournal,

make such provision for giving effect to the scheme as appears to it to be appropriate.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 122. I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 199, albeit inadequately. However, if I can provide further clarification I shall try to do so.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 122.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 122
122A Line 13, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may")
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 122A. I do not say, and I hope that I did not say, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate had dealt with the matter inadequately. I said that the explanation was extremely difficult to understand because the amendments were grouped together. I believe that it is sensible to look at Amendments Nos. 122A, 122B and 122D together.
Those amendments relate to the terms of the new clause to be inserted before Clause 24. That new clause is designed to regulate the consideration of applications made to the Lord President and the Secretary of State by persons, not lawyers, who seek the right of audience and similar rights in the courts of Scotland up to and including this House sitting as a court of law.
1582
The first point to which I direct attention is in subsection (3). It provides that the Lord President and the Secretary of State shall take certain action. I shall not seek to make a point that was made on a previous occasion. The Government have considered it and decided against it. The Lord President and the Secretary of State are required to
"consult each other in considering a draft scheme submitted to them under section 23(1)".
In Clause 23(1) one finds that the functions of the Lord President are different and separate from those of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State must consider certain parts of the application and the Lord President must consider others. However, there may be some degree of overlap.
Subsection (5) of the new clause states:
relation to any code of practice such as is mentioned in section 23(2) (b) (ii), the duty of the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above is limited to a consideration of any provision of such a code as would, in his view, directly or indirectly inhibit the freedom of a member of the body concerned to undertake all the work".
Parts of the clause provide that the Lord President is to do one thing and the Secretary of State something else. Parts of the clause provide that the Secretary of State's consideration is limited to certain issues. Yet, subsection 3 of new Clause 23 makes it mandatory for each of them to consult the other about the whole scheme. With respect, that appears to be a bad piece of drafting. Their duty is by no means clear.
The matter is made slightly worse because at a later stage we shall see their functions. They are undoubtedly functions as distinct from powers, although I have yet to follow the difference. They are to be exercised by each as soon as is reasonably practical.
I do not understand what is proposed and, again, it appears to be a good example of confusion. I do not propose to deal with Amendment No. 122C which is a separate matter.
Moved, That Amendment No. 122A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 122, be agreed to.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I understand the approach of the noble and learned Lord, he wishes to deal with Amendments Nos. 122A, 122B, and 122D.
I accept that it is not the easiest of tasks to compare what is provided for within these new clauses and what is provided for within the existing Clause 23. However, if I have followed what the noble and learned Lord put forward, it seems to me that subsections (3) and (5) of the new clause provide for essentially the same as Clause 23(8). His anxiety about Amendment No. 122D is in essence covered by what is to be contained in subsection (10).
I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord does not much care for this scheme at all—and that is perhaps understated—but essentially these matters were considered in principle in this House at an earlier stage. Unless I am missing something, there has been

1583
no change in the principle of what is allowed for as between the clauses which left this House and what has now returned to this House.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, with respect to my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey, it is important also to have regard to subsection (6) of the new clause because that imports that e Lord President shall do something once he and the Secretary of State are satisfied about the draft scheme. I must say that I cannot see how the Lord President can find out that the Secretary of State is satisfied with the parts with which he must deal unless he has consulted with him. Equally, if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the scheme then the Lord President is to refuse under paragraph (b) of subsection (6). I cannot see how that can be done without consultation.
I am not as fussed as the noble and learned Lord about the drafting. It seems to me that there is a coherence once the matter is fully thought through.
As regards the word "shall" in subsection (3) of the new clause, it must be "shall", and that only arises after subsections (1) and (2) have come into play. Thereafter, it must be mandatory that they consult to reach a decision in terms of subsection (6).
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that he was missing something. I hesitate to agree with that and I should not like to speculate as to what it might be.
He missed my reference to subsection (1) which I did no. develop. That draws a distinction between the Lord F resident's consideration of Clause 23(2) and the Secretary of State's consideration of Clause 23(2) (b) and (c), that consideration being limited later on.
However, I cannot persuade the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and I cannot carry with me my noble and learned friend Lord Campbell of Lochbroom. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 122A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 122, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 122B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 122 not moved.]

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 122
122C Line 28, at end insert ("to promote the proper and efficient administration of justice")
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 122C. Your Lordships will see that this amendment seeks to impose upon the Secretary of State and the Lord President an obligation, when considering the provisions of any scheme which a body has drafted which allows its members to exercise its rights of audience in the courts of Scotland, to have regard to the interests of justice. In fact, the words in the amendment are:
"to promote the proper and efficient administration of justice".
I was astonished—and I put it no higher—to hear the noble and learned Lord say. when he sought to deal with these matters all together, that those words
1584
were in some way inappropriate. If the noble and learned Lord asked from where I had obtained the words, it was from the Courts and Legal Services Bill which was considered yesterday in this House.
The appropriate clause of that Bill is Clause 15(3) which states:
"As a general principle the question whether a person should be granted a right of audience, or be granted a right to conduct litigation in relation to any court or proceedings, should be determined only by reference to"—
and paragraph (c) states:
"whether that body's rules of conduct are, in relation to the court or proceedings, appropriate in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice".
Having found those words in that Bill, I thought that it was sensible and proper that they should be inserted also into the Scottish Bill where they are dealing with exactly the same situation; namely, what is appropriate in relation to the scheme of a body whose members are to be granted rights of audience.
In the light of that explanation, although the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has already spoken to this, I ask him to explain why these words lifted straight from the English Bill and appropriate in that Bill and approved by this House yesterday should be omitted from the Scottish Bill.
Moved, That Amendment No. 122C, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 122, be agreed to—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, my noble and learned friend seems to have a point here. Certainly, the spirit of the amendment is sensible as regards any consideration which the Lord President and the Secretary of State should look to when considering a draft scheme because it must fit into the functions of the court or courts. In that, as in other matters, I should have thought that the promotion of the proper and efficient administration of justice is a first and foremost principle.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, when dealing with this previously I made reference to the criteria to be found set out in subsection (4); namely, in considering the draft scheme
"the Lord President and the Secretary of State shall have regard as to whether the provisions of the draft scheme are such as—(a) to achieve; and (b) to ensure the maintainance of, appropriate standards of conduct and practice by persons who may acquire rights to conduct litigation or rights of audience".
Set in the context of a duty to ensure that there is a maintenance of standards of conduct and efficient practice in the courts, I should have thought that we were in such circumstances dealing with the proper and efficient administration of justice as things stand at present. In the circumstances, whatever may be contained in the English Bill, subsection (4) is sufficient for the purposes of any scheme which comes before the Lord President and the Secretary of State.
6 p.m.
Lord McCloskey: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has not addressed himself to my point. In the English Bill, in Clause 15, the provisions include the matters which are currently in the new Clause 24; namely,
"appropriate standards of conduct and practice"
and so on. There are other matters, but the provisions certainly deal with qualifications, rules governing conduct, effective mechanisms for enforcing those rules of conduct, the likelihood of their being enforced and various other matters of that kind.
The general principle which I quoted from subsection (3) is a principle which applies throughout the Bill. I take the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, which I did not want to repeat, that the whole purpose of the courts, and I hope those who practise in them, is to serve the public interest and the interests of justice. If that is seen as a general principle which this House approved for the exact equivalent provision in the English Bill, it should be approved for this Bill.
I am sure that the Government can accept that position. I know it is an embarrassment to accept any amendment to a Commons amendment, but there is still one week to go. I should have thought that this was one amendment the Government would be able to accept. For that reason I intend to press the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I took an active part in seeking to have this clause inserted in the English Bill, and there is no need to repeat the arguments. They are on record. It is a crucial matter of consideration. It is in accordance with the general intendment of the Bill. I respectfully support the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, perhaps I may make one further point. While the intervention of colleagues from this side of the Border is always welcome, it will be appreciated that the structure of the Courts and Legal Services Bill is in many respects very different in the way some principles are set out and expressed. I still have some difficulties understanding the point. While I accept that the Secretary of State, and possibly even more importantly the Lord President of the Court of Session, will want to promote the proper and efficient administration of justice—if he does not I do not know why he is in the chair—I should have thought that that was such an underlying part of his role that what we provided for in Clause 4, in saying that he should put together a scheme which will achieve and ensure maintenance of appropriate standards of conduct and practice by persons, was sufficient to meet the ends. I regret to have to say to the noble and learned Lord that if he presses the amendment I cannot accept it.
On Question, Amendment No. 122C, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 122, negatived.
[Amendment No.122D, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 122, not moved.]

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 122
122E Leave out lines 55 to 57.
Lord McCloskey: My Lords, Amendment No. 122E seeks to leave out lines 55 to 57 in the new clause before Clause 24. Your Lordships will see that it is printed on page 18 of the Marshalled List. The effect of taking out lines 55 to 57 inclusive is to take out the reference to the criminal proceedings in the High Court of Justiciary.
I confess that the amendment is a last desperate attempt to persuade the Government to explain to the House, or indeed to Parliament, because it was not explained to the other place, who other than lawyers want rights of audience in criminal jury trials in Scotland, and who other than lawyers are expected in the future to want or to be granted rights of audience in criminal jury trials in Scotland.
I studied with care all the proceedings in another place—much of which was not profitable—and I read the entire Committee and Report stages proceedings. The Government, when asked who those persons were who fell under Clause 23, said that they were possibly patent agents, social workers, adoption agencies and something called Murgatroyd & Company, who had expressed an interest in the matter. Who, if any, of those persons are seeking the right to represent other persons in the High Court of Justiciary, whether or not as a court of first instance? In other words, who is the provision for in Scotland?
It is a simple question. I have asked it many times. It has never been answered. It was not answered in another place, and I believe the House should have an answer to it now.
Moved, That Amendment No. 122E, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 122, be agreed to.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has been insistent on this point and has asked the question not once or twice but many times. As I indicated in dealing with matters at the outset, when I assumed we would deal with these amendments together, the specific provision he now seeks to delete is in precisely the same form as it was when it left this House, albeit in another clause.
With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, however much he may be dissatisfied this is not an appropriate way in which to reopen something which we have already considered in detail.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, that means that the Lord Advocate, when given a final opportunity to do so, will not answer my question. I can do nothing more. I have asked the question many times. I believe the answer is that nobody who is not a lawyer wants to appear in a criminal trial in Scotland. Neither the patent agents, nor Murgatroyd & Company, nor social workers, nor adoption agencies sought such a right. No one in Scotland said it is necessary. No one wants it. It is in the Scottish Bill only because it is in the English Bill. The noble and learned Lord the Lord

1587
Advocate declines to answer the question. I note that with some sadness, and with that sadness beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 122E, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 122, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
123 Before Clause 24, insert the following new clause:—

Exercise of rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience
.—(1) Where an application made under section 23 of this Act has been granted under section (Consideration of applications made under section 23) of this Act, any member of the body concerned who has complied with the terms of the scheme in relation to the matters mentioned in section 23(2) (b) (i), and who appears to the body to be a fit and proper person, shall have the right to conduct litigation or rights of audience to which that compliance entitles him.
(2) Where a function is, whether expressly or by implication, conferred on any person or body by section (Consideration of applications made under section 23) or this section he or, as the case may be, they shall exercise that function as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) above affects the power of any court in relation to any proceedings—

(a) to hear a person who would not otherwise have a right of audience before that court in relation to those proceedings; or

(b) to refuse to hear a person (for reasons which apply to him as an individual) who would otherwise have a right of audience before that court in relation to those proceedings, and where a court so refuses it shall give its reasons for that decision.

(4) Where a complaint has been made that a person has been guilty of professional misconduct in the exercise of any right to conduct litigation or right of audience held by him by virtue of this section, the body of which he is a member may, or if so requested by the Lord President shall, suspend that person from exercising that right pending determination of that complaint by the body.
(5) Where a person holding a right of audience in any court by virtue of this section is instructed to appear in that court, those instructions shall take precedence before any of his other professional or business obligations, and the code of practice mentioned in section 23(2) (b) (ii) shall include rules—

(a)stating the order of precedence of courts for the purposes of this subsection;

(b)stating general criteria to which members of the body should have regard in determining whether to accept instructions in particular circumstances; and

(c)securing, through such of their officers as they think appropriate, that, where reasonably practicable, any person wishing to be represented before any court by one of their members holding an appropriate right of audience is so represented,

and, for the purposes of such rules, the Inner and Outer Houses of the Court of Session, and the High Court of Justiciary exercising its appellate jurisdiction, may be treated as separate courts.
(6) A person exercising any right of audience held by virtue of this section shall have the same immunity from liability for negligence in respect of his acts or omissions as if he were an advocate, and no act or omission on the part of any such person shall give rise to an action for breach of contract in relation to the exercise by him of such a right of audience.
(7) Any person who wilfully and falsely—

(a) pretends to have any right to conduct litigation or right of audience by virtue of this section; or

(b) where he has any such right, pretends to have any further such right which he does not have; or

(c) takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he has any such right or, as the case may be, any further such right,

1588
shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(8) For the purposes of section 23, section (Consideration of applications made under section 23) and this section—

"right of audience" includes, in relation to any court, any such right exercisable by an advocate; and

"right to conduct litigation" means the right to exercise on behalf of a client all or any of the functions, other than any right of audience, which may be exercised by a solicitor in relation to litigation.'.—

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 123. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 123.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 123
123A Line 6, after ("body") insert ("and to the Lord President")
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 123A. It may be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 123B, 123C, 123D, 123E and 123F. If any of those amendments were carried, that would affect the Motion in relation to Amendment No. 123.
Amendment No. 123 seeks to insert a new clause. I accept that, as the Lord Advocate said, this new clause is to some extent a reformulation of what was contained in a clause which appeared in the original Bill. Your Lordships will see that subsection (1) of the new clause states:
"Where an application made under section 23"
that is, an application by a body to allow its non-lawyer members to be granted the right to conduct litigation and to have right of audience—
"any member of the body concerned who has complied with the terms of the scheme in relation to the matters mentioned in section 23(2) (b) (i), and who appears to the body to be a fit and proper person, shall have the right to conduct litigation".
Given that this is entirely new and that these persons are to be allowed to conduct cases in the highest courts in Scotland, or even the lowest courts, I should have thought it entirely appropriate that it should not be a body which determines whether or not its members are fit but that the Lord President should have a right in that respect.
One of the examples given in another place—I think it was given in this House as well—of a body which might apply was Murgatroyd & Co.; a firm of patent agents which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran will know better than I do. If that company is called upon to determine who is a fit and proper person it is bound to say that all its staff are fit and proper persons. I believe the judgment should lie outside.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Although, in view of what he said, I am tempted to speak about patent agents and intellectual property, my only reason for intervening is that I am sure noble Lords wish to avoid the difficulties that can arise from not

1589
quite understanding which amendment is being dealt with. The noble and learned Lord occasionally drops his voice and it is difficult to hear what he is saying.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I am sorry and I shall endeavour to stand nearer the microphones so that my voice is more adequately amplified. However, I should have thought that some noble Lords may hear more of my voice than they want to!
My first point, therefore, is that I believe the Lord President should have the right to determine whether or not a person who is said by the body to be a fit and proper person is, in fact, suitable.
My Amendment No. 123B seeks to leave out subsection (2) of the new clause. Again, it is highly unfortunate that the Lord President of the Court of Session is to be forced to act as soon as is reasonably practicable. It is right to say that the only persons referred to in subsection (2) are the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The words "or body" are superfluous because no body has any function conferred upon it upon which that subsection bites.
Therefore, proceeding on the basis that the Lord President and the Secretary of State are the only persons involved, and that there is no body involved, why should we force them to do this? I repeat a point made earlier in relation to the charities provision. Why should we put in this provision? What will be the sanction if the Lord President drags his feet or if the Secretary of State does not act as soon as he reasonably can? Is there to be a judicial review of the Lord President's failure or judicial review of the Secretary of State's slowness?
For those reasons and particularly because no body is referred to on whom the subsection bites, I move Amendment No. 123A.
Moved, That Amendment No. 123A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 123, be agreed to.—(Lord McCluskey.)
6.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am in danger of becoming repetitive in my approach to these provisions. While I understand the arguments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, I come back to the fact that we are not introducing substantial changes to the policy that left this House. What we have done—I hope it is clearer now—is to set out the scheme in clauses so that it is more comprehensible.
My recollection is that we have previously discussed this matter. It was not considered appropriate that the Lord President should concern himself with individuals but was felt that it would be for the body to determine whether a person was fit and proper. Of course, as we discussed earlier, the Lord President has a very important role, together with the Secretary of State, in determining the qualifications and tests that are to be appropriate if a scheme is to be approved which allows people who are not lawyers to have a right of audience.
1590
With respect to the noble and learned Lord, while it is right—as I indicated when we first discussed this matter with the noble and learned Lord—that the Lord President should have an opportunity in advance of disciplinary proceedings to request the suspension of an individual in order to allow the disciplinary proceedings to go forward, it is not for him to become directly involved in those disciplinary proceedings. After all, he does not do that at present, either in relation to the Faculty of Advocates or directly in relation to solicitors.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I am surprised to hear the Lord Advocate explain that the Lord President is not to be concerned with individuals. Subsection (4) empowers the Lord President to act in relation to an individual if that individual's professional misconduct, or conduct, comes to his notice. Therefore, the Lord President is concerned in, so to speak, the suspension of persons on an individual basis and it would appear sensible that he should also be concerned with the approval of persons on an individual basis.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I hope I have made it clear to the noble and learned Lord that I recognise that the Lord President has a right under subsection (4) to request the suspension of an individual. That is a different situation. Where disciplinary proceedings are to be properly carried out by the body, it is not unreasonable, as an interim measure, for him to request the suspension of an individual. However, the actual determination of whether a disciplinary offence has been committed by an individual is properly a matter for the body to decide.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, again, in this mainly empty Chamber I do not propose to divide the House on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and, having spoken to it, I shall not move Amendment No. 123B.
Amendment No. 123A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 123, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 123B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 123, not moved.]

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 123
123C Line 26, at end insert ("or by the Lord President in any case in which the Lord President has requested the suspension")
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 123C. This amendment refers to a matter on which I have already spoken. It deals with the case I mentioned. The new clause contains, as did the old clause, in subsection (4) the provision that:
Where a complaint has been made that a person"—
that is, the person I have referred to as a barefoot pleader—
"has been guilty of professional misconduct … the body of which he is a member may, or if so requested by the Lord President shall, suspend that person".

1591
Therefore, the Lord President has the power to order the suspension of that person from exercising his rights of audience. That suspension endures, in the words of subsection (4),
"pending determination of that complaint".
Surprisingly, the subsection then adds,
"by the body".
So, if the Lord President orders his suspension, the body can determine the complaint and remove the suspension.
That appears to be a contradictory provision. If the Lord President takes the extreme step of ordering the suspension of a person who enjoys rights of audience, I should have thought it right and proper that the Lord President should have a say as to whether or not that person comes back into the ranks of those who exercise the right of audience. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 123C, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 123, be agreed to.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have already touched on this matter in dealing with the previous amendment. There is a fundamental disagreement between us on how these matters ought to proceed but there is nothing illogical here. If the Lord President has brought to his attention an allegation of gross professional misconduct it would seem entirely appropriate that he should have the power to go to the body and request it to suspend the individual until it has determined whether or not there has been a disciplinary offence. In a number of areas people are suspended prior to a determination of a complaint against them. It seemed appropriate to the Government that in these circumstances the Lord President as the senior judge in Scotland should be given that opportunity to require the suspension. It does not follow that, where the suspension is requested pending the determination of a complaint, he should be the person to determine that complaint.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, under the suspension procedure, the body may suspend. If the body suspends, the body is then made the judge as to whether the suspension shall endure or be recalled. If the body can perform the dual function of suspender and then judge, surely the Lord President can perform the dual al function, a fortiori, of a body. The body might be the British Association of Social Workers. Surely the Lord President is better able to make a judgment on this matter.
I agree that this is a fundamental disagreement between us. I understand that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is not disposed to accept the amendment. I express my regret about that. I can foresee a situation in which the Lord President might order the suspension of a person's rights of audience. The body, perhaps for policy or other reasons, might decide that that person should go back on the roll. Is the Lord President supposed to order the suspension again? One could have a confrontation or standoff between the two, with apparently no means of resolving it. In those cases where the Lord President has ordered a suspension, the logical answer is to give
1592
the Lord President the right, even if he wants to delegate it to one of his colleagues or to three of his colleagues, to determine the fitness of that person to be restored to the roll. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, wishes to intervene.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I intervene on a point of information. Is there not a distinction between the two suspensions? The member of a body subscribes to the rules of that body or association and to the rules of conduct. He therefore knows that if he contravenes the rules of the body it may or may not suspend him. There is a difference between that and the Lord President's intervention. The Lord President will presumably have a matter brought to his attention or he will have witnessed a matter which is so serious in his view at the time that he recommends suspension of the person from that body until that body has determined within its rules of conduct, which have already been approved in terms of the Bill, whether that complaint is justified. I am not trying to uphold one or other approach. I raise the matter as a point of information.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, the noble Lord's suggestion is wrong. Subsection (4) is concerned with complaints that a person has been guilty of professional misconduct. That is different from conduct which involves a departure from the rules which the body has laid down in the scheme. Accordingly, it is a matter of professional misconduct about which the Lord President may make a judgment. One cannot put sound professional conduct into watertight, comprehensive and exhaustive rules. Professional misconduct is something other than what appears in these rules, although it may include what is contained in the rules. Accordingly, the noble Lord's intervention is, I believe, misconceived. If there is no movement on the part of the Government, I do not propose to press the matter to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 123C, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 123, by leave, withdrawn.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 123
123D Line 27, leave out subsection (5)
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 123D. With this amendment we move to a different point to which I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be able to respond. Subsection (5) of the new clause is designed to create a rule which has been called the cab rank rule. In the Courts and Legal Services Bill it has been called the non-discrimination rule, that term having been introduced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It seeks to apply that rule to the barefoot pleaders, to the non-legally qualified persons who are granted rights of audience under Clause 23.
On the face of it that is an absurd provision. The first item which is dealt with in the subsection is rules:
"stating the order of precedence of courts for the purposes of this subsection".
Does the Lord Advocate want the House to believe that any person that he has in mind or any body that

1593
he has in mind will envisage appearing in courts of such a differing variety that the order of precedence will matter? I refer to the example of Murgatroyd and Company, which has already been mentioned by the Government and to the patent agents who may want to appear in a patent court. Presumably the adoption agency may want to appear in a sheriff court dealing with adoptions and the social workers may want to appear in the small debt court or something of that kind if they are granted rights of audience. What is the point of having elaborate provisions about the order of precedence of courts for the purposes of this subsection?
The whole concept of instructions is absurd. Subsection (5) (b) refers to,
"general criteria to which members of the body should have regard in determining whether to accept instructions in particular circumstances".
From whom do these instructions proceed? I have raised this point although in a different context. When counsel appears in court he receives instructions from a solicitor. When a solicitor appears in court he receives his instructions from his client. Is the concept of accepting instructions really meaningful in this context?
Subsection (5) (c) refers to,
"securing, through such of their officers as they think appropriate, that, where reasonably practicable, any person wishing to be represented before any court by one of their members holding an appropriate right of audience is so represented".
What is meant by "their officers"? Some bodies, whether they be professional bodies or other bodies, might have officers, but does Murgatroyd and Company have officers? How does this provision apply to the likes of such companies? I simply do not understand it. When one seeks to apply the cab rank rule to the barefoot pleaders under Clause 23, one begins to see yet again, from a different perspective, the absurdity of the whole provision. I have sought leave to move this amendment to the Commons amendment in order to draw attention to that. It is right that I should deal with Amendments Nos. 123E and F now in order to save time. I heard what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said about rules. I do not propose to press that matter. Therefore, when the time comes I shall not seek to move Amendment No. 123E.
As regards Amendment No. 123F, I have to deal with that by asking noble Lords to look at the proposed Amendment No. 123. Subsection (5) concludes with the words,
"and, for the purposes of such rules,"
that is the rules for the order and precedence of the courts—
"the Inner and Outer Houses of the Court of Session, and the High Court of Justiciary exercising its appellate jurisdiction, may be treated as separate courts".
The Inner House of the Court of Session is the highest appeal court in Scotland. The Outer House consists of judges sitting as judges of first instance. There is a difference between the Inner and Outer Houses. As regards the High Court of Justiciary,
1594
judges who are Members of the College of Justice sit as Lord Commissioners of Justiciary in the High Court of Justiciary conducting trials or dealing with preliminary matters. They sit as single judges with or without juries in some circumstances. The High Court of Justiciary exercising its appellate jurisdiction sits as groups of three judges.
It is obvious that one has to have some rule that differentiates between the High Court of Justiciary sitting as a court of first instance, and the High Court of Justiciary exercising its appellate jurisdiction. I do not understand the omission. Accordingly, I have tabled Amendment No. 123F which seeks to insert the words,
"the High Court of Justiciary sitting as a court of first instance".
The only hope that I have is that the Government are finally acknowledging here that they cannot contemplate any barefoot pleaders acting in the High Court of Justiciary as a court of first instance, whether it is a trial or a preliminary stage, or exercising the nobile officium the noble office of the High Court. I wait to hear what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has to say.
Moved, That Amendment No. 123D, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 123, be agreed to.—(Lord McCluskey.)
6.30 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords. it seems that there is a great deal of sense in Amendment No. 123F. As the noble and learned Lord will no doubt recognise, at the moment there is continual trouble about precedence between counsel conducting trials before a single judge of the High Court and clashing with their duty in the Court of Appeal or in the appellate jurisdiction. Unless these people are not to have any rights to conduct cases before the High Court as a court of first instance, it is necessary that they should be dealt with on that basis. If they are not to have the right to conduct cases before the High Court as a court of first instance, it is difficult to see why they should conduct appeals in the appeal court.
In the new clause at subsection (5) there is a basic misconstruction. The first two lines state
"Where a person holding a right of audience in any court … is instructed".
There is no sense there of accepting instructions or having any choice in the matter. He receives a letter which says "I instruct you to appear". Then he has something to do. In subsection (5) (b) there is the question of an element of choice as to whether he accepts those instructions. There is a grammatical or semantic divergence there. As it appears in the first two lines of subsection (5) is it meant to be that there is no choice? Instructions will be received and that is it. Alternatively, as suggested in subsection (5) (b), is there some element of choice? If there is, what is it?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I support what has been said about the omission of the High Court of Justiciary sitting as a court of first instance. Is it an error which has made deliberately to see if we can spot it? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord

1595
Morton, said, there is little point in giving a person the right tc appeal to the appeal court because by the time a person has reached that stage the damage has usually been done in the court of first instance. The appeal court is there to rectify wrongs which might have been done. If these rights of audience are to be given at all, they should be given throughout the legal hierarchy, if I may call it that, from the bottom to the top, if that is what the Government wish.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I can only repeat the point that I have already made. If one looks at Clause 23(17) as it existed in the Bill when it left your Lordships' House, with only one exception it is identical to the provision that is now to be found in subsection (5). The only amendment is one that was insistec on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. It has been accepted by the Government as being appropriate; namely, that it is not for this body to establish the order but to state it.
The situation appears to be the same whatever the noble and learned Lord says. I repeat my point that essentially there has been no change other than on the issue of stating instead of establishing. I am slightly puzzled by what he said concerning the High Court of Justiciary and that court exercising its appellate jurisdiction. If that is a point that needed to be made —I may say that I have some difficulty in seeing that any order of precedence needs to be set because I thought the position was clear enough—we have agreed that such an order should be established, and here it is.
Clause 22 deals with the rights of audience and order c f precedence that is to be set for solicitors who might have rights of audience. There, too, it is for the council of the Law Society to set out what are the rights of audience and the precedence. The provision in the last four lines of Clause 22(6) is identical to that established in subsection (5). If the noble and learned Lord's point was of great importance logically he should have been driven to saying that a similar amendment should have been made at an earlier stage.
There is no difficulty here as to how the Inner and Outer Houses of the Court of Session are treated as separate courts, with the High Court of Justiciary exercising its appellate jurisdiction. That is to be treated as a separate court. It is separate in that capacity from its capacity as a court of first instance. I do not see that there is any great difficulty.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord may be right and Clause 22 is wrong as well, though we have missed that. I missed many things that I would have wished to change when I went through the Bill. The point is a very straightforward one. If a distinction is drawn between the Inner and Outer Houses of the Court of Session—in other words, the court of first instance and the court of appeal—and precedence given to one over the other, then logically one must do the same in relation to the High Court of Justiciary. Furthermore, by omitting to differentiate between the High Court of Justiciary in its first instance role and its appellate role, one also commits the error of omitting it in its first instance role.
1596
Therefore, one cannot get a precedence between the court in its first instance role and the Inner or Outer House of the Court of Session.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate should recognise that this is a mistake which, unfortunately, was missed in Clause 22. Because of the way in which this matter came before the House I do not think it was possible to recognise and pick up that mistake. However, the mistake has been picked up in relation to the new clause before Clause 24. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and his draftsmen have simply got this matter wrong. The present provision is not going to work. He should respond to that. That is an intervention. I shall avoid speaking again in any formal sense.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his intervention. I was about to conclude my remarks by pointing out that this matter first arose in relation to Clause 22(6). If my recollection is accurate, he made the point in Committee that we ought to set out on the face of the Bill what was the order of precedence. It was in direct response to that request that this order of precedence was set out. As I understand it, when it left the House there was no concern or disagreement about it and no indication was given at that time that we had in any way set out the provision so that the drafting was defective. I am bound to say that I do not accept even now that there is anything defective in the drafting.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, as I stand on my feet now I am looking at the original Clause 20 which is the forerunner to the present clause. I do not see the defect there. It must have crept in along with a great mass of other amendments either on Report or in Committee, and because of the way those stages were dealt with —we have made many complaints about that —we appear to have missed it. I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is not prepared to accept this amendment to the Commons amendment. I wish only to draw attention to the error, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 123D, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 123, by leave, withdrawn
[Amendments Nos. 123E and 123F, as amendments to Commons Amendment No. 123, not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
124 Before Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
Surrender of rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience
.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where an application made under section 23 of this Act has been granted under section (Consideration of applications under section 23) (6) of this Act, the body concerned may apply to the Lord President and the Secretary of State for permission to surrender any entitlement of their members to acquire rights to conduct litigation or rights of audience.
(2) The Lord President and the Secretary of State shall jointly issue directions as to the requirements with which any body wishing to surrender their members' entitlement will have to comply, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, any such directions may include provision—

1597

(a) where members of a body have acquired rights to conduct litigation or rights of audience, as to the arrangements to be made for the completion of any work outstanding at the time the application is made; and

(b) relating to the particular circumstances of a particular body.

(3) An application under subsection (I) above shall describe the manner in which the body have complied, or will comply, with the directions issued under subsection (2) above.
(4) Where the Lord President and the Secretary of State are satisfied that the body concerned have complied, or will comply, with the directions issued under subsection (2) above, the Lord President shall grant the application, and shall so inform the body.
(5) With effect from the date on which an application under subsection (1) above is granted, any member of the body concerned who has acquired rights to conduct litigation or rights of audience by virtue of the scheme shall cease to hold those rights.'.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 124. This amendment provides for rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation to be brought to an end on the initiative of the body itself. It can only be right that a body which has acquired rights to conduct litigation or rights of audience for its members should be able to surrender those rights of its own volition. It may wish to do so for a variety of reasons. Changes in the law or in the commercial climate may render the rights unnecessary or simply unviable. Moreover, the members of a body may simply decide that they wish to change the way in which it operates.
Amendment No. 124A would require the Lord President and the Secretary of State to become involved when an individual sought to surrender his rights under Clause 23. For reasons similar to those I advanced previously, this would seem to be both unnecessary and inappropriate. It will be for the supervisory bodies to handle applications for the voluntary surrender of rights by their members. They can deal with this under the code of practice which they are required, under Clause 23(b)(ii), to include in their application and which must, as we have seen, satisfy both the Lord President and the Secretary of State.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 124.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 124
124A Line 5, after ("concerned") insert ("or any members thereof").
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 124A. As a matter of explanation, I feel I must point out that unfortunately the printer has not printed the line numbers on the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 124. Therefore, one simply has to count down to line 5. The provision as contained in the proposed new clause is to the effect that when an application is made under Clause 23—that is, the barefoot pleader application—the body concerned may apply to the Lord President and to the
1598
Secretary of State for permission to surrender any entitlement of its members to acquire rights to conduct litigation. For example, if the British Association of Social Workers, the patent agents, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, or whoever were to become a body with such an entitlement for its members subsequently and wished to surrender it, it may do so.
There may be certain members who disagree with what the body is doing or with what the members who have exercised the right of audience are doing. They may wish to have the entitlement surrendered. They may think that it is contrary to the interests of the body that people should be so entitled; that it is contrary to their interests to be discredited, as it were, by association with people who are not competent to carry out the job; and that it is contrary to the interests of justice. In that context, therefore, it seems reasonable to confer upon the members of the body the same right to apply to the Lord President and to the Secretary of State as the body itself has. I say that because we do not know—indeed, we have never been able to discover this—what is meant by the expression, used in Clause 23 and, I believe, in the English Clause 2,
"any professional or other body".
The ejusdem generis rule does not apply and therefore any professional or other body means any body which is a professional body and any body which is not a professional body; in other words, it means any body. Therefore, if the body concerned is the British Association of Social Workers, which is a British institution, it may take a long time before it gets round to dealing with questions of surrendering the entitlement. It may be that the members in a particular area will seek to move in advance of the body's coming to a decision. Therefore, for those reasons, what is proposed appears to be a significant improvement to the amendment proposed by the Commons.
Moved, That Amendment No. 124A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 124, be agreed to.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there is not very much that I can say by way of expansion. If the body itself wishes to wind up the right to conduct litigation—which is to lose its rights of audience—it would seem appropriate that it should do so as a whole. I can only repeat that if it is the case of an individual or individuals who wish to leave the body and surrender their rights of audience, it would seem to be a matter entirely between them and the body which governs their activities.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, plainly I am not making an impression upon the noble and learned Lord. I suppose that ultimately that must be because even in those cases—and I believe that this is one of them—where there is merit in the proposal, he would find himself in difficulty if he were required to go back to another place and ask it to accept amendments to amendments which it had already made. Therefore, I fear that to a real extent, whether we are dealing with important amendments—this may be both an important and a worthwhile one—or trying to remedy

1599
mistakes, we shall make no headway. It is a great pity because it means that in a sense we are wasting our time. I shall not waste any more of your Lordships' time on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 124A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 124, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
125 Before Clause 24, insert the following new Clause:—
Revocation of rights granted under section (Consideration of applications made under section 23)
'.—(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that a body has failed to comply with a direction under section (Review of rules made by the Secretary of State) (6) of this Act, he may by order made by statutory instrument revoke the grant of the application made by that body under section 23 of this Act.
(2) No instrument shall be made under subsection (1) above unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by each House of Parliament.
(3) With effect from the date on which an order under subsection (1) above takes effect, any member of the body concerned who has acquired rights to conduct litigation or rights of audience by virtue of the scheme shall cease to hold those rights.'
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 125. In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 125A, 150 and 151. These amendments enable the Lord President and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to initiate a review of a particular rule or, in the case of bodies exercising practising rights under Clause 23, a scheme, where that rule or scheme does not appear to be operating satisfactorily.
Honourable Members will be aware that the approval of the Secretary of State, once given, puts a particular practice rule beyond the scope of a challenge at the hands of the proposed competition authority. It may also be that that Lord President, or the Secretary of State for that matter, may come to recognise that a particular rule or scheme which has been approved is not operating in the public interest or in the interests of justice. In such circumstances, they will be able under the scheme proposed in these amendments to invite the body concerned to revise that rule and ultimately—this is an ultimate sanction —should they not revise it to their satisfaction, direct them to change it.
In the case of bodies which have acquired practising rights under Clause 23, the second of the new clauses in this group provides that the Secretary of State for Scotland may take the further step of revoking a body's practising rights if it fails to comply with a direction that it amend its rules in a particular fashion. In view of the seriousness of that step, the clause also provides that the measure will be implemented by statutory instrument approved by both Houses of Parliament.
The amendments are essentially of a public protection nature. They provide a safeguard against unsatisfactory rules and schemes for rights of audience.
1600
I turn now to Amendment No. 125A in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. He makes the point that there should be arrangements to secure continuing representation when a body ceases to have rights under Clause 23. I do not, however, consider that that needs to be a matter for the revocation order. Provision along the lines suggested could be made at the time a scheme is first proposed. The Bill already allows for such matters to be included in an initial application. Although it is not spelt out in terms, Clause 23(4), the purpose of which was questioned by the noble and learned Lord at an earlier stage, will allow for that provision to be included. Accordingly, I do not consider the amendment to be necessary.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 125.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 125
125A At end insert—
("(4) Such order shall include provisions as to the continued representation of any person or bodies who find themselves without representation when the order takes effect.").
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 125A. It relates to the provision in Amendment No. 125. Having been a Minister myself at one stage, when I hear the Minister standing at the Dispatch Box and saying "honourable Members", I can appreciate how recently the matter has come from another place and that there has not been time to top and tail the instructions to him in an appropriate fashion. I say no more about that matter; I merely raise it to illustrate a point. We have had even less time to prepare for today's debate.
The problem with revocation of the rights of all members of a body to practise their rights of audience is that at the moment the revocation takes effect there may be several members who are representing people in courts in cases that extend over a period of time. There may be cases that will last for several days or cases that have been postponed to a future date. If all the members of the body lose the right under such an order at the same time, as they would, then no provision is made for what is to happen in the event of such an occurrence. As a result people who were represented by the barefoot pleaders, members of a body which had lost its rights, would not be represented. Some provision should be made for that situation.
If the Lord Advocate is indicating that when the Secretary of State makes his input to the approval or disapproval of rules made by the body he will seek to insist that they make provision for a kind of insurance policy against the day when the rights are revoked by such an order, then I think that the House will be happy to accept that position and not insist upon the amendment.
Moved, That Amendment No. 125A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 125, be agreed to.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I indicated that such a matter could be included within a scheme. At this stage it would be premature for me to give an unequivocal undertaking that the Secretary of State would include such a provision. I intended to convey to the noble and learned Lord that as I read Clause 23(4), that situation could be achieved.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, the mountain has roared and brought forth a mouse. At last we have something. I am content to accept the situation on the basis that the Lord Advocate will refer his concern to the Secretary of State. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 125A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 125, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
126 Clause 24, page 35, line 36, after 'means', insert ', in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland'.
127 Clause 25, page 35, line 37, leave out 'in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 126 and 127. They seek to clarify the definition of "practitioners" in Clause 24(6)(b) of the Bill. The intention is for "practitioners" in relation to England, Wales and Northern Ireland to include those who have rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation even if they are not solicitors or barristers provided that they are covered by regulations made by the Secretary of State. Before amendment the clause did not fully cover that policy aspect. Indeed, the matter caused some confusion when it last came before the House.
Moved. That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 126 and 127. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
128 Clause 25, page 36, line 18, after 'discipline)' insert:
'(a) at the end of subsection (1A) there shall be inserted—
"and
(f) make such additional or different provision as the Council think fit in relation to solicitors who, or incorporated practices which, are partners in or directors of multi-disciplinary practices."; and
(b)'.
129 Page 36, line 22, leave out from 'prohibiting' to 'shall' in line 26 and insert 'the formation of multi-disciplinary practices'.
130 After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:

Multi-national practices
`. Before section 61 of the 1980 Act there shall be inserted the following section—

Multi-national practices.
60A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, solicitors and incorporated practices may enter into multi-national practices with registered foreign lawyers.
(2) The Council shall maintain a register of foreign lawyers, and may make rules with regard to registration; and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, such rules may include provision as to—

(a) the manner in which applications for registration are to be made;

(b)the fees payable in respect of such applications;

1602

(c)conditions which may be imposed in respect of registration; and

(d) the period for which any such registration is to run.

(3) Section 34(2) and (3) apply to rules made under subsection (2) as they apply to rules made under that section.
(4) Any foreign lawyer may apply to the Council to be registered as such for the purposes of this section and the Council shall, if they are satisfied that the legal profession of which the applicant is a member is so regulated as to make it appropriate for him to be allowed to enter into a multi-national practice with solicitors or incorporated practices, enter his name on the register.
(5) Subject to subsection (6), the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument 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) Before making any order under subsection (5), the Secretary of State shall consult the Council.
(7) 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 Secretary of State specifies in the order.
(8) No order shall be made under subsection (5) unless a draft of the order has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.".'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 128 to 130 en bloc. I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 243, 245 and 262. I should also mention Amendment No. 244A which is in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.
The new clause will, I hope. be welcomed by the House. The Bill already provides for the removal of existing statutory barriers to the formation of multi-national practices and this new clause makes it absolutely clear that Scottish solicitors are entitled to enter into such practices. More importantly perhaps it gives the Council of the Law Society of Scotland certain powers to regulate such practices. The House will wish to be aware that the amendment has been discussed with the Law Society, which has indicated its general support for the amendment as drafted and for the policy in general.
This clause is an enabling power rather than a detailed attempt to regulate multi-national practices. It creates a flexible framework within which details can be worked out in the light of developments in international legal practice. Thus the Secretary of State for Scotland is accorded a regulation-making power to attach existing statutes and statutory instruments to foreign lawyers practising in Scotlnad or in partnership with Scottish solicitors where he considers it appropriate. That power is to be exercised only after consultation with the Council of the Law Society and is subject to affirmative to resolution in both Houses. The new clause paves the way for enhancement of business opportunies for the Scottish legal profession and for better legal services.
Amendment No. 244A in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, would restrict the scope of multi-national practices to those involving

1603
lawyers from within the European Community. This would, for example, allow partnerships with Germany but not with Switzerland and with Denmark but not with Norway. That situation would be anomalous. The provisions contain the important safeguard that the Law Society has discretion over which foreign lawyer; are to be accepable according to the arrangments under which they are regulated in their home jurisdictions. That provision is without prejucide to EC directives dealing with the services of lawyer; and the mutual recognition of qualifications.
The remaining amendments in this group are primarily intended to clarify the position of multi-disciplinary practices in the regulatory frame-work which governs solicitors. The House will be aware that the Bill already provides for the removal of existing statutory barriers to the formation of multi-disciplinary practices—that is, practices involving solicitors and followers of other professional disciplines—and to shift responsibility for the extent to which multi-disciplinary practices should be permitted to the Council of the Law Society of Scotland. Amendment No.128 clarifies the rule-making role of the Law Society in that regard.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 128 to 130.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, the only matter I should like to mention is in regard to Amendment No. 244A. That amendment seeks to restrict the multi-disciplinary partnerships in the way indicated by the noble and learned Lord. I am content with what he has stated. I had not properly grasped the point. I have now understood it entirely from what he has said and am grateful to him for that explanation. Accordingly, I merely intimate that I do not propose to move Amendment No. 244A when the time comes. I have nothing else to say in relation to the other matters.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration of the Commons amendments be now adjourned. In moving the Motion perhaps I may suggest that the House does not return to this business until half-past seven.
Moved, That further consideration of the Commons amendments be now adjourned.—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, most of us are quite content with this arrangement of half an hour, given the special circumstances of the debate, but I must make it absolutely clear that in future we shall look for the normal hour.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1990
7.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the house on 17th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order provides for the amendment of the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972 to take account of changes to the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collision) Regulations and to the merchant shipping inquiries and investigations provisions which are applied to hovercraft.
I should perhaps begin by explaining that the 1968 Hovercraft Act recognises that hovercraft are vehicles in their own right—neither ships nor aircraft—and provides general enabling powers to make provisions for hovercraft. This includes the power to apply to hovercraft other enactments and instruments relating to other means of transport. Through the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972 a wide range of such legislation is applied to hovercraft. This includes Merchant Shipping Act provisions relating to the investigation of casualties.
The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collision) Regulations 1989, which came into force on 19th November 1989, apply directly to hovercraft by virtue of Article 4 of the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1989. References to collision regulations and rules are no longer appropriate in the enactment order.
The casualty investigation provisions of Section 55 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 have been replaced by Section 33 of the 1988 Act. The order will apply, with appropriate modifications, legislative provisions giving powers to investigate hovercraft casualties which are not the responsibility of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch.
I am sure that the House will appreciate the need for this order to ensure that development in maritime safety regulations are applied, as appropriate, to hovercraft engaged in maritime operations.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the House would normally have expected my noble friend Lord Underhill to be here and to respond and make a useful contribution to the debate. Regrettably, he is not well and is unable to be here, but he has asked me to say that, having studied the matter, which is complex and complicated but easily understood by him, he is content
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should like to say how sorry we are on this side of the House that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is not able to be here tonight. We wish him a speedy recovery and return to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Commission and Court of Human Rights (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1990
7.5 p.m.
Lord Reayrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th July be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order before us arises from the Fifth Protocol to the General Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe which was signed by our Permanent Representative in Strasbourg on 18th June 1990 with the prior agreement of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The protocol provides an exemption from tax for salaries, emoluments and allowances paid by the Council of Europe to members of the commission and judges of the Court of Human Rights.
Under the European Convention on Human Rights, the task of protecting human rights is shared by the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. The role of the members of the commission is to examine complaints of alleged breaches of the convention, to establish the facts and try to obtain a friendly settlement of cases, failing which they express their opinion as to whether there has been a violation of the convention. There is one member for each of the 23 states that have ratified the convention. The United Kingdom was one of the first to do so in 1951. In 1989, the commission delivered 1,338 decisions concerning applications from individuals of which 1,190 were declared inadmissible, 53 were struck off the list and 95 were declared admissible.
The role of the judges of the court is to give judgment in cases referred to it by the commission or any state concerned. The number of judges is equal to the number of members of the Council of Europe. The judges must either possess qualifications for appointment to high judicial office or be jurists of recognised competence. The court does not sit permanently but is becoming increasingly busy. Thirty cases were referred to it in 1989.
Members of the commission and judges of the court have previously been paid a daily allowance in respect of time spent in Strasbourg, travelling days and a maximum of 10 days' preparation at home before each regular session. In addition, expenses of travel to and from Strasbourg are also paid.
When this system of allowances was considered in 1961 by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, it decided that the daily allowance should be regarded as a subsistence allowance. The intention behind this decision was that it should be regarded as merely covering expenses actually incurred and should not accordingly be taxable in any member state. Although this intention was not translated into a binding provision in the relevant protocols to the General Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, the allowances have in
1606
practice been exempted from tax in most member states. In the United Kingdom, the allowances paid to the one British judge of the court and one British member of the European Commission of Human Rights have been exempted by extra statutory concession.
As a result of recent increases in the workload of the commission, a Council of Europe study was undertaken to see how the commission could deal with a greater number of applications. It concluded that the number of working weeks should be increased from 28 to 32, putting the operation of the commission on to a virtual full-time basis. At the same time, the members of the commission should, in view of the commitment required of them, in future be paid a retainer, in addition to the daily allowance and travelling expenses. It was also recognised that the judges of the court were also having to spend more time on the work of the court and similar financial arrangements should be made for them.
In the light of the study's findings, the new financial arrangements were drawn up on the assumption that the remuneration would be exempt from taxation in all member states. The Fifth Protocol was prepared to provide tax exemption for both the daily allowance and the retainer paid to members of the commission and judges of the court.
The draft statutory instrument which has been laid in accordance with Section 10 of the International Organisations Act 1968 will enable the Government to give effect to the United Kingdom's obligations under the protocol by conferring an exemption from income tax on the emoluments paid by the Council of Europe to members of the commission and judges of the court. It is usual for the emoluments of officials of international organisations to be exempted from national tax. Exemption of the emoluments of members of the commission and judges of the court will ensure equality of treatment with emoluments paid to judges of the European Court of Justice and the International Court of Justice. This order, in addition to exempting the retainer, will also put the existing treatment of the daily allowance on to a clear statutory basis.
I commend the European Commission and Court of Human Rights (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendments) Order 1990 to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th July be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Reay.)
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's clear explanation of the order and for his description of the role of the judges of the court. The reason for the order is clear from his explanation. There is not much to say on this matter as the order clearly flows from an international protocol in which we have little or no discretion. As the Minister has said, the order continues the underlying principle that members of the Court of Human Rights should be relieved from national taxation because they serve the international community. The main result of that practice is that it appears very generous and it makes

1607
ordinary people who do not benefit from it rather envious of those people who do. That reduces the popularity of people who are in the fortunate position of benefiting from the measure.
However, I should like clarification on one or two matters. Is the retainer paid in addition to subsistence and other allowances? I hope the Minister can say how much the exemptions and privileges are worth, or at least give me an idea of the sums involved. Do other British nationals who are working either as typists or interpreters for the Commission or the court receive the same favourable treatment? I should be grateful for clarification on those points, but I must say that we on this side of the House support the order.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the order. I heard the Minister's explanation of the order, but nevertheless I am no' convinced that British nationals, or for that matter other nationals, should be exempt from tax because they are employed by an international organisation. After all, they are citizens of one country or another and they presumably enjoy all the benefits that flow from the taxation of the citizens of that country. As they will live in the country of their nationality most of the time, the benefits gained from the taxpayers of that country will flow to them. I cannot understand why those people should be exempt from taxation in this way. I appreciate that this is a matter of international protocol, but nevertheless I should like to discover whether the level of remuneration or the retainer, as opposed to the allowances, is adjusted because no tax is paid. If that is not the case, why should these people enjoy a privilege that no other citizen, except perhaps the Queen. enjoys?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have been asked a number of questions by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I shall try to reply to those questions as best I can. The noble Baroness asked me whether the retainer was paid in addition to allowances. I can confirm that that is the case. I can provide figures to show the rate of the allowances. The daily allowance for those working in the Commission is approximately £180 while in Strasbourg. The daily allowance is approximately £156 while travelling and approximately £115 while working at home. The retainer for the members of the Commission is approximately £15,000 per annum.
The retainer for members of the court is approximately £17,500 per annum. The daily allowance is approximately £190 while in Strasbourg. It is approximately £170 while travelling and approximately £130 while working at home. I hope that deals with the questions that the noble Baroness asked. It is difficult to calculate the cost of the measure but it is worth making the point that the retainers payable would have been set at a higher level if the exemption had not been provided. In other words, the fact that the retainers are tax exempt is taken into account when the original level of the retainers is fixed.
The noble Baroness also asked me about staff in the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1960 provides that
1608
all permanent and temporary members of the staff of the Council of Europe shall enjoy exemption from income tax in respect of the emoluments received by them as officers of the Council of Europe. This privilege is conferred in accordance with the general agreement on privileges and immunities of the Council of Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, gave his opinion on this measure when he said that he considered it was not a justified procedure. I can only explain why the salaries that are paid to employees of these international organisations are normally exempt from income tax. That is done to ensure that the country in which the organisation is based does not enjoy an undue fiscal advantage in relation to other member states as a result of taxing the salaries of the employees of the organisations which are based there. Further, the salaries of these employees are exempt from income tax to ensure that those employees are treated on an equal basis because if they had to pay national tax to their states of origin they would pay taxes at different rates and they would not enjoy the same salary after tax. The noble Lord may dislike this procedure but that is the general thinking behind this long-standing international practice.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Crown Agents (Additional Powers) Order 1990
7.16 p.m.
Lord Reayrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th July be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the history of the Crown Agents goes back over 150 years. During that time they have continued to provide a wide range of services and supplies to a growing number of principals. Progress has not always been smooth. Your Lordships will recall that during the 1960s and 1970s the Crown Agents became involved in property speculation and secondary banking, which led eventually to their having to seek financial support from the Government.
The Crown Agents Act of 1979 put an end to the uncertain status of the unincorporated Crown Agents and regularised their position as a public corporation. The Act sets out in detail what they may and may not do, and for whom, as well as their responsibilities to the Government. Since incorporation, the Crown Agents have continued to provide a range of services covering purchasing and supply, financial and economic services and the provision of professional and technical advice. The loss in 1983 of the Brunei Investment Account reduced their profitability for a time, but since then they have been steadily building up their business. In 1989 their total gross income was just over £40 million, giving a profit after tax of £2·4 million. This represented a return on capital of 17·6 per cent. That is substantially higher than the 10 per cent. target set by the Government for the Crown Agents as a public sector trading body.

1609
Most of the Crown Agents' business is done on an agency basis; that is to say at principals' instruction and at principals' risk. But the Crown Agents are also empowered to provide services in their own right; that is to say, at their own risk. In both cases they are only able to provide services for authorities and bodies scheduled under the Crown Agents Act. These are in general public or charitable bodies, both domestic and foreign, but not bodies in the private sector.
This limitation is now an anomaly. For a number of years we and other donors have been encouraging developing countries to pursue sound economic policies, including that of placing greater emphasis on the private sector. Many, I am glad to say, are responding. They are insisting not only that their public sector bodies adopt more commercial practices, but they are also shifting functions generally into the private sector. It would be wholly unreasonable, therefore, to deny these organisations the Crown Agents' services the moment a body becomes privatised when they may have benefited from those services for many years.
Furthermore, a number of the Crown Agents' traditional principals, while themselves remaining in the public sector, are altering the way in which they undertake procurement in that they have started to employ private sector intermediaries and to insist that procurement agents deal only with them. Wherever that happens the Crown Agents are at present unable to continue to provide a procurement service.
The purpose of the order, therefore, is to allow the Crown Agents to provide their own right services, as set out in Section 5 of the Crown Agents Act, to private sector clients. This will allow them to continue to provide procurement and other services to their traditional clients, and thus to diversify their sources of income. Their ability to provide such services will continue to be subject to the consents that apply at present to their provision of own right services for scheduled authorities and bodies. The Government also intend to limit the volume of own right business undertaken by Crown Agents for the private sector to not more than 25 per cent. of their total budgeted own right business and to keep that proportion under review. For 1990 the Crown Agents are budgeting own right business of £27·5 million, which would imply a limit on business for the private sector of some £9 million. In practice the share of private sector own right business is expected to be substantially less than 25 per cent. of the total.
I therefore commend the order to your Lordships as a sensible and practical measure to enable the Crown Agents to continue to provide own right services to those of their traditional clients who may, either now or in the future, no longer count as scheduled authorities and bodies; and other clients in the private sector, and thus to diversify their source of income and enhance their competitiveness in an increasingly competitive world. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th July be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Reny.)
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order very clearly. We on these Benches welcome the decision to allow the Crown Agents to deal with the private sector. I should also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Crown Agents. After all, the Crown Agents have come very a long way from their original role as the agency responsible for sending men, money and material from Britain to the colonies. Now they are in the forefront of ensuring that official aid donors obtain value for the money they spend. As the Minister has said, the Crown Agents now face new challenges in the battle to develop and expand their unique range of services. I should like to seek clarification from the Minister on one or two points. First, perhaps the Minister could say what steps the Crown Agents will take to deal with the new challenges afforded by the worldwide trend away from tying aid to procurement of the donor's goods and services. Secondly, how will they adapt to the 1992 single European market and the opening of Eastern Europe? Their role will now be to compete with the private sector to provide services even to the UK Government who owns them. Will the Minister outline to the House what progress has been made by the Crown Agents' European economic interest group in obtaining business in Eastern Europe?
My last question relates to the staff of the Crown Agents. Can the Minister say how the order will affect the staff and whether it will have any bearing on the current uncertainty which surrounds the pension rights of members of staff of the Crown Agents? I understand that when the agency is privatised in April the 13,000 staff will have to negotiate private pension contracts to replace the existing scheme, which provides automatic protection against inflation. Staff of the Crown Agents—which are part of the Property Services Agency—have been told that the existing pension safeguards will be honoured only until next April. After that the agency will have to make their own arrangements, bearing in mind the need to make a profit. It would be ironic if the staff, who only last year were praised by the management consultants, McKinsey and Co., for their skills and "extraordinarily high esprit de corps" were to lose valuable pension rights when the Property Services Agency is hived off from the Department of the Environment and becomes an independent agency next year.
There is concern about that point. I should be grateful if the Minister could make some general comments on the first points that I have raised and provide a more specific answer to the question of pension rights.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to both the Government and the Crown Agents. The Crown Agents have been through some turbulent times and have restored their integrity and reputation. They do a wonderful job.
I should like to ask whether the 25 per cent. limitation is a sensible figure. I know from other arrangements that governments make in releasing new rights to such organisations that they tend to err on the side of caution. Can my noble friend say whether

1611
any expansion of the 25 per cent. limit would have to be made via another order or whether it could be increased by some other mechanism? I should also like to ask my noble friend at what point within the next five years the Crown Agents expect to reach the 25 per cent. limitation.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her generally warm welcome for the order and for the tribute which she paid to the Crown Agents. She asked me a number of penetrating questions. So far as concerns the Crown Agents pensions, we are aware of the concern on the matter. If I may should like to write to her on the matter rather than answer her now.
The noble Baroness also asked me about the response of the Crown Agents to the trend away from tied aid. The Crown Agents will continue to compete for that business. They have done so successfully up until now, notably in the case of Japan where they have won a large contract, and also in Bolivia. Regarding Eastern Europe, the Crown Agents are keenly aware of the opportunities which are being opened up in Eastern Europe and will pursue such opportunities as they arise.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked me about the 25 per cent. limit. There is no expectation of it being reached in the near future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7.27 p.m.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1990
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghornerose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this draft order is to implement the final recommendations contained in the Boundary Commission for Scotland's report on its 1990 interim review of 19 parliamentary constituencies. The commission submitted its report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 5th July and he proposes that its recommendations should be implemented without modification. The draft order was approved in another place yesterday and, if it is approved by your Lordships, it will be submitted to Her Majesty in Council to be made.
No substantive objections were received by the commission during the review and none has been received by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State since the report was submitted to him. I therefore invite your Lordships to approve this draft order implementing the commission's recommendations in full. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, this is a fairly simple order bringing in minor boundary changes,
1612
which seem reasonable. Like the Government, we on this side of the House have received no representations from those who might be expected to be affected by the order. The changes seem to be generally acceptable and the order is accordingly not opposed.
On a supplementary matter, can the Minister give your Lordships' House any indication of the likely timetable for the more substantial boundary review which will be the basis for the constituency boundaries following the next election?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as I understand it, that is a matter for the commission. I believe that the review will take place between 1993 and 1998.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 7.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.29 to 7.30 p.m.]

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Amendments and Motions to be moved on consideration of Commons amendments resumed.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
131 Clause 26, page 37, line 31, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section (Exercise of rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience) of this Act'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 131. I should like to speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 133, 146, 149, 227 to 229, 254 to 256 and 267. These are technical and consequential amendments to replace clause numbers with verbal descriptions.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 131.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
132 Clause 27, page 38, line 32, at end insert:

'(ba) members and officers of the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board established by section 14 of this Act;

(bb) subject to paragraph (be) below, executry practitioners within the meaning of section 21 of this Act;

(be) where any such executry practitioner is a partnership or a body corporate, the partners or, as the case may be, the directors, secretary or other similar officers;

(bd) the directors, secretary or other similar officers of any recognised financial institution within the meaning of section 18(2) of this Act;'.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 132. The amendment renders ineligible for the position of Scottish legal services ombudsman the members and officers of the board —that is, the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board; executry practitioners where they are individuals; and the relevant office-bearers of any

1613
executry practitioner which is a body corporate or any recognised financial institution in terms of Clause 18. The independence and integrity of the post of Scottish legal services ombudsman will be essential if its decisions are to carry the necessary weight. This amendment helps to ensure just that independence.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 132.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
133 Clause 27, Page 38, line 37, leave out '23' and insert `(Exercise of rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience).
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 133. This amendment has already been spoken to.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 133.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
134 Clause 28, page 38, line 43, leave out 'and the High Court of Justiciary'.
135 Page 39, line 7, leave out 'and the High Court of Justiciary'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 en bloc. Together with these amendments I shall speak to Motions and Amendments Nos. 210 to 216. The purpose of these amendments is to put beyond doubt the jurisdiction of temporary sheriffs appointed under the provisions of the present Bill. It has been the intention since the outset that judges, whether permanent or temporary, appointed under the new provisions should, like the existing senators, be able to sit in the Court of Session and the High Court and the present amendments are designed to ensure that that will be so.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 134 and 135. — (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, did the noble and learned Lord say "temporary sheriffs"?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if I said temporary sheriffs it was a slip of the tongue. I meant temporary judges.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, my heart leapt when I saw this amendment because I thought that the Government intended to have a provision which related to the eligibility of sheriff principals for the Court of Session only and not the High Court of Justiciary. However, I realised that this is just the precursor of another amendment at a later stage and it may be more appropriate to direct my remarks to that amendment when we come to it.
As I understand it, the intention will be that persons who are eligible for judicial appointments will be eligible for appointments as judges of the Court of Session and by reason of that will be able to sit as
1614
Lords Commissioners of Justiciary. That concerns a later amendment which I shall discuss when we reach it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
136 Clause 29, page 39, line 12, at beginning insert:
`An advocate and the person instructing him may agree, in relation to a litigation undertaken on a speculative basis, that, in the event of the litigation being successful, the advocate's fee shall be increased by such percentage as may, subject to subsection (1A) below, be agreed.
(1A) The percentage increase which may be agreed under subsection (1) above shall not exceed such limit as the court may, after consultation with the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, prescribe by act of sederunt.
(1B)'.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 136
136A That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 136.
Lord McCluskeyrose to move, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 136.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, my Motion No. 136A, which I beg to move, is that this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 136. It may be a matter of convenience for the House if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate deals with Amendment No. 136 before I address myself to Amendment No. 136A.
Moved, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 136.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if it is for the convenience of the House I shall move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 136.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow an advocate to enter into fee agreements in speculative actions which would provide for an enhanced fee to be paid to him in the event of success. Such enhancement of the fee would compensate the advocate for the risk taken in any speculative action that he will receive no fee at all. Clause 29 already makes parallel provision in relation to solicitors. The maximum level of enhancement by which a fee may be increased in a speculative action will be set by the Lord President in consultation with the dean of faculty in relation to advocates and in consultation with the Council of the Law Society in relation to solicitors. The amendment is seen to remove an inconsistency which would have arisen whereby the solicitor in a speculative action would be able to stipulate the proportion by which his fee should be increased in the event of success while the advocate would be entitled only to his usual fee, with no compensation for the risk that he had run of receiving no fee at all.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has put his own Motion and, as I understand it, his concern may be one which has certainly been expressed to me by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates; namely, that the difficulty in relation to such an arrangement for advocates is that whereas a solicitor's fee can be determined by reference to a scale

1615
of fees there is not the same opportunity in relation to an advocate. Thus, while the dean of faculty—I choose the example purely at random—might say that it might be enhanced by the amount of 15 per cent., that begs the question: "Fifteen per cent. of what?"
In such circumstances I envisage that it would be 15 per cent. of any fee recovered if a fee were to be settled or agreed before the action was concluded through the court; or alternatively in the event of such a fee being taxed by the auditor. In those circumstances it would be open to the dean of faculty to say that something might be added. It would seem to me that the purpose of introducing this amendment was an attempt to secure an equity between solicitors and advocates in these natters. But if the dean of faculty or the Lord President consider that this is a matter that cannot successfully be achieved, in such circumstances they are not bound to state a figure for the amount of any enhancement and I suppose that they could fix the figure for enhancement at zero.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 136.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and I think alike on the matter, although I have not discussed it with him. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord upon a valiant defence of an absolutely impossible position.
Amendment No. 136 is pure nonsense. Nobody asked for such provision; nobody wants it; and nobody believes that it will work. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate put his finger on the reason. It makes no difference whether the amount is 15 per cent., 20 per cent. or 50 per cent. One does not know what figure the 15 per cent., 20 per cent. or 50 per cent relates to. When an advocate undertakes a case on a speculative action he does not submit a fee note to the solicitor instructing him until the case is finished. If the case is lost, he submits no fee note. If it is won he submits a fee note. He cannot then say, "My fee is £100. Will you kindly add 20 per cent?". The limit has been prescribed by act of sederunt. The court is empowered to prescribe the percentage limit by act,of sederunt. But the court will realise that it cannot frame such an act of sederunt for the very same reason: one cannot give 20 per cent. of an amount that does not exist.
The Government have thought in terms of playing fields rather than the way in which the courts, the advocates and others conduct their business. Subsection (3) of new Section 61A inserted by Clause 29 is perfectly sensible because in certain circumstances solicitors have judicial fees laid down by the courts. One can therefore have a percentage increase. One can understand that provision. However, in relation to an advocate, it is totally meaningless. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate should have picked the point up and should not have allowed such nonsense to be inserted in the Bill.
Amendment No. 136 begins:
"An advocate and the person instructing him".
I do not know who that person is. The probability is that in the great majority of cases the instructions will have come from a solicitor. I do not know whether it is considered that the advocate and solicitor will reach such an agreement as is envisaged by these words. I do not know what effect that will have on the client. If the provision relates to the client rather than the person instructing the advocate, that ought to be in the provision. In all respects, the provision is a non-starter. I therefore ask your Lordships not to accept Commons Amendment No. 136.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not entirely sure I agree that the provision is nonsensical. It is correct that if the action is lost the advocate submits no fee. If he submits a fee in the event of success—the position seems to me more straightforward than the noble and learned Lord suggests—he would say, "My fee is £x. It has been established by the act of sederunt, following consultation with the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, that because my instructions were given to me on a speculative basis my fee will be increased by 15 per cent."
With respect, I do not think in practice that that is difficult. In a speculative action an award is granted by the court; a decree is granted plus expenses. Those expenses will include the amount of the advocate's fees. I have indicated that in certain circumstances the amount recovered might be taxed. I refer to my example. I hasten to say that I have plucked a figure from the air. It is not as a result of having talked to the Dean of Faculty. I do not wish to give an indication that that was the figure that he had in mind. If one considers the amount taxed and add 15 per cent. to it, I do not believe that the position is as nonsensical as the noble and learned Lord suggests. However, if the provision is not wanted, or is unworkable, doubtless there will be no act of sederunt.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am not quite clear what the noble and learned Lord is saying. Is he stating that in a speculative action the other party, backed by the insurance company or whatever, is to pay a higher rate of expenses? If that is so, I understand it but I totally disagree with the justice of it.
In a speculative case which has settled, the fee for counsel, agreed with the client, does not go for taxation. There is nothing to tax. There is no sense in this provision. There is no set fee for an advocate which can be increased by any percentage. There never is and never has been except in legal aid work, where the Secretary of State fixes the appropriate fees. It is clear that a legal aid case is not a speculative case and therefore has nothing whatever to do with the argument.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate wishes to reply to that point. In doing so he might wish to reply to my supplementary point.
If the case went to taxation—I agree with my noble and learned friend that it would not—the auditor would say, "£x is a proper fee," and the act of sederunt

1617
would enable him to say, "You can have a proper fee plus 15 per cent."—in other words an excessive fee. I do not imagine that anyone would wish an act of sederunt to enable counsel to have an excessive fee. The amendment is a nonsense.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, with great respect, the act of sederunt would not say, "Here is fee A, and in these circumstances you can now have an excessive fee." The provision states that if an advocate undertakes speculative work there will be circumstances in which he recovers nothing. But in certain circumstances, because he is prepared to take the risk that he will receive no fee, if he be successful the act of sederunt provides that the fee shall be increased. There is nothing too extraordinary about the amount of his fee being taxed and a percentage being added to it.
Perhaps I may make this absolutely clear to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton. I did not envisage in such circumstances that an accountant could say that the extra percentage might be imposed on the other side. That would be intolerable because those persons would have to endure greater expenses in circumstances over which they had no control.
Many speculative actions may be settled long before they come to court and before reaching a stage where a fee might properly go for taxation. In such circumstances it does not seem to me difficult to develop a practice that when settlement was made it should be made clear that a certain proportion was to be for the payment of expenses. Settlements are sometimes made on the basis of a global figure. Sometimes they are agreed on the basis that such an amount is what the pursuer will receive and that such an amount represents the expenses.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene because the provision worries me. In Clause 29 (2) one has a situation in which the agent and client can agree the rate of payment for a fee and there can be no taxation thereafter because they have made a written agreement. Is that to apply to a speculative action?
Let us suppose that one is a solicitor acting for a person who suffers injury as a passenger in a motor car collision and is rendered paraplegic. That is the typical speculative action and the person has an absolute certainty of winning. One then agrees that out of the settlement the fee will be such and such. That cannot go to taxation; it is between the solicitor and client. After the settlement is reached the advocate and the solicitor, as his client, agree a fee for whatever they are doing. What is the point of saying that after the settlement is reached—that is the only time one agrees a fee—one will add a notional percentage? Why not just agree the fee, which is the situation under Clause 29(2)?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we could go on about this point ad nauseam. The fact of the matter is that if the Dean of the Faculty, the Faculty of Advocates, or the Lord President do not want to do that they can set the figure at zero and there will be no question of enhancement. I am bound to say that
1618
practically speaking it will be more than possible to set out an arrangement that allows for a modest percentage increase in certain circumstances of taxation. The provision is included with the best of intentions.
While the Dean of Faculty has talked to me about the matter he did not indicate that he wished to see the provision wholly removed. He was concerned to discover, as was the noble and learned Lord, whether the intention behind the provision was that the fee that might be chargeable to the losing party in the event of loss would be increased. If that were the intention he would have been most concerned and—I hope that I have reassured the noble and learned Lord—so should I. I cannot envisage any circumstances in which that would be permissible.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, if I need the leave of the House to speak in conclusion, I ask for that. The English judges were most concerned about a similar proposal in their Green Paper in relation to practitioners in England. They wrote to me and asked about the speculative action in Scotland. I wrote a paper about the subject for them and I am now sorry that I did not send a copy to the noble and learned Lord. Had he read my paper I do not believe that this provision would have appeared in the Bill.
I made a study of the matter. I consulted a number of people and I consulted my own experience because I have been involved in many speculative actions. I do not wish to remake the points but, apart from them, the real truth is that no advocate wants any such provision and no advocate has asked for it. The Dean has not asked for it and, from what the Lord Advocate has said, I gather that he does not understand it and does not consider it to be necessary. Therefore, the provision goes into the Bill not because someone wants it, or because it is necessary or because it makes sense but because the Government have included it in a state of confusion. It ought to come out. I commend my Motion No. 136A to the House.
On Question, Motion No. 136A negatived.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
137 Clause 30, page 40, leave out line 15 and insert:
'(a) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted—
"(1) The offices and functions of—

(a) the clerk to the admission of notaries public; and

(b) the keeper of the register of notaries public,

are hereby transferred to the Council.";
(ab) in subsection (2), for the words from "grant" to the end there shall be substituted "direct the Council to register him in the register of notaries public.";'.
138 Page 40, line 22, leave out from 'and' to end of line 24 and insert 'direct the Council to register him in the register of notaries public.";'.
139 Page 40, line 28, leave out from 'and' to end of line 30 and insert 'direct the Council to register him in the register of notaries public.'.
140 Page 40, leave out lines 33 and 34 and insert:
'(d) for subsection (5) there shall be substituted—
"(5) The Council may charge such reasonable fees as they consider appropriate in respect of the admission of any person as a notary public.".'.
141 Page 40, line 35, leave out 'At the end of' and insert 'In'.
142 Page 40, line 36, after 'public)' insert:

1619

'(a) in subsection (1), for the words from "give" to the end there shall be substituted "strike off or, as the case may be, remove his name from the register of notaries public";

(b) in subsection (2), for the words from "it" to "thereupon" there shall he substituted "the Council shall forthwith";

(c) at the end of that section'.

143 Page 40, line 40, leave out from 'forthwith' to end of line 42 and insert 'remove the person's name from the register of notaries public.'.
144 Page 40, line 45, leave out from 'shall' to 'restore' in line 46.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 137 to 144 en bloc. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 265. I hope that these amendments, at any rate, are uncontroversial. They provide for the duties of the Clerk to the Admission and the Keeper of the Register of Notaries Public to be transferred to the council of the Law Society of Scotland. Since the council is responsible for the initial enrolment of solicitors, and given that any person qualified as a solicitor is also qualified to register as a notary, it is only sensible that the same body should be responsible both for enrolment as a solicitor and registration as a notary public. That is what these amendments achieve.
I emphasise that the current clerk, the keeper of the register and the Law Society are satisfied with the arrangement proposed. Amendments Nos. 137 and 265 are consequential on other provisions of Clause 30 to permit joint applications to be made for admission as a solicitor and notary public.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 137 to 144.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
145 Clause 31, page 41, line 7, leave out 'conveyancing practitioners' and insert 'independent qualified conveyancers'.
146 Page 41, line 13, leave out from 'under' to end of line 14 and insert 'subsection (7) of section (Consideration of applications made under section 23) of that Act (consideration of applications made under section 23)'.
147 Clause 33, page 41, line 34, leave out '15(5) or (11) or' and insert '16(9A) or'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 145 to 147 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 145 to 147 en bloc.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
148 Page 41, line 38, after '25(1)', insert 'or (2)'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 148. This is a simple amendment which reinstates a reference removed from the Bill unintentionally during its Report stage here.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 148. - (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
149 Page 41, line 40, leave out 'section 23(6) or (8)' and insert 'section (Consideration of applications made under section 23) (1) or (3)'.
150 After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Review of rules approved by the Secretary of State
'.—(1) Where the Secretary of State has approved—

(a) a rule under section 16(9D) or 25(2) of this Act; or

(b) a draft scheme under section (Consideration of applications made under section 23) (6) of this Act,

he may and, where the Lord President, in the case of a draft scheme such as is mentioned in paragraph (b), so requests shall, require the body which made the rule or, as the case may be, the scheme to review its terms.
(2) When they have reviewed a rule or, as the case may be, a scheme, following a requirement made under subsection (1) above, the body concerned may revise the rule or scheme in the light of that review, and shall then submit the rule or scheme as revised or, if they have not revised it, as previously approved—

(a) in the case of a rule such as is mentioned in subsection (1) (a) above, to the Secretary of State; or

(b) in the case of a draft scheme such as is mentioned in subsection (1) (b) above, to the Secretary of State and the Lord President.

(3) Where a rule, whether revised or as previously approved, is submitted to the Secretary of State under subsection (2) (a) above, he may—

(a) approve the rule as submitted to him; or

(b) amend the rule in such manner as he considers appropriate,

and, (except where the rule remains in the form previously approved), he may direct to the body concerned to bring it into operation as soon as is practicable.
(4) Where the Lord President and the Secretary of State are agreed that the terms of a draft scheme submitted to them under subsection (2) (b) above are satisfactory, the Secretary of State may—

(a) approve the scheme; and

(b) (except where the scheme remains in the form previously approved) direct the body concerned to bring the scheme, as so amended, into force as soon as is practicable.

(5) Where either the Secretary of State or the Lord President is of the view that the terms of any such scheme so submitted to them are not satisfactory, but they do not agree as to what the terms of the scheme should be, the scheme shall continue to have effect as previously approved.
(6) Where the Secretary of State and the Lord President agree both that the terms of a scheme so submitted to them are not satisfactory, and as to what the terms of the scheme should be, the Secretary of State may amend the scheme in such manner as he and the Lord President consider appropriate; and may direct the body concerned to bring the scheme, as so amended, into force as soon as is practicable.
(7) The provisions of section 33(1) (b) and (c) of this Act shall apply to rules and schemes submitted under subsection (2) of this section as they apply to rules submitted under sections 16(9D) and 25(2) and schemes submitted under section 23(1) of this Act.'.
151 Clause 35, page 43, line 48, at end insert:
'"Review of rules approved by the Secretary of State.
64D.—.(1) Without prejudice to the power of the Council to review any rule made by them, where the Secretary of State has approved a rule under section MB he may, and if so requested by the Lord President shall, require the Council to review its terms.
(2) When they have reviewed a rule following a requirement made under subsection (1), the Council may revise the rule in the light of that review, and shall then submit the rule as revised or, if they have not revised it, as previously approved to the Lord President and the Secretary of State.
(3) Where the Lord President and the Secretary of State are agreed that the terms of the rule as submitted to them are satisfactory, the Secretary of State shall approve the rule, and may direct the Council to bring it into force as soon as is practicable.
(4) Where either the Secretary of State or the Lord President is of the view that any rule, as submitted to them, is not satisfactory, but they do not agree as to what the terms of the rule should be, the rule shall continue to have effect as previously approved.
(5) Where the Secretary of State and the Lord President agree both that any rule submitted to them under subsection (2) is not satisfactory, and as to what the terms of the rule should be, the Secretary of State may direct the Council—

(a) to amend the rule in such manner as he and the Lord President consider appropriate; and

(b) to bring the rule, as so amended, into force as soon as is practicable.

(6) The provisions of section 64A and 64B apply to rules submitted to the Secretary of State under this section as they apply to rules submitted to him under sections 25A(9) or (10) and 34(3A)." '
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 149 to 151 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 149 to 151 en bloc.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
152 Clause 37, page 45, leave out lines 1 to 14.
153 Clause 38, page 46, line 28, at end insert:
'(6A) In section 64 (extensions to permitted hours), for subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(4) A licensing board shall not grant an application from the holder of a public house licence for an occasional or regular extension of permitted hours on Sundays except—

(a) as respects premises to which section 59 of this Act applies and for the purposes of that section; and

(b) in the case of other premises, as respects any period or periods after half-past two in the afternoon,

and the board shall refuse to grant such an application if it finds that the extension of permitted hours would cause undue disturbance or public nuisance in the locality.
(4A) Nothing in subsection (4) above shall prevent the granting of an application for an occasional or regular extension of permitted hours on a Saturday for a period which continues into Sunday morning.".'.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 152 and 153. After a lengthy debate in another place the Committee agreed an amendment to remove Section 64(4) from the 1976 Act with the intention of enabling licensing boards to grant occasional and regular extensions of the permitted hours of public houses on Sundays, which run from 12.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. and from 6.30 p.m. to 11 p. m. At the conclusion of the debate it was explained to the Committee that the effect of the amendment would be to enable licensing boards to grant extensions of permitted hours of public houses on Sundays for the period before 12.30 p.m. and the period after 11 p.m. and it was suggested that a clarifying amendment would be needed. These amendments clarify the situation.
1622
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 152 and 153. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, without discussing the principle of drinking in public houses on Sunday, I am grateful that the Government have taken notice of the arguments that were presented in your Lordships' House some time ago. It is a sensible amendment. I am gratified to know that the licensing board has the power to refuse to grant the extension of permitted hours if it finds that such an extension would cause undue disturbance or public nuisance in the locality. That is a provision that we all sought. We must recognise that not everyone—and perhaps a minority at the moment—is in favour of Sunday drinking. It can cause great disruption, perhaps more in rural areas than in the city which can absorb noise and disturbance more easily. There is a broad enough test built into the amendment in the hope that the licensing boards will exercise the discretion sensibly in the best interests of the communities which they represent. I welcome this amendment.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I rise to congratulate the Government on moving from an expert in the law to an expert in this field. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is now dealing with this series of amendments and I look forward to hearing his expertise on the wholesale sale of alcohol.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
154 Clause 40, page 47, line 27, after 'Act', insert 'in respect of any licensed premises or registered club'.
155 Page 48, line 8, at end insert:
'(3) At the end of subsection (3) there shall be inserted the words "provided that no restriction order shall be made in respect of premises in respect of which no complaint has been made".'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 154 and 155. These amendments provide that any restriction order must apply only to licensed premises in respect of which a complaint has been made.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 154 and 155. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
156 Clause 43, page 50, line 13, leave out from 'boards), to end of line 14 and insert 'at the end of subsection (2) there shall be added the following paragraph—
"(m) confirming, under section 25(4) of this Act, the transfer of a licence transferred by virtue of subsections (2) or (3) of that section.".'.
157 Page 50, line 15, at end insert:

'(a) after "behalf," there shall be inserted "temporarily"; and

(b)'.

158 Page 50, line 16, at end insert:
`() After subsection (1) of that section there shall be added the following subsections—
"(1A) Subject to subsection (1C) below, a temporary transfer made under subsection (1) above shall have effect until the appropriate meeting of the licensing hoard which shall be—

(a) the next meeting of the board; or

1623

(b) in the case of a temporary transfer made within the period of six weeks before the first day of the next meeting of the board, the next following meeting of the board.

(1B) At an appropriate meeting of the licensing board, within the meaning of subsection (1A) above, and on an application being made for the permanent transfer of the licence, the board shall make a decision on the permanent transfer of the licence.
(1C) If the licensing board refuses to make a permanent transfer of a licence under subsection (1B) above, the person to whom the licence had been transferred temporarily may appeal to the sheriff against that refusal and the licence shall have effect until the time within which an appeal may be made has elapsed or, if an appeal has been lodged, until the appeal has been abandoned or determined.".'.
159 Page 50, line 20, after 'which', insert ', on an application for confirmation of the transfer of the licence,'.
160 Page 51, line 6, at end insert:
'(5) For subsection (7) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsection——
"(7) References in this Act to the permanent transfer of a licence shall be construed as references to the transfer of a licence by virtue of subsection (1B) above.".'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, Clause 43 makes a number of changes to the procedures applying to the transfer of licences under Section 25 of the 1976 Act, thereby resolving some of the practical difficulties which have been met in the existing legislation.
Amendments Nos. 156 to 160 and Amendment No. 259 ale designed to take account of further representations on the procedures which have been received since the provisions in the Bill were drafted. The aim of these amendments is to make the process of transfer more straightforward when the premises acquire a new tenant or occupier.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 156 to 160.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, it is recognised that the Government are trying to streamline this particularly difficult area of licensing law where temporary transfers take place. The one criticism which I make is that the proposals do not deal efrectively with the time when a person has entered into a commitment to take over licensed premises. It appears, and representations have been made, that the timescale as regards the new amendment is rather too long, particularly in Scotland where there are not many tenancies. People tend to buy the premises. That means that large sums of money can be at stake on one side or the other for long periods of time. Nowadays large sums of money are paid for licensed premises and the interest rate is currently high. That can cause great difficulty to both parties involved. Perhaps the Government would consider conducting a further investigation to see whether there is an even quicker way of dealing with the temporary transfer of licences.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
161 After clause 43, insert the following new clause: Wholesale selling of alcoholic liquor
`.—(1) After section 90 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Wholesale selling of alcoholic liquor
90A.—(1) A wholesaler or his employee or agent who barters, sells, or exposes or offers for sale alcoholic liquor shall be guilty of an offence unless—

(a) he does so from premises which are used exclusively for wholesale trading (whether solely of alcoholic liquor or not); or

(b) he does so from licensed premises, a licensed canteen or a registered club during the hours in respect of which it is lawful to sell alcohol by retail from or in these premises, that canteen or that club.

(2) A wholesaler or his employee or agent who sells alcoholic liquor to a person under 18 shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) A wholesaler or his employee or agent who causes or permits a person under 18 to sell alcoholic liquor without that sale having been specifically approved by a person of or over 18 shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) Section 67 of this Act (penalties for offences) shall apply in respect of offences under this section as if references in that section to a licence-holder were references to a wholesaler.
(5) Section 71 of this Act (defence of due diligence) shall apply to any person charged with an offence under this section as if the reference in that section to a licence-holder were a reference to a wholesaler.
(6) In this section,
"licence-holder" includes the holder of a licence under Part III of this Act; and
"wholesale" and "wholesaler", insofar as they relate to the sale of alcoholic liquor, have the meaning given in section 4(1) of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 in relation to dealing in alcoholic liquor.".
(2) In Schedule 5 to that Act, after the entry relating to section 90(c) there shall be inserted—

"Section 90A(1)

Dealing wholesale other than from permitted premises

Yes—level 5 on the standard scale

Section 90A(2)

Wholesaler selling liquor to persons under 18

Yes—level 3 on the standard scale

Section 90A(3)

Wholesaler permitting person under 18 to sell alcohol without approval

Yes—level 1 on the standard scale".'

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 161. This new clause remedies an anomaly which has arisen in the control of the wholesale of alcohol. Earlier this year we consulted wholesale and retail interests, the Law Society and CoSLA on the possibility of introducing appropriate controls, including restrictions on the sale of alcohol to and by persons under the age of 18. All those who responded agreed that there should be controls over the wholesale sale of alcoholic liquor. Therefore, we have acted in this manner.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 161.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
162 Clause 44, page 51, line 11, after 'application', insert '(a)'.
163 Page 51, line 13, after 'licence', insert:
`(b) the regular extension of permitted hours under section 64 of this Act; or
(c) the grant of a children's certificate under section 41 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 162 and 163. Clause 44 provides for the chief constable to be able to submit observations to the licensing board on applications for

1625
the grant, renewal or permanent transfer of a licence. These amendments provide that the chief constable may also submit observations on applications for regular extensions of permitted hours and children's certificates where the police view may also be of particular significance in consideration of the application.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 162 and 163. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I should know the answer to this question. As regards Amendment No. 163, paragraph (c) refers to Section 41 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. Has that been properly counted? If it should turn out to be Section 42 or Section 43, is that automatically altered? There has been so much shuffling about that I am not quite sure what is Section 41 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, can tell me the answer to that.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it has been counted and we believe that Section 41 is right. However, that will be sorted out when the Bill is printed.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, does that mean that the Government have counted the number of sections in advance of this House taking decisions to allow sections to be amended?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a good point to make. The Government do not pre-empt the decisions of Parliament. Therefore, at this stage Section 41 is a provisional figure. However, that can be sorted out later.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
164 Leave out Clause 46.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 164. Clause 46 deals with police powers of entry into clubs. Following reservations expressed by honourable Members in another place, the Government decided not to pursue that clause and it was consequently negatived at the debate that the clause stand part.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 164.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, for the record perhaps I may say that reservations were expressed also in this House on two occasions. The matter was stoutly defended by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on the basis that the power of entry sought was the same as the power of entry to a public house. The matter went to the other place and we welcome the omission of this provision. It appears that people power in the other place was sufficient to make the Government forget about that matter for a while.
Your Lordships may recall that the working men's clubs association represents 7 million people
1626
throughout England in particular, perhaps in areas where marginal seats will be at stake in the not too distant future. I should not be too cynical about that and say that the Government have responded for purely political reasons because I know that they would not do that. I accept that they have dropped the provision on good grounds.
However, I trust that they will not bring back this matter in another form without very substantial and substantive evidence that ordinary and decent clubs are acting improperly. I welcome the disappearance of that clause.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, what is the position now? Can the Minister tell us in two sentences?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have dropped the whole clause so that the previous provision of police powers of entry into clubs has disappeared altogether. I must say to the noble Lord opposite that this proves the power of persuasion, discussion and good debate.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, is the noble Lord expecting us to believe that? This proves something entirely different; namely, the power of the Government Back-Bench Members who revolted in Committee. They did not want this clause and so they said that they would filibuster. That is what we should have been told. I put that on the record because I am sure that that is what happened.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
165 Before Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
Evidence by children in criminal trials
Evidence of children through television link in criminal proceedings
`.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, where a child has been cited to give evidence in a trial, the court may, on an application being made to it, authorise the giving of evidence by the child by means of a live television link.
(2) The court may grant an application under subsection (1) above only on cause shown having regard in particular to—

(a) the possible effect on the child if required to give evidence, no such application having been granted; and

(b) whether it is likely that the child would be better able to give evidence if such application were granted.

(3) In considering whether to grant an application under subsection (1) above, the court may take into account, where appropriate, any of the following—

(a) the age and maturity of the child;

(b) the nature of the alleged offence;

(c) the nature of the evidence which the child is likely to be called on to give; and

(d) the relationship, if any, between the child and the accused.'.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 165. In moving that amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 165A, 165B, 166 to 169, 274 and 275.
While there may be comments that this provision relating to children's evidence came in late, I take the view—which was clearly taken in another place—that it is to be welcomed that the opportunity was taken to include in the Bill provisions which will enable a child witness to give evidence in criminal proceedings through a live television link. The judge, in the High

1627
Court or the sheriff court, will be able to decide, having regard to the statutory criteria in the Bill whether the use of a TV link would be desirable. If necessary procedural matters can be regulated by an act of adjournal; for example, the time when the application should be made to the court. If he wished the judge could interview the child.
In its report on the evidence of children the Scottish Law Commission recorded its view that in many cases children are able to give evidence in court by conventional means, and without special techniques, provided they are dealt with in a sensitive manner. The recent memorandum by the Lord Justice General on child witnesses gives most useful guidance to judges regarding how they should exercise their existing discretionary powers to put a child witness at ease by relatively simple measures such as clearing from the courtrcom everyone who is not directly involved in the proceedings. I envisage that there will be relatively few cases where the use of the TV link arrangements will be necessary.
A matter to which we have given careful consideration is whether a child witness should still be required, where giving evidence by TV link, to identify the accused in court by dock identification. Identification is of course a crucial part of a case but it would be somewhat odd still to require dock identification, with the related possible stress for the child witness, if identification can properly be made in some other way which nonetheless preserves fairness to the accused. The clause in the Bill on this matter, Amendment No. 167, provides that evidence of a prior identification, typically at an identification parade, will be admissible. I stress admissible because the sufficiency of that identification evidence remains a matter for the court's consideration in the light of the other evidence adduced and the submissions made to the court.
It would appear from deliberations in another place that there was some confusion over that distinction. It would not be feasible to install the appropriate television equipment in every court in Scotland. Where it is expected that an application for use of TV links is likely to be made and granted the case can either be started in an appropriately equipped court or transferred to such a court. To ensure that that is possible, in sheriff court cases the Bill provides, in Amendment No. 166, for a case to be taken or transferred anywhere within a sheriffdom. Transfer is only possible, however, where the court has granted an application for TV links with a child witness.
My predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, asked the Scottish Law Commission to look at these matters because of considerable discussion, both in Scotland and elsewhere, of the medical and social problems raised by child abuse. It is plain from the commission's discussion paper and the subsequent report that there are differing views on how best to reduce that stress for child witnesses and for potentially vulnerable adult witness, particularly in criminal proceedings but also in civil proceedings.
1628
The commission made a wide range of recommendations. For the present we decided not to proceed with the commission's other recommendations, in particular with the suggested pre-trial video recorded deposition procedure, until we have more experience of the benefits flowing from the Lord Justice General's memorandum of guidance and from the use, where appropriate, of live TV links. The operation of the memorandum and of the live TV links arrangement will be carefully monitored and considered along with the results of recent research into child witnesses.
The fourth of the new clauses provides necessary definitions. In particular, a child is defined as a person under the age of 16. Amendment No. 168A proposes that the age should be 12. I do not consider that lower limit to be necessary or appropriate. I should emphasise that the new arrangement is discretionary and I certainly envisage that as the child gets closer to the age of 16, given the criteria set out in the new clauses, there would be far less likelihood of resort being had to the live television link rather than the child being in court. I should not like to see the upper age limit removed or fixed overall at 12. There may be circumstances where, for example, a young girl who has been seriously sexually abused between the ages of 12 and 16 could be in the most vulnerable of states. If that distress or stress to her could be avoided by resort to the provision, without unfairness being caused to the accused, even to that age I should consider it appropriate.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 165.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 165
165A Line 5, after ("it") insert ("after the diet of trial has been called")
8.15 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 165A. This amendment sharply raises the question of when the application must be made. I accept that the court may, by act of adjournal, prescribe an appropriate procedure. It is certainly competent for the court, by act of adjournal, to do that. However, in a matter of this kind Parliament should determine when the application falls to be made. That would be in accordance with the usual type of provision in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, as amended. I simply note that point.
My subsequent amendments are related. Amendment No. 165B provides a mechanism for the judge to discover upon what basis he should exercise the discretion conferred upon him. I do not believe a judge can tell, by looking at the indictment, by being told the age of the child or the nature of the evidence the child is likely to be called upon to give, the age and maturity of the child in order to determine the application. Amendment No. 165B allows the judge to interview the child. That also fits in with the timing of the application. One does not want to disturb the child by bringing him or her through to see the judge in chambers or taking the judge to see the child in chambers in the child's home town perhaps a week

1629
before the trial. That should be done at the start of the trial. The judge can then make a judgment on the age and maturity of the child.
It is not clear from the statute how the evidence the child is likely to be called upon to give is to be brought to the judge's attention. Normally a judge at a trial hears the evidence when and only when the jury hears it. In making a judgment about such an application a judge must hear something of the child's evidence beforehand. How is that to be done?
I have great respect for and belief in the system of public prosecution in Scotland. I believe that the Lord Advocate, his deputes and the procurator fiscal see themselves as being ministers of justice. For that reason I believe that if one has a precognition drawn up by the fiscal on a proper basis, that is a document the judge could look at without undue prejudice. Of course he would not refer to it for any purpose other than to make a judgment about the maturity of the child.
I shall deal with Amendment No. 168A before dealing with Amendment No. 167. Amendment No. 168A seeks to reduce the age from 16 to 12. The point I make here is simply based on my experience as a prosecutor, as counsel who has acted for the defence in such cases, and as a judge, including recently. This provision applies not just to the alleged victims of crimes but to all kinds of witnesses. It is extremely common to find persons under the age of 16 giving evidence in a case. It is common to find that a 14 year-old looks like an 18 year-old and sounds like a 22 year-old, but another 14 year-old looks like an infant. It is possible, therefore, that one must find a system where the judge, perhaps warned in advance by the Crown wearing its Minister of justice hat, has a better way of assessing these matters. I am not sure how that can be done but the judge must make a judgment.
What I have done, following the recent guidance from the Lord Justice General, is to cause the young witness to be brought into court. Sometimes one is surprised to find that the young witness has a beard or a moustache and has shoulders six feet wide. When he speaks with a husky voice one realises that there is no need to give a warning or handle him too delicately. I often say to the jury, "It is for you to assess what you make of the reliability and dependability of this child as a witness, having regard to what you make of him or her". The ultimate judgment must be made by the jury. Therefore, there should be a mechanism and if the Lord Advocate is saying that it can properly be provided in Acts of Adjournal perhaps that is a sufficient answer.
There is a separate point which arises under Amendment No. 167. This relates to where a child gives evidence that he recalls having identified, before the trial, a person who is alleged to have committed the offence and the evidence of a third party—that will mean a policeman in 99 out of 100 cases—
"as to the identification of that person by that child prior to the trial shall be admissible as evidence as to such identification".
1630
That is the position now. There is a whole series of cases, of which the leading case is Muldoon v. Herron —the seven judge case. I believe that from that case, and subsequent cases, a rule was evolved under which, if a witness says, "Yes, I picked out a person at an identity parade and I knew at the time that that was the person who committed the crime and who I am speaking about in my evidence, but I cannot now identify him", a policeman can then say that the witness picked out X. That is a sufficient link. That is certainly admissible as evidence, leaving aside the question of sufficiency. The question of sufficiency is a different matter, as the Lord Advocate properly said. Therefore, the new clause in Amendment No. 167 is unnecessary, given the present state of the law. I hope the Lord Advocate will deal separately with that. I commend Amendment No. 165A.
Moved, That Amendment No. 165A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 165, be agreed to.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, we are dealing with an important innovation into the law of Scotland and it is recognised as such on this side of the House. We realise that we must move with the times and take advantage of modern means, first, of obtaining evidence and, secondly, of recording it.
I hope I am correct in saying that this new clause emerges from a series of proposals from the Opposition in the other place. I make no criticism of the new clause being included at this late stage because I believe there is general concern not only among the community but within the legal profession as a whole that the welfare and health of children who are either victims of violence or who are witnesses to crimes should be properly and reasonably protected while maintaining the balance necessary to ensure that justice is done to both sides. Where the age and maturity of witnesses leaves them open to fear and intimidation it becomes even more important that evidence should not be lost.
However, there are reservations on the lack of detail in the approach of the courts when applying this clause. That aspect has already been focused upon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. As a sitting judge, he has pointed to the problems which the courts face.
The gap in the amendment arises from how a judge is to decide on what is cause shown and what criteria are to be applied. Who is to tell the judge what the possible effect may be? Is it the mother, the social worker, the policeman or a combination of all three? Is it the child itself? Is the judge to be allowed to have the proof before the child gives evidence, including hearing the child in court or in chambers? Of course, if the judge hears the child in chambers without the accused being present that is a fundamental breach of the rule that the case should proceed in the presence of the accused. I merely pinpoint difficulties which may arise.
What tests are to be applied under subsection (2) (a) and (2) (b)? Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I take the Lord Advocate's assurance that

1631
this matter can be dealt with by Act of Adjournal. This is a step that should be taken at a moderate but efficient pace to see how it works. I am therefore glad to hear from the Lord Advocate that the operation will be monitored.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, pinpointed an important issue in relation to age. We tend to go overboard about children these days. We all know that children under 16 can be angels. We also know that they can be evil. It would not be for the first time that one has heard of a child, allegedly sexually abused, giving a very vivid account of what happened to her, in a sexual context, at the hands of her brother or father but who ultimately turns out to be an out and out liar who has put the accused person through a great de al of publicity and stress, sometimes leading to break-up of marriage, loss of home and loss of job. That is why we must be careful and there is considerable merit in the proposal by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that consideration should De given to reducing the age from 16 to 12. In our debates today the age of 16 seems to be a magic number. We have heard it in the ecclesiastical sense and now we have it in the evidential sense.
It is not clear to me what a live TV link is intended to be and how the use of it will work in relation to the right of an accused person. It is a fundamental right of any accused person that his trial should be conducted in his presence. There is no in-built provision in the Bill, as I read it, for the Lord President or the Secretary of State to lay down guidelines of any kind on how the courts are to approach the issue of cause shown. It may be that that is unnecessary because we have a proud tradition within Scottish law that our judges not only have knowledge of the law but also exercise common sense and that they can be trusted.
It is important to note that this new procedure is not limited, even on a preliminary basis, to witnesses in sexual or child abuse cases. It appears to relate to any cases. Subsection (3) (b) states:
"In considering whether to grant an application…the court may take into account, where appropriate…the nature of the alleged offence".
That seems to leave it open for this form of evidence to be applied to any kind of case, sexual or otherwise. Although the Government have said that they will monitor the application of this useful clause—I regard it as useful —I suggest that it would be appropriate to have a pilot scheme (in the real sense of the word and not, in the academic sense, an experimental one) in perhaps two areas to see how it works.
We must guard against the undermining of our system of justice and the presentation of evidence, which has in the main worked well. It will be interesting to learn how many cases have failed because a child witness brought before the court has not given the expected evidence. Speaking for myself, I cannot remember many such cases—in fact, very much the opposite. We have found, particularly in defending people, that there is nothing more devastating than the evidence of a five year-old child.
One of the problems nowadays—I do not criticise the people involved—is that by the time a child gets to
1632
court to give evidence the story has been filtered through about three different processes and you begin to wonder whether the story that the child is giving has any evidential basis. It would be interesting to know the percentage of the loss of cases involving adult witnesses failing to speak up. That may be a matter for another debate. No doubt it will be possible in due course for this type of evidence-giving to be extended to adult witnesses who have the same fears. For example, a woman in a rape case or a case of serious assault might very well seek the protection of this type of evidence-giving.
I sound a warning that if we go too far it may be the thin end of a destructive evidential wedge regarding the procedure of justice and presentation of evidence in Scotland. Nevertheless, with those reservations, I welcome this forward looking amendment.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I wonder whether a procedure could be introduced into Scots law so that a case involving a child as a major witness could be given precedence over others in order to bring the case forward. What worries me as a justice of the peace is that on average it takes nine months or a year for a case to come to court. In cases involving children, is there any way in which the diet of trial can be fixed more quickly? What has been said in the House tonight is very important. It is difficult to judge what kind of evidence a child will give. Some children are very good and some are appalling, regardless of age. I wonder whether laying the matter down in primary legislation is the best way of doing it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I apologise to the House and especially to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for missing the beginning of this debate. There is a problem about the measure as it is framed, bearing in mind Amendment No. 165A in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. The whole suggestion seems to be that the decision is to take place before the child starts to give evidence. Those of us who have been involved in criminal trials have often encountered the child who breaks down at the start of giving evidence, in the middle of giving evidence or at some stage after having started giving evidence. Is it envisaged that the live television link will then take place or be available? If it is so envisaged, will that type of trial suddenly be adjourned to a different court because there is not the available facility? Such a problem does not seem to be recognised.
I fully agree with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, about delay in cases involving children. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate agrees with that too, and agrees that delays are in general a bad thing.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have contributed to this debate. It is an extremely important matter. Now that my noble and learned predecessor has arrived, I should like to pay my regards to him. It was his reference to the Scottish Law Commission which set the matter under way.

1633
It should be appreciated that we have gone at this matter cautiously. The Scottish Law Commission report on the evidence of children and other potentially vulnerable witnesses was published in February this year. The report made a number of recommendations primarily intended to benefit child witnesses in criminal proceedings. The commission went on to suggest that the new procedures which it proposed should also be available in civil proceedings and also, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, appreciates, for vulnerable witnesses other than children. We have not gone as far and as quickly as those proposals might have led us. Nevertheless, this is a worthwhile set of reforms to introduce. They will not be without certain practical difficulties to begin with.
I envisage that in most circumstances the application will be made before the diet of trial. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, raised a good question. I would certainly not rule out that in a particular case it might be necessary for the Crown at a very late date—indeed, once the trial had started —to make such application. But as he correctly anticipated, certainly in the first years of the introduction of such a change there would not be the opportunity in every court throughout Scotland to introduce evidence by such means. It is envisaged that in the initial period such equipment will be available in Edinburgh, for High Court trials, and in Glasgow, for High Court and sheriff court trials. It is also envisaged that in one courthouse in each of Scotland's six sheriffdoms provision will be made for High Court and sheriff court trials, building it up slowly and steadily and having regard to experience.
The observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, about children are undoubtedly very valuable. Some youngsters in Glasgow show all the maturity, both in the evilness of their intent and in their physical build, to terrify a number of us. Others look weedy and feeble. However, the provision makes allowance for that. The court is enjoined to take into account the age and maturity of the child, the nature of the alleged offence, the nature of the evidence which the child is likely to be called on to give and the relationship, if any, between the child and the accused.
I do not envisage that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, would want too often to see a detailed statement of the evidence. What I envisage more is that if the Crown —it is most likely to be the Crown although, as he said, it could apply to others —made the application, the judges sitting in the High Court would be looking to some serious and objective assessment of what impact or influence there would be on the child if he or she had to give evidence in court. In such circumstances a psychiatric report on how disturbing or alarming it might be for the child would be of greater assistance to the judge than anything else. In those circumstances I should not like to fix too rigidly the way things are done. It may be that just a statement from the Crown would be sufficient,
1634
supported by some other ex parte observation. If the judge wished to interview the child in chambers, that would be an appropriate enough course to take.
The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, referred to delays in cases involving children. I could not agree more. Cases involving children, particularly cases of a delicate nature, should be brought into court as quickly as possible and I hope that happens. Those accused of the worst cases involving children, particularly cases involving sexual abuse, are probably detained in custody anyway. The period for which they can be so held is, as the noble Earl doubtless knows, set out in statute and is probably tighter in Scotland than it is anywhere else in Europe.
The only matter on which I disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is in relation to Amendment No. 167. I agree with his summary of the force of the decision in Muldoon v. Herron and related cases. However, he put in an important qualification, which I understand to be critical; that is, the witness must come into court and say "I have identified the person in the past at the police station. I am very sorry but I cannot make the identification now". In those circumstances it is permissible for the police officers to say that that witness did come to the police station and make an identification of the accused.
What is envisaged here is this problem. It is not that the child cannot identify the accused. In some of the worst cases, as the noble and learned Lord will appreciate, the accused may be the girl's own father, stepfather or uncle. One wishes to avoid subjecting her to the necessity of providing that identification in court. For that reason it is considered that the decision in Muldoon v. Herron is insufficient. Accordingly, we need this express provision which is provided for by Amendment No. 167.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, the point has been recognised in relation to Amendment No. 165A. I hope that those who come to draft any act of adjournal will take into account all the observations that have been made by your Lordships in the course of this brief debate. It is very important that this experimental provision—because that is what it is, given the information put before the House—should be conducted and thought about very carefully.
I do not agree with some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, concerning putting certain matters into the Bill. We are well accustomed to dealing with motions such as cause shown and others of the kind that appear here. In general, it is not desirable to put too much detail into a Bill of this kind. As I said earlier, the Renton Committee received evidence to that effect from the late Lord Justice Clerk and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, who was then Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice General. I am quite content, but I hope that those who pray in the act of adjournal will read this debate.
The important point concerning timing is this: if the judge is to interview the child, I do not believe that that can be done after the trial has started. Once the diet has been called and the trial started, all the

1635
proceedings must take place in the presence of the accused. It would be destructive of the whole system if the judge were invited to interview a child and the accused had to be brought into the same room for that very purpose. That is why the timing is so important. I have no doubt that that matter will be thought about by the Lord Justice General and the other judges when they come to consider the act of adjournal.
On the question of identifying one's father, surely it is not necessary to point him out in court. When the child is asked, "Who did this?" the child will reply, "My father did it". That is sufficient evidence. I do not follow the Lord Advocate's point in relation to such matter. However, I have no doubt that this matter has been carefully thought about. If it is thought that there may be a possible weakness, then it is right that it shot Id be cured in this way. Therefore, I do not insist on my objection. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 165A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 165, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 165B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 165, not moved.]
On Question, motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
166 Before Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
Transfer of cases in which child s evidence is to be given through television link
'.—(1) Where a sheriff to whom an application has been made under section (Evidence of children through television link in criminal proceedings) of this Act would have granted the application but for the lack of accommodation or equipment necessary to achieve the purpose of the application, he may by order transfer the case to any sheriff court which has such accommodation and equipment available, being a sheriff court in the same sheriffdom.
(2) The sheriff court to which a case is transferred under this section shall be deemed to have granted an application under that section in relation to the case.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 166.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 166.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
167 Before Clause 48, insert the following new clause:

Identification of accused by child
'. Where a court has, or is deemed to have, granted an application made under section (Evidence of children through television link in criminal proceedings) of this Act in relation to a child cited to give evidence in a trial, and the child gives evidence that he recalls having identified, prior to the trial, a person alleged to have committed an offence, the evidence of a third party as to the identification of that person by the child prior to the trial shall be admissible as evidence as to such identification.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 167.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 167.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
[Amendment No. 167A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 167, not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
168 Before Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
Interpretation of sections (Evidence of children through television link in criminal proceedings), (Transfer of cases in which child's evidence is to he given through television link) and (Identification of accused by a child)
'. In sections (Evidence of children through television link in criminal proceedings), (Transfer of cases in which child's evidence is to be given through television link) and (Identification of accused by a child) of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears—
'child' means a person under the age of 16 years;
'court' means the High Court of Justiciary or the sheriff court; and
'trial' means a trial under solemn or under summary procedure.'.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 168. In the course of the rather extended debate that we had regarding these new clauses, I believe that I have made all the points that I want to make. The noble and learned Lord is undoubtedly correct in saying that most of the applications which are made and which will be successful before judges will affect children below the age of 12. I certainly would not wish, for the reasons I have given, to see the provision cut off at the age of 12 and would prefer it to go to the age of 16.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 168.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

As AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 168
168A Line 6, leave out ("16") and insert ("12")
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment simply for the purpose of drawing attention to a matter which relates to Amendment No. 168. The final line refers to a trial. It means a trial under a solemn or summary procedure. As most of your Lordships will be aware, a trial under the solemn procedure means a jury. Under a summary procedure it means that the sheriff or district court judge is sitting alone.
Here we are talking about the child giving evidence live through a video link. Presumably, what happens is that the procurator fiscal goes with the child into the television room where the camera is. Defence counsel has to go in as well. The only person left in the other room with a screen is the sheriff. He is sitting in one room and he has to judge the matter. He is facing one screen. The prosecuting and defence counsel are sitting in the other room with the child. Sitting beside the sheriff and watching the screen with great interest will be the accused. I find that a very bizarre state of affairs. I wonder whether it makes sense to provide video links in relation to summary procedures.
Having said that, I would not expect the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to be able to do

1637
anything about it. In fact, I am not sure that he is competent to do so at this stage. I ask that that matter be noted. It would be unfortunate if we too readily moved into a situation where, in summary cases, the sheriff was left sitting alone with the accused watching the telly.
Moved, That Amendment No. 168A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 168, be agreed to.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that would undoubtedly be correct. The scheme which we envisage and, as I understand it, under the scheme which is followed where such procedures are in place on this side of the Border, the child is likely to be in a room with some supervision from a social worker or similar person. For all other intents and purposes the court will be convened in the ordinary way. The only curiosity is that the witness being examined and cross-examined is missing from the court. The unfortunate circumstance of the sheriff sitting watching telly, as the noble and learned Lord puts it, with the accused would not be a circumstance that would occur.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord must think about that. You cannot have a child sitting in the room with television, a camera and a social worker with disembodied voices coming into the room and asking the child, "Where were you on the night of the 29th?" or something of that kind. That would not work. The person asking the questions has to be in the same room as the child. The person who has to cross-examine the child also has to be there. You cannot have the child holding the mother's hand or that of the social worker in one room with voices coming in through the walls which ask the child questions.
Amendment No. 168A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 168, negatived.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
169 Before Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
Criminal jurisdiction in sheriff court Sheriff court jurisdiction
`. The following subsection shall be inserted at the end of each of sections 3 and 288 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 to form subsection (4) and subsection (5) respectively of these sections—
"() Where an offence is alleged to have been committed in one district in a sheriffdom, it shall be competent to try that offence in a sheriff court in any other district in that sheriffdom.".
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 169. For reasons I have already given, it would not be possible immediately to have such live television links established in every sheriff court district throughout Scotland. Accordingly this provision has been introduced. It reads:
"Where an offence is alleged to have been committed in one district in a sheriffdom, it shall be competent to try that offence in a sheriff court in any other district in that sheriffdom".
1638
In my view this is a useful change which might have a slightly wider application.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 169.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I rise merely to point out the possible difficulty which may arise during a trial taking place in Stornaway. For example, one may have a child who freezes up at the sight of the accused—I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, for suggesting that this might happen in Stornaway. One would presumably have no television link installed and therefore one would have to move to, say, Inverness when one was right in the middle of a trial. One would have to move a jury of 15 people, the child and those who are looking after it, together with the accused and so on. If such a situation arises in the middle of a trial, it is a very difficult problem to solve. However, no doubt the noble and learned Lord has thought about such a situation.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have certainly done so. For the very reasons outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I envisage that, if it were done at all, it would only be in the most exceptional circumstances once a trial was under way. I must say that I believe the Crown would be in a difficult position about which it would be sharply criticised if it had failed to anticipate the occurrence of such a problem.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, in my view the provision should say not only that,
"it shall be competent to try that offence in a sheriff court in any other district in that sheriffdom";
it should also say that it should be competent to start trying the offence in one sheriff court in one district and then to conclude it, or continue it in part, in another sheriff court in another district in the sheriffdom. One could have a situation in which there were facilities without having to move any vast distance—especially, for example, in summary trials. Having started the proceedings in one place and the problem only arising after commencement of the trial, it would be unfortunate if the court was not competent to try the case in the two places.
However, I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is advising us that in many ways this is an experimental matter. No doubt the Government will return to the issue in the light of the wider recommendations of the Law Commission and a recent book with which I hope he is familiar written by a Cambridge criminologist and a Scot.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
170 Leave out Clause 49.
171 Leave out Clause 50.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 170 and 171. In moving these amendments I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 172, 174 to 176, 182, 184, 230, 231, 233, 257, 258, 277 and 278.

1639
We completed our consideration of this Bill on 24th May this year, almost exactly six months ago. As has been observed, there was some difficulty when the Bill reached the Committee stage in another place. The Secretary of State for Scotland, while acknowledging that concern had been expressed about the need for adequate time to consider the Bill, said that the Government,
"shared with honourable Members on both sides of the Committee a desire to ensure rational and sensible debate".
In the event, initial progress on the Bill in Committee was such that the Secretary of State subsequently indicated that, while it was not the Government's intention to withdraw any part of the Bill, if it became clear that sufficient time would not be available to debate certain clauses, then the clauses would be deferred until a further opportunity for legislation arose. With agreement through the usual channels the clauses concerned were not moved in Committee.
One important matter which was contained in Clause 50(2) of the Bill when it left your Lordships' House can now be found at Amendment No. 231. This puts beyond doubt the powers of the court when dealing with fine defaulters at a means enquiry court and Amendment No. 184 brings the provision into force immediately on Royal Assent. While the clauses which have been deferred would have been useful provisions, I do not think that the Bill has suffered by their delay. Other, arguably more useful, provisions have been added to the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 170 and 171. -(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
172 Leave out Clause 51.
Lord. Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 172.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 172
172A That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 172.
Lord McCluskeyrose to move, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 172.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, there
is a song which contains the words:
"It is a long, long time from May to September".
However, there appear to be six months from May to October, according to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. That surprises me, but it is due no doubt lo the lateness of the hour or perhaps the fact that he puts his calendar back a month at a time. I trust that I am right in thinking that the relevant period is five months.
I beg to move that the House do disagree with the
Commons in their Amendment No. 172. Clause 51 which is to be summarily left out is a splendid clause which ought to be included in the Bill. It is a reform
1640
of a miscellaneous provisions character. It is the clause which inserted into the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 provision for the Secretary of State by order to make an experimental income-based fines order. That system is already carried out to some extent in Scotland under common law power. Moreover, so far as I know, it has not been successfully challenged. However, this would have been a statutory basis for it. At present it is being used by one or two sheriffs.
The matter was debated in this House and, I
believe, it met with universal approval. It is a tragedy that an excellent and useful clause which would have provided an extra dimension to the powers of the court has been lost for reasons which have not been satisfactorily explained. It is a situation which I regret.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 172.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I rise to say briefly that I totally agree with everything my noble and learned friend has said; indeed, he said it much better than I could ever have done. I utterly support his views.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I rise also simply to express my support for the Motion of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am in grave
danger of joining that consensus, but perhaps I should avoid so doing. When we first dealt with the matter there was no disagreement. However, that is a price which has had to be paid, at least for the time being, because of the difficulties which arose in another place. It certainly would have been a most useful experiment to introduce. But I have no doubt that there will be a future occasion on which to introduce it.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I wonder whether I can persuade the noble and learned Lord to change his mind. I understand that those who were on the Committee in another place—that is, the first Standing Committee—and who objected to different parts of the Bill were entitled in such a Chamber to bargain with the Government through the usual channels and say, "We do not like this clause; it must come out". Furthermore, I do not believe that anyone objected to this clause. The Government appear to have sacrificed the clause for one reason only, and that was in order to save time. I believe that if the Lord Advocate were bold enough to accept my amendment, the Commons would instantly agree to it and the clause could go back into the Bill.
Why does the noble and learned Lord not stand up for his rights, as it were, and insist upon this excellent clause going back into the Bill? I am quite certain that it would take two minutes in another place to deal with the matter. When one considers all the preparation, debate and eloquence that has flowed from these Benches today, at least something would have been achieved, if only to save this excellent clause, Clause 51. Would the Lord Advocate accept that modest proposal?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I regret that there are two flaws in the argument of the noble and

1641
learned Lord: first, I am not bold enough, but, more to the point, I doubt whether the matter would be as swiftly and expeditiously dealt with in another place as the noble and learned Lord has suggested. There is certainly a strong argument that the clause should have been left for consideration, but at this very late stage, when the matter was not before another place either in an extended Committee or on Report, there is very little prospect of that happening.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, with sadness, I beg leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 172.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
9 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
173 [After Clause 51, insert the following new clause:
Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default
'.—(1) A court may make a supervised attendance order in the circumstances specified in subsection (3) below.
(2) A supervised attendance order is an order made by a court with the consent of an offender requiring him—

(a) to attend a place of supervision for such time, being 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 hours, as is specified in the order; and

(b) during that time, to carry out such instructions as may be given to him by the supervising officer.

(3) The circumstances are where—

(a) the offender is of or over 16 years of age; and

(b) having been convicted of an offence, he has had imposed on him a fine which (or any part or instalment of which) he has failed to pay and either of the following sub-paragraphs applies—

(i) the court, prior to the commencement of this section, has imposed on him a period of imprisonment under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 407 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (power of court, when imposing a fine, to impose also imprisonment on default) but he has not served any of that period of imprisonment;

(ii) the court, but for this section, would also have imposed on him a period of imprisonment under that paragraph or paragraph (b) of that subsection (power of court to impose imprisonment when a person fails to pay a fine or any part or instalment thereof); and

(c) the court considers a supervised attendance order more appropriate than the serving of or, as the case may be, imposition of such a period of imprisonment.

(4) Where, in respect of an offender, a court makes a supervised attendance order in circumstances where sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) above applies, the making of that order shall have the effect of discharging the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the offender.
(5) Schedule (Supervised attendance orders: further provisions) to this Act has effect for the purpose of making further and qualifying provision as to supervised attendance orders.
(6) In this section—

"local authority" means a regional or islands council;

"place of supervision" means such place as may be determined for the purposes of a supervised attendance order by the supervising officer; and

1642

"supervising officer", in relation to a supervised attendance order, means a person appointed or assigned under Schedule (Supervised attendance orders: further provisions) to this Act by the local authority whose area includes the locality in which the offender resides or will be residing when the order comes into force.'.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 173. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 217, 232 and 276.
Clause 48(3) restricts the use of community service orders to cases where otherwise the court intended to impose a custodial sentence. Community service, however, is a relatively scarce resource and it therefore requires to be targeted effectively.
It is not unlikely that the improved targeting of community service as an alternative to custody will lead to an increase in the use of the fine and, as a consequence, in the number of fine defaulters appearing before the courts. As part of the Government's overall policy of encouraging the use of non-custodial penalties, these amendments were tabled in order to ensure that there is an appropriate alternative available to the court so that offenders, where the original offence did not warrant imprisonment, do not automatically wind up there for fine default.
We therefore propose to introduce a "supervised attendance order". This order will be available to sentencers as an additional option to imprisonment for fine default. The intention is to punish those offenders by imposing restrictions upon their free time and by imposing the discipline of regular and punctual attendance coupled with satisfactory behaviour. Offenders who do not comply with the requirements of the order will be returned to court, where they will face the possibility of imprisonment.
The activities to be undertaken as part of the order will be constructive, of a socially useful or educational nature, and will include elements directed towards tackling anti-social behaviour. The duration of the order will be between 10 and 60 hours in discrete units of 10 hours and will require participation in a range of activities, some of which might be concerned with: alcohol and drug education; employment seeking and application; responsibilities to society; health education; literacy and numeracy; money management and unpaid work.
We intend to introduce supervised attendance orders on an incremental basis commencing with sheriff courts and subsequently extending their availability to the stipendiary magistrates' courts and then to the district courts.
During the passage of the Bill the noble Lords, Lord Macaulay and Lord Carmichael, tabled amendments intended to simplify and standardise the level of proof in respect of breaches of probation and community service orders. At that time I indicated that I was in sympathy with the intention of those amendments and that the Government would consider bringing forward an amendment which would meet their objectives at a later stage.

1643
I am pleased to advise the House that our proposals for supervised attendance orders take note of the noble Lords' intentions by specifying that the evidence of one witness shall be sufficient to prove failure to comp y with an order. Amendment No. 232 achieves the same effect in relation to the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978.
The amendments will provide sentencers with an additional disposal which will provide a practical alternative for fine default cases and will improve the effectiveness of supervision.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 173.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, on this side of the House we have made it clear on more than one occasion that any reasonable steps to keep young people, in particular, out of prison are welcome. For that reason we welcome the new clause and the supplementary clause relating to standard of proof. I know that there is an amendment against that proposal, but it would be an evidential nonsense to require two people to certify that a person has breached an order, because in any event only one person might know about it. As I understand the matte -, the evidence concerning a breach is to be given on oath by a supervising officer. In that respect the situation is no different from a police constable obtaining a warrant from the sheriff on showing reasonable cause. The proposal is welcome and it will be interesting to see how it works out. I understand that he Lord Advocate will consider whether there should be no financial consequences to local authorities over the implementation of the provisions.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, this is a most extraordinary schedule. It came into existence last Wednesday and previously had never seen the light of day. I am quite happy with the proposal, which I think is sound, but the matter needs very delicate handling. I think that it has been handled in a heavy-handed way. 1t has been made possible in a criminal case to accept single witness evidence that is uncorroborated. That runs contrary to one of the main principles upon which Scottish law is founded. One can go back 300 years to Stair. He states quite frankly where he stands. He does not stop there. He goes on to quote from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Matthew's Gospel, Deuteronomy and the early writings of the Bible. That is what he based his faith on. It is not a narrow issue relating to Scotland; it touches the basis of justice in all parts of the world, and that is what we are cutting out of the Bill.
May I picture the matter as I see it? One has to get people to come willingly and helpfully. There stands a dominant personality with a whip, who is saying: "Unless you do what I tell you, you will be back in prison". That is not the way to tackle the problem. It is the wrong way to do it.
I agree that it is ideal to give people who will not pay their fine a non-prison sentence. The idea behind it is first-class but, like so much in the Bill, it is heavy -handed. If the Government could only get out
1644
of that heavy-handed way, they might make an important step forward. I put forward that point, although it is not altogether to do with the Bill. If the matter can be handled properly, it will make a great difference.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, it is my privilege to have my name annexed to Amendment No. 217A, which forms part of the group standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has perhaps misconstrued what is happening here. Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph (4) deals with warrants. That is the analogy with which the noble Lord is concerned. However, sub-paragraph (2) provides that, if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the offender has failed without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement of paragraph (3), the court may, among other things, impose a period of imprisonment. That is a different point from the point with which the noble Lord drew an analogy. I see this point as being much more analogous—and I therefore agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk—with the commission of an offence. For that reason, I do not like the provision.
When an issue of this kind falls to be determined by the court, the court requires to know two things; first, what, if any, were the terms of the purported instruction; and, secondly, whether the conduct or omissions on the part of the offender constitute a wilful deviation from that instruction. Plainly, if the matter is to be brought before the court with the idea of imposing a sentence of imprisonment, an instruction as important as that should perhaps be given in writing. It would then be easy to provide corroboration for the giving of the instruction.
As regards the other matter—what the person has done or omitted to do—that should not depend almost uniquely on the word of one person; namely, the supervising officer. I therefore consider that the matter should be dealt with in the way proposed by the noble Earl and supported by me. In saying that, I appreciate that there are provisions elsewhere of a similar character to which I believe my noble and learned friend Lord Cameron of Lochbroom will draw attention. However, we should not perpetuate this kind of thing as we are asked to do in the Bill. I therefore support the noble Earl.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the Government's desire to limit evidence to that of one witness. I refer to the new schedule in Amendment No. 217. In sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph (4) of the schedule, it is plain that one of the failures is a failure satisfactorily to carry out any instructions which he has been given by the supervising officer. It is unlikely that that officer will necessarily have any corroborating witness present at the time.
However, I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would explain to me why, having proceeded along those lines for the new clause and, in addition, in Amendment No. 232, having sought to introduce the same evidential

1645
requirement into the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act—a requirement which is not opposed and will therefore go through the House unless otherwise negatived—it was not done in relation to probation. Sections 186 and 387 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 are phrased in almost identical terms with similar effects; namely, that, if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the probationer has failed to comply with any of the requirements of a probation order, he may be convicted of the offence for which the order was made and sentenced for that offence and, even if not convicted, may be convicted and sentenced as before.
I have no doubt that there is a good reason, not necessarily connected with the sheriff court decision in 1987. That court's decision proceeded upon the basis that where the words, "to the satisfaction of the court" or "the court is satisfied" appear in a criminal statute, the criminal evidential requirement has to be satisfied; namely, there must be corroboration and proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, surely it is absolutely necessary that these three linked items should have the same standard of proof. No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would agree with that. It seems daft that one requires corroboration for breach of a probation order but apparently no corroboration is required for a breach of a community set 'ice order or of an attendance order.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, asked about the funding arrangements for this provision. The supervised attendance order, in common with the community service order, will attract 100 per cent. central government funding. However, it will be supervised and managed by local authorities in accordance with agreed national standards.
I am afraid that I cannot immediately answer the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, on probation. However, as he has appreciated, one of the provisions within this group relates also to community service orders. There are considerable difficulties as regards securing the participation of people on community service orders. One area where difficulties may emerge is where someone is providing a form of community service in an old folks' home or some similar institution. There may be great difficulty in securing the participation of those who are involved in this form of community service if they are apprehensive that they will have to provide corroboration in the event of a failure to carry out their tasks fully. It is for that reason that these changes are being made.
The requirement for one witness was not introduced at this stage for probation as the standards in respect of probation do not yet require instructions regarding tasks to be documented and signed by the offender.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
174 Leave out Clause 53.
175 Leave out Clause 56.
176 Leave out Clause 57.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 174 to 176 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 174 to 176.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I wish to say a few words about the amendment, which removes the divorce provisions which were contained in this Bill when it left your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate valiantly defended the proposals before your Lordships' House which went into the Bill. He appeared to be quite confident that they would stay in the Bill. Can the noble and learned Lord tell your Lordships whether the proposals have disappeared because the Government succumbed to the time pressure in another place, or is it the case—it is an understandable case—that the issue of divorce law has been at least temporarily affected by the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor? Is it the case that consideration is being given to adopting a unified United Kingdom divorce law? There is a lot to be said for that in view of the size of the country.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, another alternative that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate ought to consider is the one I suggested on a previous occasion. I suggested that this provision crept into the Bill originally by mistake and therefore the Government were only too glad to ditch it when they came under pressure from their supporters in the first Standing Committee.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it neither crept in by mistake nor was it abandoned with relief. Rather, the Government have always made clear that divorce as it applies in Scotland and on this side of the Border is a matter for a free vote. There were undoubtedly time pressures and the indications were that if this provision were left in the Bill it could take up a considerable part of the committee's deliberations. In the circumstances the Government therefore decided that it should be dropped.
However, the fact that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is considering rather different proposals for England and Wales was not a consideration when it was decided that this provision should be adjusted. The divorce laws of the respective countries have been different in detail, if not in principle, for some time. There is certainly no ulterior motive of providing a uniform divorce code.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
177 After Clause 61, insert the following new clause: Blood and other samples in civil proceedings

Blood and other samples in civil proceedings
`.—(1) In any civil proceedings to which this section applies, the court may (whether or not on application made to it) request a party to the proceedings—

1647

(a) to provide a sample of blood or other body fluid or of body tissue for the purpose of laboratory analysis;

(b) to consent to the taking of such a sample from a child in relation to whom the party has power to give such consent.

(2) Where a party to whom a request under subsection (1) above has been made refuses or fails—

(a) to provide, or, as the case may be, to consent to the taking of, a sample as requested by the court, or

(b) to take any step necessary for the provision or taking of such a sample,

the court may draw from the refusal or failure such adverse inference, if any, in relation to the subject-matter of the proceedings as seems to it to be appropriate.
(3) In section 6 of the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986 (determination of parentage by blood sample)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "blood sample" there shall be substituted "sample of blood or other body fluid or of body tissue"; and

(b) in each of subsections (2), (3) and (4), for the words "a blood" there shall be substituted "such a".

(4) This section applies to any civil proceedings brought in the Court of Session or the sheriff court—

(a) on or after the date of the commencement of this section, or

(b) before the said date in a case where the proof has not by that date begun.'.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 177. In moving the amendment I shall a so speak to Amendment No. 177A.
I am sure that noble Lords will welcome the provision as it enables the courts in civil proceedings to request a party to provide blood or other body samples for laboratory analysis. There has been criticism in recent months of the gap in Scots law which has prevented courts from obtaining useful evidence from the analysis of blood and body tissue. The courts in Scotland have acknowledged that gap, in particular in relation to disputed paternity cases.
The new clause was brought forward at Committee stage in the other place and the Government responded quickly in accepting the principle of the provision. Minor amendments were made at Report stage so as to provide that, instead of the court being empowered to "direct" a party to civil proceedings to provide a sample, the court should only be able to request such a sample from a party to the proceedings. The amendments were necessary because failure to comply with a direction of the court might be regarded as contempt of court. The clause provides, however, that where a party refuses or fails to provide a sample the court may draw an adverse inference. It is provided that an adverse inference may be drawn in relation to the subject matter of the proceedings. I believe that that is the proper approach since it would enable the court to address the crucial matter at issue in the proceedings as opposed merely to the witness's credibility and reliability.
The provision takes advantage of developments in recent years in the analysis of blood and body tissues using highly sophisticated techniques which are recognised to be extremely reliable. I hope that this measure will be welcomed on both sides of the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 177.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 177
177A Line 17, leave out ("subject matter of the proceedings") and insert ("credibility and reliability of any evidence given by that party").
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 177A. I regret that there is a printing error in Amendment No. 177A on the Marshalled List. Where it reads "credibility and reliability on any evidence" the word "on" should read "of".
In Amendment No. 177A I have sought to encapsulate my concern about the purpose of the clause. I support entirely the intention behind the clause, with one exception. The clause now provides that when a party to whom a request has been made for such a sample fails to provide it, the court may draw from his refusal or failure adverse inferences, in relation to the subject matter of the proceedings. That means that if a man is challenging his paternity of a particular child and the court requests him to provide a sample but he declines to do so, the court may then infer that he is the father of the child. In other words, the fact is proved by his refusal.
To my way of thinking that is unique. I can think of only two near analogies. One is that in the road traffic legislation it is provided that if a person fails, when properly required to do so, to take a breath test or provide a blood sample for testing for alcohol, he can be punished as if he had committed the offence of which he might have been found guilty if the sample had been shown to fall outwith the permitted limits. That is one analogy, but it is not an exact one. The other is corroboration by false denial in a paternity case.
The normal rule is the one which I have sought to include with Amendment No. 177A, namely that the inference that the court is entitled to draw is not an inference as to the fact of the case but an inference as to the credibility and reliability of any evidence of the party in relation to the matter. In my submission, that would be in accordance with the normal rule. One would need a very good reason indeed for departing from that normal rule. Therefore, while I support in general terms Amendment No. 177 I ask the Government to consider making this amendment. I ask them at least to give me a satisfactory explanation as to why that particular unique course has been chosen. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 177A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 177, be agreed to.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, the amendment is welcomed on this side of the House. Indeed, I think it emerges from Opposition proposals in another place. It is well known that in paternity cases in the sheriff court and even the Court of Session a great deal of distress and acrimony is brought about when the proceedings are prolonged because of the inability of the legal process to present positive evidence which might point one way or the other as to the paternity of the child. This is one way in which that difficulty can be overcome.

1649
Perhaps I may say with respect that I was impressed with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said in support of his amendment, Amendment No. 177A, and the formula that he proposed, which seems much more apposite than the wording in Amendment No. 177.
I do not oppose this amendment, which takes advantage of the genetic fingerprint process, which can be said to be 100 per cent. positive in civil cases. I have reservations about its use in criminal cases. The advantage in civil proceedings is that one compares pure samples from the child and the alleged father and therefore pure samples can be matched. There is great doubt being cast upon the genetic fingerprint process in criminal matters where imperfect samples are obtained. It appears that adjustments can be made to the findings to produce a positive finding. The process has already been rejected in evidence in two cases in the United States because the methodology was imperfect. However, that would not appear to be a flaw in the analysis arising out of Commons Amendment No. 177.
Perhaps I may say in passing that the word "fails" is used in Amendment No. 177. There is no proviso for a person who cannot produce. There is a difference between failing and not being able to produce. We know from road traffic offences when various demands are made on people to produce samples that for one reason or another—sometimes it is for medical reasons, perhaps a fear of needles, there may be an inability to produce a urine sample because of the embarrassment—the person cannot provide what is required. There is no proviso in the amendment to take into account medical or psychological conditions that might prevent a person from giving a sample. If so, he will almost certainly lose the case, but perhaps that aspect might be considered at a later stage.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, perhaps I may also add my voice in support of this amendment, particularly since I am aware of a case recently in which it was debated at some length as to whether the existing law was sufficient. The court decided that it was not. However, I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could explain why it was felt necessary to use the word "request" in this amendment rather than the direction which I believe the Scottish Law Commission recommended.
I think I am right in saying that the Law Commission report dealt with the matter of refusal or failure and felt that the court should be empowered to draw from that any adverse inferences which might be appropriate. I believe that that recommendation echoed the different provisions of the English Family Law Reform Act 1987 which amended the earlier legislation in England and allowed the use of similar tests by using a sample of blood and the like. In that legislation it is provided that the court may draw such inferences, if any, from that fact—the refusal or failure —as appear proper in the circumstances. That is what the amendment seeks to provide in the part to which my noble and learned friend has drawn attention. I suggest that he seeks to restrict it too narrowly. I
1650
cannot support his restriction. The broader phraseology in Amendment No. 177 is probably better. It allows the court a much wider use of discretion, which should be afforded in such cases. Subject to that comment, I welcome the new clause.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I welcome the general agreement for the provision. The fundamental point is the one raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. It was spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron.
I believe that it would be undesirable to restrict the provision as narrowly as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, indicated. If someone declined to give such a blood test, and if the only inference that could be drawn from that was that the witness was not credible and was unreliable, there would remain substantial difficulties of proof. Those emerged in a case heard recently before the second division of the Court of Session. A direct hint was given to this House and another place that we ought to contemplate reform of the law.
The Scottish Law Commission report considered the matter in a different way. The amendment provides that the court may —not must—draw an adverse inference in such circumstances. The other alternative was that the court direct someone to give a blood sample. However, as part of the direction was that person to be held down and the blood sample obtained from him in circumstances requiring some force? For the best of reasons the commission rejected that alternative. It believed that it was safer and more appropriate to rely on the adverse inference. That is what the amendment provides. I believe it is correct that a broader approach should be allowed.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron, is absolutely correct in thinking that in its original report the Scottish Law Commission used the word "direct". It was considered appropriate to delete that word from its proposal and to introduce the word "request" because it is sufficient for the purposes of civil law in this context that an adverse inference should be drawn. If the word "direct" were to be used, not only might the court draw an adverse inference but, where a court has directed something and an individual has declined to comply with that direction, there might be the problem of contempt of court. It was for that reason that the word was excluded.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, before I withdraw Amendment No. 177A I wish to comment on what has been said.
If one considers the roughly analogous provision in the road traffic legislation about providing a sample of blood, the person detained who is invited to give such a sample can decline to do so if he has a reasonable excuse. A person requested to provide a sample of blood, or to consent to the taking of such a sample from a child, might be a Jehovah's Witness, or a person who says that he has a phobia or some other psychological inability to accept any such proposal. If

1651
the court heard that assertion from him and believed him, there would be no problem. The court would then not draw an adverse inference from the refusal.
However, in the road traffic cases that I have read recently a person has said, "I didn't give blood. I have a reasonable excuse because I suffer from a phobia". The court has then said, "We don't believe that you suffer from a phobia," and the court has therefore penalised him under the road traffic provision.
One therefore may have a situation where, because the judge disbelieves the person's assertion that his refusal was because he had a phobia, the court could then hold that he was the father of the child. That does not seem to have any logic. I worry that the inference should go so far. I fear that the matter has not been properly thought through despite its antecedents. It is certainly unfortunate that in subsection (2) there is no reference to refusal or failure without reasonable cause. That is another provision that might usefully have Keen included. However, I do not propose to divide the House on this matter and beg leave to withdrew my Amendment No. 177A.
Amendment No. 177A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 177, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
178 After Clause 61. insert the following new clause:
Powers of attorney
Effect of mental incapacity on powers of attorney etc
'.—(1) Any rule of law by which a factory and commission or power of attorney ceases to have effect in the event of the mental incapacity of the granter shall not apply to a factory and commission or power of attorney granted on or after the date on which this section comes into force.
(2) In subsection (1) above, "mental incapacity" means, in relation to a person, that he is incapable of managing his property and affairs by reason of mental disorder within the meaning of section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 178. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 178A, 178B and 183. The new clause seeks to overcome a problem faced by an increasing number of families where a relative who has granted a factory and commission or power of attorney subsequently becomes mentally incapacitated. I n Scotland, unlike England and Wales, a power of attorney terminates if the granter becomes mentally incapacitated. While a curator bonis could be appointed, in view of the costs involved a curatory is not normally considered worth while except for fairly large estates.
As our Lordships will recall, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, tabled a clause which mirrored for Scotland provisions in the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 which apply only to England and Wales.
I would suggest that the new clause before us is sufficient to achieve the laudable objectives sought by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton. It has deliberately been kept simple in view of the fact that the Scottish Law Commission intends to publish later this year a discussion paper on powers of attorney and
1652
other matters relating to guardianship of the adult incapacitated. It may transpire—and I stress may—that on the basis of the commission's consultations, a more wide ranging consideration of the matter and any points referred to it, that a different solution to the problem will emerge.
I should like now to turn to Amendments Nos. 178A and 178B in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. These amendments are aimed at the removal of doubt; but it is questionable whether any doubt in fact exists. They aim, through Amendment No. 178B, to permit the Court of Session to hold, on cause shown, that a factory or power of attorney shall cease to have effect from any date after the date of presentation of the petition.
As the petition to the Court of Session is to the court's nobile officium, we consider that the court has sufficient inherent power to ensure that a petition seeking to replace an existing factor or attorney with another could be granted and a suitable date appointed for the substitution to take effect.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 178.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
"Execution of documents: Scotland
36B.—(1) This section has effect in relation to the execution of any document by a company under the law of Scotland on or after 31 July 1990.
(2) For any purpose other than those mentioned in subsection (3) below, a document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company by a director or the secretary of the company or by a person authorised to sign the document on its behalf.
(3) For the purposes of any enactment or rule of law relating to the authentication of documents under the law of Scotland, a document is validly executed by a company if it is subscribed on behalf of the company by—

(a) two of the directors of the company;

(b) a director and the secretary of the company; or

(c) two persons authorised to subscribe the document on behalf of the company,

notwithstanding that such subscription is not attested
by witnesses and the document is not sealed with the company's seal.
(6) For the purposes of any enactment providing for a document to be executed by a company by affixing its common seal or referring (in whatever terms) to a
document so executed, a document signed or subscribed on behalf of the company by—

(a) two directors of the company;

(b) a director and the secretary of the company; or

(c) two persons authorised to sign or subscribe the document on behalf of the company,

shall have effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.
(7) In this section "enactment" includes an enactment contained in a statutory instrument.
(8) Subsections (2) and (3) above are—

(a) without prejudice to any other method of execution of documents by companies permitted by any enactment or rule of law; and

(b) subject to any other enactment making express provision, in relation to companies, as to the execution of a particular type of document."

(2) Where, on or after 31 July 1990 and prior to the coming into force of this section, a document was signed or subscribed, in accordance with section 36B(2) of the Companies Act 1985 (as inserted by section 130(3) of the Companies Act 1989), by—

(a) a company; or

(b) a body corporate to which section 36B of the 1985 Act (as so inserted) applied by, under or by virtue of any enactment,

that document shall be deemed to have been validly executed by the company or body corporate in accordance with subsection (2) of section 36B of the 1985 Act as substituted by subsection (1) above.
(3) Where, on or after 31 July 1990 and prior to the coming into force of this section, the presumption in section 36B(3) of the Companies Act 1985 (as inserted by section 130(3) of the Companies Act 1989) applied in relation to a document, that document shall be deemed to have been validly executed in accordance with subsection (3) of section 36B of the 1985 Act as substituted by subsection (1) above, and subsection (4) of that section as so substituted shall apply to the document as if it bore to be so executed.
(4) For the avoidance of doubt, in determining, for the purposes of subsection (3) above, whether the presumption in section 36B(3) of the Companies Act

1655
1985 (as inserted by section 130(3) of the Companies Act 1989) applied in relation to a document, the reference in section 36B(2)(b) of the 1985 Act (as so inserted) to the last page shall be construed as a reference to the last page of the document excluding
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 179. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 185, 186, 247, 248, 266, 268 and 272. These amendments are all concerned with the execution of documents by companies under Scots law. They were moved formally on Report in another place and it might therefore be helpful if I expand on them more fully now.
The law relating to this subject was changed at the end of July when Section 36B of the Companies Act 1985 came into force. However, doubts have been expressed as to the effect of this section. In particular, it has been argued that, because the new section only provided for one witness, any document so executed was not validly executed for the purposes of the old 17th century Scottish Acts, known as the authentication statutes, which require certain documents such as those relating to land to be executed before two witnesses in order to be valid.
The new clause and the amendments were prepared in close consultation with the Law Society and others and the Government acknowledge, with gratitude, the considerable assistance which has been given by them in the preparation of these amendments.
The new clause and the amendments will be brought into force by Commencement Order. It may be helpful for practitioners and others to know that it is at Present proposed that they should be brought into force on 1st December. It is understood from the Law Society that that would leave sufficient time for practitioners and others to take proper account of the new changes. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 179.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
9.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

  AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 178
  178A Line 3, at beginning insert ("for the removal of doubt,")
  Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 178A. I welcome Amendment No. 178. My memory must be playing me false because I recall drafting the clause, which must have stood in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Shuna, together with Dr. MacReadie of the Mental Welfare Commission. We did so in order to give effect to a recommendation of a report of which Dr. MacReadie was the author. He approached me in my capacity of chairman of the Scottish Association for Mental Health, so I thought that I was the author. However, whoever was the author—whether it was myself or my noble and learned friend—it is a matter of regret to me that when the matter was dealt with in another place the Minister made no acknowledgment of the antecedents of the clause. He simply moved it into the Bill saying that it was necessary. I thought that there was a lack of proper gratitude to those who had done the work and I hope that in concluding the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will put the matter right.
  As regards Amendment No. 178A, the words "for the removal of doubt" are intended to emphasise the point that there is doubt. The current law is by no means certain and for that reason I or my noble and learned friend Lord Morton moved an amendment during the Bill's earlier proceedings. There is only one Outer House decision in which there is an obiter dictum to the effect that this is not competent. In other words, the power of attorney fails with the incapacity of the person who has granted the power. However, it is not important to insist upon that.
  In relation to Amendment No. 178B I thought it desirable that the Court of Session should have power in ordinary petition proceedings to hold a factory to

  1653
  be at an end or the power of attorney to cease to that effect from any particular date. It would have been better if that had been provided for specifically. Of course I accept that it would be possible to proceed by way of petition to the nobile officium and I believe that the court would probably treat an application as being competent.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 178A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 178, be agreed to.—(Lord McCluskey.)
  Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, as regards the authorship of the original amendment, I have a clear recollection of moving it. Equally, I have a clear recollection that it was handed to me by my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey, who was unable to be present on that day. Perhaps that clears up any question as regards the copyright of the amendment.
  I should have thought that there is a considerable element of doubt as to what happens on mental incapacity. Amendment No. 178 has a great deal of sense in it. I encourage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate not to restrict his anxiety as to the simple and straightforward only to cases where the Law Commission of Scotland is already looking into a problem but to try to be simple and straightforward in all legislation which is being put forward. Without any disrespect, that would be a pleasant change from the legislation which we have had to consider.
  I should have thought that there was a great deal of sense in putting in Amendment No. 178A in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey. It would make the matter clear in case judges should ask what is the point of this, because that is already the law. With respect to my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey, I do not believe that there is a necessity for Amendment No. 178B. However, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his responsibility in introducing Amendment No. 178 and I hope that he will accept Amendment No. 178A.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am delighted that the matter of authorship has been satisfactorily settled and I am happy to acknowledge the true author in this matter. However, I am not happy to accept the proposal that Amendment No. 178A should be included. I have some difficulty in believing that, given this provision and its background, there will be any difficulty in interpretation should the matter appear before any of the other senators of the College of Justice who are not present this evening.
  Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I hesitate to comment upon that last observation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 178A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 178, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 178B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 178, not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  179 After Clause 61, insert the following new clause:
  Execution of documents by companies
  `.—(1) For section 36B of the Companies Act 1985 (execution of documents: Scotland) there shall be substituted the following section—

COMMONS AMENDMENT
180 Clause 62, page 70, line 22, at end insert:
`() the remuneration of temporary judges appointed under section 28(3) of this Act;'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 180. This is essentially a technical amendment which provides that the remuneration of temporary judges appointed under the provisions of Clause 28(3) shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 180.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 180
180A
Lord McCluskeyrose to move, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 180.
1656
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 180A. I tabled the amendment to draw attention to that which is being proposed; that is, the appointment of temporary judges. That subject cannot be discussed fully at this time of night. In my opinion it is not necessary or desirable that temporary judges should be appointed.
We do not need temporary judges to get through the work. There are already a number of judges who are full-time, and a number of retired judges— colloquially known as "mothballs"—brought back from retirement for a few days at a time. The mothballs are able to fill the gaps where there are problems in finding sufficient judges.
I do not believe that even the system of bringing in the mothball judges is very satisfactory. First, they are apparently to be restricted to appeal work. Therefore one has mothballs sitting in the appeal courts and appeal court judges doing first instance work. Secondly, as indeed is the position this very day, an appeal court—the final court in the country for criminal matters—may consist of two retired judges brought in for the day along with one permanent judge. That means the final criminal court in Scotland consists of one full-time judge and two others. One can see that the situation will only get worse if temporary judges are brought in.
My next point concerns the people to be appointed as temporary judges. I imagine there are only two possible groups of persons from whom they may be chosen. The Lord Advocate will no doubt correct me if I am wrong. Those with the power under the scheme may choose to bring in sheriffs or sheriff principals. As I understand the position, at the moment there may be as many as 10 temporary sheriffs sitting on any one day at the Glasgow sheriff court because there is too much work for existing sheriffs to do. It does not solve any real problem to take an existing sheriff from an overworked sheriff court like Glasgow and have him sit in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary. The same applies to sheriff principals. They are extremely busy men and cannot spare the time to help out in the Supreme Court in Scotland.
If the temporary judges are not to come from there, then they must come from the ranks of senior counsel. It is a very bad idea for senior counsel to sit as temporary judges on the Bench on Tuesday or Wednesday, and potentially appear on Thursday and Friday in front of the same judges as they had lunch with on Tuesday and Wednesday as their colleagues as temporary judges. That is pure Dickens. It may be recalled that Dickens mocked that constant changing of position when it happened in the 19th century. It should not be introduced into Scotland.
I feel very strongly about the matter, and for that reason I seek the support of the House for this amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 180.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, with a great deal of diffidence I rise to speak on this point. It appears to

1657
me that in considering temporary judges the Government are applying to Scotland the position that applies in England where one has part-time judges, recorders and deputy High Court judges. That may work well in England but there is a far larger Bar in England and the recorders and deputy High Court judges can be dealing with work in courts where they do not normally appear.
The situation is completely different in the Court of Session, where there is a small Bar and a small court, both in the one building. It would be inappropriate to have people appearing, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said, on one day as a judge and on the next day as counsel. It just would not work.
The question of retired judges does not, I think, arise on this amendment but I fully agree with the noble and learned Lord that to use them only on the appeal procedure runs the risk that the public will not have confidence in the Appeal Court.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I shall endeavour to respond briefly. While there are arrangements in various forms for members of the Bar and others in England to take up temporary positions as judges, I should like to stress that the institution of temporary judges in Scotland is not a matter of imposition from a southern system but a proposal made by a very distinguished senator of the College of Justice, Lord Maxwell, in the review that he prepared a few years ago.
For just the reasons outlined by both noble and learned Lords, I do not envisage an extensive use of temporary judges. However, one certainly wishes to provide for that possibility and I confirm—it is not of course entirely a matter for me—that the two obvious groups from which they might be drawn are the senior end of the Bar or the present permanent sheriffs. Again, for the reason given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, one would not envisage any excessive use of them because that would be to take people from one end of the system to do a temporary job in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary and would therefore draw more temporaries into the sheriff courts. Nonetheless, the opportunity would be there, but I stress that it would be entirely a matter for the Lord President to determine what work should be undertaken by the temporary judges, be it in the criminal or civil areas. It is not for me to suggest now what work he might consider to be appropriate.
What we are providing is a useful additional opportunity for the Lord President to see that the proper business of the courts in Scotland is dealt with as expeditiously as possible. He will have the opportunity to use retired judges—I think I should use the full title rather than the popular name—and the opportunity to use temporary judges. However, the vast majority of the work in the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary will be done by senators of the College of Justice on a permanent basis.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, nothing that the Lord Advocate said reduces my anxieties. He said, rightly, that the Lord President of the Court of Session would
1658
determine what work is to be allocated to the temporary judges. That raises a slightly different point to any of the concerns I have hitherto expressed.
If the Lord Advocate is familiar with the history of the English judiciary—in particular, that excellent work, Lives of the Lord Chancellors, and, indeed, the work of Professor Griffiths on the politics of the judiciary—he will appreciate that the power to determine which judge hears which case is a power that is open to abuse by those who exercise it. It was commonly abused by Lord Chancellors up to and including the early part of this century. We should not create that possibility.
I do not like the idea that the Lord President can bring in a temporary judge from the senior Bar, a person who is bound to think he is on probation regarding whether or not he will get a permanent appointment, and then give him a particular case to determine. That is the way to a loss of confidence in the independence of the judiciary, and that I would deplore. It is for those reasons that I have wanted to voice my opposition, but plainly I cannot force this to a vote. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Amendment No. 180A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 180, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
181 Page 70, line 28, at end insert:
`(2) Sums repaid to the Secretary of State under section 14(3) of this Act shall be paid by him into the Consolidated Fund.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 181. This is a simple amendment which is consequential on previous decisions of this House that grants payable by the Secretary of State to the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board could be made subject to terms and conditions which included repayment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 181. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
182 Clause 64, page 70, line 35, leave out 'subsection (3)' and insert 'subsections (3) and (3A)'.
183 Page 70, line 42, leave out 'section 59' and insert 'sections 59 (Blood and other samples in civil proceedings) and (Effect of mental incapacity on powers of attorney etc)'.
184 Page 70, line 45, at end insert:
'(3A) Paragraph 25(2A) of Schedule 6 to this Act shall come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.'.
185 Page 71, line 1, leave out 'subsection (5)' and insert 'subsections (4A) and (5)'.
186 Page 71, line 1, at end insert:
'(4A) Section (Execution of documents by companies) of this Act, paragraph 30A of Schedule 6 to this Act and Schedule 7 to this Act so far as relating to the Companies Act 1985 and the Companies Act 1989 extend also to England and Wales.'
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 182 to 186.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 182 to 186.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
187 Page 71, line 6, leave out subsection (6).
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 187.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 187.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
188 Schedule 1, page 72, leave out from 'securing' in line 17 to end of line 23 and insert:

'(a) that members of the Board have expertise or knowledge of—

(i) the provision of conveyancing and executry services;

(ii) the financial arrangements connected with the purchase and sale of heritable property;

(iii) consumer affairs; and

(iv) commercial affairs; and

(b) that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the composition of the Board is such as to provide a proper balance between the interests of, on the one hand, qualified conveyancers and executry practitioners and, on the other hand, those who make use of their services.'.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 188. This amendment should be welcomed on all sides of the House as it relates to a matter raised in the Bill's consideration here. It has always been the Government's intention that the composition of the board should be balanced between those whom the board is to regulate and those who make use of its services. This amendment will, however, make that commitment crystal clear.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 188.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
189 Schedule 1, page 73, line 6, after 'may', insert `, with the consent of the Secretary of State,'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 189. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 191 and 193. These amendments introduce a requirement on the board to obtain the Secretary of State's approval to the financial arrangements such as remuneration and pensions which it sets for its members and employees. This will ensure that on these matters there is some control over the board's spending. It is in the public interest that there should be such control.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 189.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
190 Schedule 1, page 73, line 6, at end insert:
'(2) Where a person ceases to be a member of the Board otherwise than on the expiry of his term of office, and it appears to the Board that there are special circumstances which make it right for that person to receive compensation, the Board may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, make a payment to that person of such amount as the Board may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, determine.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 190. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 192 and 208. These amendments are largely technical.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 190.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
191 Schedule 1, page 73, line 9, after 'may', insert ', with the consent of the Secretary of State,'.
192 Page 73, line 12, leave out 'by way of compensation for loss of employment' and insert '(including pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of any such employee who suffers loss of employment).'.
193 Page 73, line 12, after 'may', insert ', with the consent of the Secretary of State,'.
194 Page 74, line 30, leave out 'a conveyancing practitioner,'.
195 Page 74, line 33, leave out 'a conveyancing practitioner or'.
196 Page 74, leave out from beginning of line 36 to 'and' in line 40 and insert 'or
(c) a decision to take any step set out in subsection (3) (a) to (f) of section 19 of this Act;'.
197 Page 74, line 42, leave out 'conveyancing practitioner,'.
198 Page 75, line 1, leave out 'a conveyancing practitioner' and insert 'an independent qualified conveyancer'.
199 Page 75, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert:
`18. The Board may exercise the power conferred by paragraph 18A below for the following purposes—

(a) an inquiry under subsection (1) of section 19 of this Act;

(b) a review of a decision by virtue of subsection (12) (a) of that section; and

(c) consideration by the Board whether to exercise the powers conferred on them by section (Board's intervention powers) of this Act.

18A. The Board may give notice in writing to a practitioner specifying the subject matter of their investigation and requiring either or both of the following—
200 Page 75, line 21, leave out 'or qualified conveyancer'.
201 Page 75, line 22, leave out 'inquiry' and insert 'investigation'.
202 Page 75, line 24, leave out 'or qualified conveyancer'.
203 Page 75, line 25, leave out 'inquiry' and insert `investigation'.
204 Page 75, line 26, leave out 'or qualified conveyancer'.
205 Page 75, line 27, leave out '18(a)' and insert '18A(a)'.
206 Page 75, line 28, leave out 'or qualified conveyancer'.
207 After Schedule 1, insert the following new Schedule—
'Publication of Applications Made Under Section 23
1. Any professional or other body making an application under section 23 of this Act shall, for a period of six weeks beginning with the date on which the application is submitted to the Lord President and the Secretary of State,—

1661

(a) make a copy of the draft scheme referred to in section 23(2) of this Act available for public inspection at a specified place; and

(b) on a request from any person—

(i) send him a copy of the draft scheme; or

(ii) make a copy of the draft scheme available for public inspection at a suitable place in his locality.

2. Any person may make written representations concerning any draft scheme submitted under section 23 of this Act, and such representations shall—

(a) be made to both the Lord President and the Secretary of State; and

(b) be delivered to both the Lord President and the Secretary of State before the expiry of the period of six weeks beginning with the date on which the application is made.

3. At the same time as an application under section 23 is submitted to the Lord President and the Secretary of State, the body making the application shall place an advertisement mentioning the matters referred to in paragraph 4 below in the Edinburgh Gazette and in a daily newspaper circulating throughout Scotland.
4. An advertisement such as referred to in paragraph 3 above shall state that—

(a) a copy of the draft scheme referred to in section 23(2) of this Act will be available for public inspection at a specified place for a period of six weeks beginning with the date on which the advertisement appears;

(b) a copy of the draft scheme will be—

(i) sent, free of charge, to any person on request; or

(ii) made available for public inspection at a suitable place in that person's locality;

(c) any person may make written representations concerning the draft scheme to the Lord President and the Secretary of State; and

(d) any such representations are to be delivered within the period of six weeks beginning with the date on which the application is made.'.

208 Schedule 2, page 75, leave out lines 38 to 44, and insert:
`3.—(l) The Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury determine the terms and conditions of service, including remuneration, of the ombudsman.
(2) Where a person appointed to the office of ombudsman ceases to hold that office otherwise than on the expiry of the term of office specified in his appointment, and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for that person to receive compensation, the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make a payment to that person of such amount as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
4. The Secretary of State may appoint staff for the ombudsman of such number, and on such terms and conditions of service, as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine; and such terms and conditions may include provision as to remuneration and as to compensation for loss of employment (which may take the form of pensions, allowances or gratuities).
4A. Neither the ombudsman nor his staff are, in such capacity, Crown servants.
5. The Secretary of State shall pay the expenses of the ombudsman and of his staff.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 192 to 208.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 192 to 208.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
209 Schedule 3, page 77, line 2, at end insert ', with the consent of the Secretary of State, and
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 209. I shall speak also to Motion No.
1662
209A. It will be recalled that in our earlier deliberations on the provisions for filling vacancies in the Inner House of the Court of Session the need was identified for these procedures to reflect the collegiate nature of the College of Justice, and the provisions of paragraph 4(2) (b) of Schedule 3 were extended to include consultations by the Lord President and Lord Justice Clerk, with other judges as appropriate, prior to the making of appointments by the two senior judges. During the deliberations on these provisions in the other place the need was identified to introduce into the appointment provisions some measure of accountability to Parliament, and for that reason the Government introduced an amendment, which was subsequently approved, requiring appointments to have the consent of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Secretary of State is already involved in other judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and Sheriff Courts, and with regard to appointments to the Inner House also it would seem appropriate for there to be some measure of accountability to Parliament.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 209.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT AMENDMENT NO. 209
209A
That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 209.
Lord McCluskeyrose to move, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 209.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this provision has a curious history. It is a matter of great constitutional importance. It is a tragedy that we should be debating it at this time of night in an almost empty Chamber.
At Report stage I expressed my concern on behalf of almost all the Scottish judges about the provision contained in the Bill. I shall not rehearse the arguments that I advanced on that occasion. In summary, they were that hitherto judges reached the appeal court in Scotland by seniority. That has been denigrated as Buggins' turn. However, that has been the position for centuries in Scotland and the system has worked very well.
In the original Bill it was proposed that instead of that system the judges should be selected and appointed by the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, and the late Lord Wheatley, refused to accept such a power which was offered to them at a time when increased salaries were introduced for appeal court judges. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, has told me that they said that they did not trust themselves to make proper appointments. It appears that the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk who succeeded the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, and the late Lord Wheatley took a different view, which they were entitled to do. I shall not criticise them for it.

1663
The argument I advanced was supported by all the judges in Scotland whom I consulted, bar one. That is to say, I was supported by all the Outer House judges at that time. They said that it was invidious, in a small college of justice, to have people picked out for promotion over the heads of others and that it might affect the way that judges behaved. They might start looking over their shoulders in carrying out their judicial duties in order to be promoted.
However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate agreed that this matter should be considered. I believe that he took seriously the points I was making to him. At that stage there was no mention of the political power coming in to have a say or a veto in relation to appointments to the appeal court in Scotland. The matter was raised only once at Second Reading in another place on 12th June. Sir Nicholas Fairbairn opposed the proposal root and branch for the reasons that I have already outlined. He expressed himself in terms even stronger than I would care to adopt. He said:
"That is an unacceptable change in the collegiality of the College of Justice in Scotland."—[Official Report, Commons, 12/6/9C; col. 189.]
Sadly, for reasons that I cannot define, he came forward at the First Scottish Standing Committee on 17th July [col. 895] and suddenly, out of nowhere, proposed:
"There must he a safeguard whereby the Secretary of State has some control over the power of the Lord President or Lord Justice Clerk to appoint whom they choose in their courts'.
The Minister, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, was here a short time ago, but alas he has departed. He accepted that proposal with gratitude. At col. 896 he said:
"I have carefully considered what my honourable and learned friend said…. Having taken various comments into account, I am inclined to agree with my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross that there may be a case for the Secretary of State also to be involved".
He said he would bring forward an amendment at Report stage. On 16th October—last week—at Report stage the same Minister began by saying:
"There has been considerable support for the principle underlying the new provisions contained in paragraph 4(2) (b) of schedule 4 relating to the filling of vacancies".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/10/90; col. 1125.]
I do not believe that to be true. I put it more strongly: I believe it to be untrue. If there was considerable support, I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has a duty to tell the House where that considerable support came from. I know not of it. To my astonishment (I can put it no differently to that) at col. 1126 the Minister went on to say:
"The Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk have been consulted about the amendment and have expressed themselves content with it, for their interests".
I should like to see the terms of that consultation because I understood that the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk were not in favour of that proposal. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, was deeply opposed to it.
I believe that what has happened here is that the Secretary of State and the noble and learned Lord the
1664
Lord Chancellor have perhaps put their heads together and have realised that the Lord Chancellor has always had the power to determine who is promoted to the Court of Appeal in England. Therefore, the Secretary of State has said, "If you have the power, why should I not have it as well?" Thus we have the totally retrograde step in 1990 of introducing into the promotion of judges in Scotland and the elevation of judges from the Outer House to the Appeal Court a role for the political power. I believe that that is entirely wrong and that it is constitutionally bad. If a change is to be made in order to regulate the position between England and Scotland, in my view it ought to be made in England and not in Scotland.
I regard this as utterly deplorable. It is disgraceful that this House should be asked to consider such a matter at a time when there is practically no one in the Chamber. In those circumstances, there is no way in which we can test the opinion of the House. Those who are listening to me are mainly Government Whips and they would undoubtedly vote against me if I pressed this Motion; and I may in fact do so. I deplore this situation and I wait to hear what justification there is for it. I am not satisfied that proper justification was given on Report in another place by the Minister who spoke on the matter.
Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 209.—(Lord McCluskey.)
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, surely the courts should be above Parliament. Has that not been our tradition?
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I regret to have to say that I do not agree with my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey on this point. However, I should make clear that I wholly agree with him when he says that these proposals in regard to the appointment of Inner House judges are wholly and utterly unsatisfactory.
It seems to me that what is proposed in the Bill —that is, without the insertion of the amendment—is to substitute for a political appointment an oligarchy appointment. There are considerable difficulties in the idea that the chairs of the two appeal divisions in the Court of Session should have choice of who sits with them. That is basically and obviously wrong. I make no criticism at all of the present occupants of those positions, but it is obviously a difficult matter.
As I understand it, up until now anyone appointed to be a judge has been appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of a member of Her Majesty's Government, who, one suspects, may have had certain consultations with the Lord President, the Lord Justice Clerk and possibly a good few others. That system has worked.
If we are to have a situation where the Appeal Court judges are to be chosen other than by straight seniority—and that is a situation which has worked, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out—it would be more appropriate that they should be appointed in the same way by the Monarch on the advice of the

1665
Government, after appropriate consultation. It is wholly wrong that Appeal Court judges should in effect choose who sits with them.
The amendment which has emerged from another place and with which we are asked to agree at least gives some measure of control over what I regard as an inherently bad proposal of an oligarchic system. Therefore, if we must have this unpleasant situation it is better that the Secretary of State should come into it openly in this way rather than that we should be left with two judges choosing who shall sit in the Appeal Court.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, in relation to this vexed matter, we have heard an extraordinary variety of views not only from serving members of the judiciary but, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, in the case of one individual the view changed from one day to the next in another place. However, whatever the arguments have been hitherto, it would appear that we have avoided the complaint that there are one or two persons who should be elevated to the Inner House. As the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, intimated, we are spelling out on the face of the matter what would have probably happened in any event if there was to be some process of elevation to the Inner House which did not simply depend upon seniority. The matter is open: the Secretary of State is involved, also the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk. It is the best that we can hope to achieve.
I should have been very unhappy if the system had been left as it was, relating as it did to seniority. I appreciate that the situation creates some difficulty for those who are senators in the College of Justice in a small judiciary, but I should have thought that in 1990 it is time to recognise that those who go to the appellate part of our system in Scotland should go there on merit and not on Buggins' turn or on any other derogatory basis.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I should have explained that when I spoke about this matter at Report stage I had a deep personal interest because I was number one of the judges who might have been passed over. Since that time I have arrived on a distant shore and I am now a member of the Inner House. Therefore I have no personal interest in this provision.
Having said that, I should like to say that I deplore the statement made by my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Shuna, with the agreement of the Lord Advocate, that this situation would have come about in any case. I do not believe that that is an acceptable point of view. I cannot believe that if the power had been conferred upon the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk they would have consulted the Secretary of State. Have I misunderstood the Lord Advocate?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, let me put the matter the other way round. There are those who argue very strongly that constitutionally it should have been left to the Secretary of State to represent the Monarch. If that had been the arrangement, I think
1666
that the noble and learned Lord will appreciate that there would have been consultation with senior members of the judiciary in Scotland.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I can understand that position, but I know of no one who had come out in the open in favour of that solution.
I am told that if I divide the House there is a possibility that we might be counted out and that, therefore, business would come to an end. I am sure that the Leader and the Chief Whip know that there are people lurking in various parts of the building who could be brought in to avoid that terrible eventuality. However, I should not like to take that risk at this time of night. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Amendment No. 209A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 209, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
210 Page 77, line 20, at beginning insert 'Subject to paragraph 7A below,'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 210.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 210.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
[Amendment No. 210A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 210, not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
211 Schedule 3, page 77, line 21, leave out 'or the High Court of Justiciary'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 211.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 211.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
10.15 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
212 Schedule 3, page 77, line 27, at end insert:
'7A. A person appointed to be a temporary judge of the Court of Session shall, by virtue of such appointment, be a temporary Lord Commissioner of Justiciary in Scotland.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 212.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 212.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Motion No. 212A not moved.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
213 Schedule 3, page 77, line 29, leave out 'of the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 213.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 213.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
214 Schedule 3, page 77, line 31, after 'Court' insert 'of Session or the High Court of Justiciary'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: 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 their Amendment No. 214.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
[Amendment No. 214A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 214, not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
215 Schedule 3, page 77, line 33, leave out 'that' and insert `either'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 215.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 215.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Motion No. 215A not moved.].

COMMONS AMENDMENT
216 Schedule 3, page 77, line 36, leave out 'that' and insert 'the relevant'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 216.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 216.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[Motion No. 216A not moved.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
217 After Schedule 4, insert the following new schedule—

'Supervised Attendance Orders: Further Provisions
1.—(1) A court shall not make a supervised attendance order in respect of any offender unless—

(a) the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements exist for persons who reside in the locality in which the offender resides, or will be residing when the order comes into force, to carry out the requirements of such an order;

(b) the court is satisfied that provision can be made under the arrangements mentioned in paragraph (a) above for the offender to carry out such requirements.

(2) Before making a supervised attendance order, the court shall explain to the offender in ordinary language—

(a) the purpose and effect of the order and in particular the obligations on the offender as specified in paragraph 3 below;

1668

(b) the consequences which may follow under paragraph 4 below if he fails to comply with any of those requirements; and

(c) that the court has, under paragraph 5 below, the power to review the order on the application either of the offender or of an officer of the local authority in whose area the offender for the time being resides.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order direct that subsection (2) of section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default) of this Act shall be amended by substituting, for any number of hours specified in that subsection such other number of hours as may be specified in the order; and an order under this subsection, may in making such amendment specify a different such numbers of hours for different classes of case.
(4) An order under paragraph (3) above shall be made by statutory instrument, but no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
2.—(1) A supervised attendance order shall—

(a) specify the locality in which the offender resides or will be residing when the order comes into force; and

(b) require the local authority in whose area the locality specified under paragraph (a) above is situated to appoint or assign a supervising officer.

(2) Where, whether on the same occasion or on separate occasions, an offender is made subject to more than one supervised attendance order, the court may direct that the requirements specified in any of those orders shall he concurrent with or additional to those specified in any other of those orders, but so that at no time shall the offender have an outstanding number of hours during which he must carry out the requirements of these orders in excess of the largest number specified in section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default) of this Act.
(3) Upon making a supervised attendance order the court shall—

(a) give a copy of the order to the offender;

(b) send a copy of the order to the director of social work of the local authority in whose area the offender resides or will be residing when the order comes into force; and

(c) where it is not the appropriate court, send a copy of the order (together with such documents and information relating to the case as are considered useful) to the clerk of the appropriate court.

3.—(1) An offender in respect of whom a supervised attendance order is in force shall report to the supervising officer and notify him without delay of any change of address or in the times, if any, at which he usually works.
(2) Subject to paragraph 5(1) below, instructions given under a supervised attendance order shall be carried out during the period of twelve months beginning with the date of the order; but, unless revoked, the order shall remain in force until the offender has carried out the instructions given under it for the number of hours specified in it.
(3) The instructions given by the supervising officer under the order shall, so far as practicable, be such as to avoid any conflict with the offender's religious beliefs and any interference with the times, if any, at which he normally works or attends a school or other educational establishment.
4.—(1) If at any time while a supervised attendance order is in force in respect of any offender it appears to the appropriate court, on evidence on oath from the supervising officer, that that offender has failed to comply with any of the requirements of paragraph 3 above or of the order (including any failure satisfactorily to carry out any instructions which he has been given by the supervising officer under the order), the court may issue a warrant for the arrest of that offender, or may, if it thinks fit, instead of issuing a warrant in the first instance issue a citation requiring the offender to appear before that court at such time as may be specified in the citation.
(2) If it is proved to the satisfaction of the court before which an offender is brought or appears in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1) above that he has failed without reasonable excuse to comply with any of the requirements of paragraph 3 above or of the order (including any failure satisfactorily to carry out any instructions which he has been given by the supervising officer under the order), the court may—

(a) revoke the order and impose such period of imprisonment as could, in respect of the original default or failure, have been imposed by the court which made the order if the order had not been made; or

(b) subject to section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on default) of this Act and paragraph 2(2) above, vary the number of hours specified in the order.

(3) The evidence of one witness shall, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above, be sufficient evidence.
5.—(l) Where a supervised attendance order is in force in respect of any offender and, on the application of that offender or of the supervising officer, it appears to the appropriate court that it would be in the interests of justice to do so having regard to circumstances which have arisen since the order was made, that court may—

(a) extend, in relation to the order, the period of twelve months specified in paragraph 3 above;

(b) subject to section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on default) of this Act and paragraph 2(2) above, vary the number of hours specified in the order;

(c) revoke the order; or

(d) revoke the order and impose such period of imprisonment as could, in respect of the original default or failure, have been imposed by the court which made the order if the order had not been made.

(2) If the appropriate court is satisfied that the offender proposes to change, or has changed, his residence from the locality for the time being specified under paragraph 2(1) (a) above to another locality and—

(a) that court has been notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements exist for persons who reside in that other locality to carry out instructions under supervised attendance orders; and

(b) it appears to that court that provision can be made under those arrangements for him to carry out instructions under the order;

that court may, and on application of the supervising officer shall, amend the order by substituting that other locality for the locality for the time being specified in the order; and the provisions of section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default) of this Act and of this Schedule shall apply to the order as amended.
(3) Where the court proposes to exercise its powers under sub-paragraph (1) (a), (b) or (d) above otherwise than on the application of the offender, it shall issue a citation requiring him to appear before the court and, if he fails to appear, may issue a warrant for his arrest.
6.—(1) The Secretary of State may make rules for regulating the carrying out of the requirements of supervised attendance orders.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, rules under this section may—

(a) limit the number of hours during which the requirements of an order are to be met on any one day;

(b) make provision as to the reckoning of time for the purposes of the carrying out of these requirements;

(c) make provision for the payment of travelling and other expenses in connection with the carrying out of these requirements;

(d) provide for records to be kept of what has been done by any person carrying out these requirements.

(3) Rules under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
7. The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament each year, or incorporate in annual reports he already makes, a report of the operation of section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default) of this Act and this Schedule.
8. In section 27 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (supervision of persons put on probation, released from prison or subject to community service orders)—

(a) in subsection (1) (b) there shall be inserted at the end the following—

"; and

(iv) without prejudice to paragraphs (i) to (iii) above, persons in their area who are subject to supervised attendance orders under section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.

(b) for the words "probation and community service scheme", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words "probation, community service and supervised attendance scheme".

9.—(1) In this Schedule—
"the appropriate court", in relation to a supervised attendance order, means the court having jurisdiction in the locality for the time being specified in the order under paragraph 2(1) (a) above, being a sheriff or district court according to whether the order has been made by a sheriff or a district court, but in a case where the order has been made by a district court and there is no district court in that locality, the sheriff court;
"local authority" and "supervising officer" have the same meanings respectively as in section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default) of this Act.
(2) Except where the context otherwise requires, expressions used in this Schedule and in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 have the same meanings in this Schedule as in that Act.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 217.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 217.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
[Amendment No. 217A, as an Amendment to Commons Amendment No. 217, not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
218 Schedule 6, page 91, line 23, at end insert:
'2A. In subsection (6) of that section after the words "(a) to (i)" there shall be added the words "and (1)".'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this is a technical amendment consequential on the provisions of children's certificates.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 218.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
219 Schedule 6, page 91, line 32, at end insert:
'and
(c) in subsection (5), for the word "hear" there shall be substituted the words ", whether or not the objector appears, consider".'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 219. The amendment seeks to ensure that competent written objections to a licensing

1671
application submitted to a licensing board are considered by the board whether or not the objector appeals at the hearing of the application.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 219.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
220 Schedule 6, page 91, line 44, leave out '10' and insert '21'.
221 Page 92, line 2, leave out '10' and insert '21'.
222 Page 92, line 5, leave out '21' and insert '28'.
223 Page 92, line 9, leave out '21' and insert '28'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 220 to 223. This group of amendments extends the period during which boards must give reasons, when requested, for arriving at licensing decisions and for issuing licences.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 220 to 223.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
224 Schedule 6, page 92, line 31, after '64' insert:
'(a) in subsection (1), after the words "an entertainment licence" there shall be inserted the words ", a refreshment licence"; and
(b)'..
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 224. This amendment adds licensed refreshment establishments to those licensed premises in respect of which occasional or regular extensions of permitted hours may be granted by a licensing board.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 224.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
225 Schedule 6, page 92, line 35, leave out 'two years' and insert 'one year.'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 225. The purpose of this paragraph is to prevent repeated applications for extensions of permitted hours within two years of a refusal by a board unless the board makes a direction to the contrary.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 225.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
226 Schedule 6, page 93, line 11, at end insert:
'. In subsection (1) of section 109 (cancellation of certificate of registration of club) after the word "being" there shall be inserted the words "or has been, at any time during the currency of the certificate of registration,".'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their
1672
Amendment No. 226. The existing wording of the section limits a competent objection to the renewal of a club registration certificate to grounds relating to existing club mismanagement.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 226. [(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
227 Schedule 6, page 96, line 30, leave out 'section 23' and insert 'section (Consideration of applications made under section 23)'.
228 Page 96, line 31, leave out from '1990' to 'shall' in line 32 and insert `(Consideration of applications made under section 23)'.
229 Page 96, line 34, leave out '12(b)' and insert '(7) (b)'.
230 Page 96, leave out from beginning of line 36 to end of line 2 on page 97.
231 Page 97, line 2, at end insert:
'(2A) In subsection (1) (b) of section 407 (imprisonment for non-payment of fine), at the end there shall be inserted "either with immediate effect or to take effect in the event of the person failing to pay the fine or any part or instalment of it by such further time as the court may order".'.
232 Page 97, line 2, at end insert:
'The Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978 (c.49)
In section 4 of the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978 (which, amongst other things, gives the court powers to deal with failure to comply with community service order) there shall be added at the end the following subsection—
"(3) The evidence of one witness shall, for the purposes of subsection (2) above, be sufficient evidence.".'.
233 Page 97, leave out lines 3 to 6.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 227 to 233.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 227 to 233.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
234 Schedule 6, page 97, line 38 at end insert:
'(4A) In section 26 of the 1980 Act (offence for solicitors to act as agents for unqualified persons)

(a) in subsection (1) (c), at the beginning there shall be inserted "subject to subsection (4),";

(b) in subsection (1) (d), at the beginning there shall be inserted "subject to subsection (4),";

(c) in subsection (2), at the end there shall be inserted "or employed by a law centre."; and

(d) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—

"(4) Subsection (1) (c) and (d) shall not apply in relation to—

(a) writs relating to heritable or moveable property drawn or prepared upon the account of or for the profit of independent qualified conveyancers providing conveyancing services within the meaning of section 20 (interpretation of sections 14 to 19) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990; or

(b) papers to found or oppose an application for a grant of confirmation in favour of executors drawn or prepared upon the account of or for the profit of an executry practitioner or recognised financial institution providing executry services within the meaning of the said section 20.".'.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 234. This amendment clarifies the extent of the provision in Section 26 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 which makes it an offence for solicitors to act on a similar agency basis for unqualified persons.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 234.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
235 Schedule 6, page 97, leave out line 41.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 235. In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 264. These amendments have been tabled in response to views clearly expressed here and in another place that the right to charge a fee for preparing writs relating to moveable estate should he reserved to solicitors as it is at present.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 235.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
236 Schedule 6, page 98, line 2, leave out '(a) a conveyancing practitioner' and insert 'a qualified conveyancer providing conveyancing services'.
237 Page 98, leave out lines 4 to 7.
238 Page 98. line 19, at end insert:
'(6A) In section 42A (powers of Council where inadequate professional services alleged), at the end of subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(d) to direct the solicitor to pay to the client by way of compensation such sum, not exceeding £1,000, as the Council may specify.".'.
239 Page 98, line 38, at end insert '(a)'.
240 Page 98, line 41, at end insert:
'and
(b) after subsection (2) (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(d) to direct the solicitor to pay to the client by way of compensation such sum, not exceeding £1,000, as the Tribunal may specify.".'.
241 Page 99, line 4, at end insert:
'(10A) After section 56 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Further provision as to compensation awards.
56A.—(1) The taking of any steps under section 42A(2) or 53A(2) shall not be founded upon in any proceedings for the purpose of showing that the solicitor in respect of whom the steps were taken was negligent.
(2) A direction under section 42A(2) (d) or 53A(2) (d) to a solicitor to pay compensation to a client shall not prejudice any right of that client to take proceedings against that solicitor for damages in respect of any loss which he alleges he has suffered as a result of that solicitor's negligence, and any sum directed to be paid to that client under either of those provisions may be taken into account in the computation of any award of damages made to him in any such proceedings.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend subsection (2) (d) of sections 42A and 53A by substituting for the sum for the time being specified in those provisions such other sum as he considers appropriate.
(4) Before making any such order the Secretary of State shall consult the Council.
(5) An order made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.
242 Page 99, leave out lines 5 to 10 and insert:
'(11) In section 63 (penalties and time limit for prosecution of offences)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for the words "level 3" there shall be substituted the words "level 4"; and

(ii) the words from "and to imprisonment" to the end shall cease to have effect; and

(b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(3) Where an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate and 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.
(4) Where an offence under this Act is committed by a partnership or by an unincorporated association (other than a partnership) and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a partner in the partnership or, as the case may be, a person concerned in the management or control of the association, he (as well as the partnership or association) shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.".'.
243 Page 99, line 11, leave out `section 65(1)' and insert 'subsection (1) of section 65'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 236 to 243 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 236 to 243.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
244 Schedule 6, page 99, line 13, leave out 'and' and insert:
" "foreign lawyer" means a person who is not a solicitor or an advocate but who is a member, and entitled to practise as such, of a legal profession regulated within a jurisdiction outwith Scotland;";
(aa) after the definition of "judge" there shall be inserted—
"law centre" means a body

(a) established for the purpose of providing legal services to the public generally as well as to individual members of the public; and

(b) which does not distribute any profits made either to its members or otherwise, but reinvests any such profits for the purposes of the law centre;";

(ab) after the definition of "Lord President" there shall be inserted—
"multi-disciplinary practice" means a body corporate or a partnership—

(a) having as one of its directors or, as the case may be, partners, a solicitor or an incorporated practice; and

(b) which offers services, including professional services such as are provided by individual solicitors, to the public; and

1675

(c) where that solicitor or incorporated practice carries out, or supervises the carrying out of, any such professional services as may lawfully be carried out only by a solicitor;

"multi-national practice" means

(a) a partnership whose members are solicitors or incorporated practices and registered foreign lawyers; or

(b) a body corporate whose members include registered foreign lawyers, and membership of which is restricted to solicitors, incorporated practices, registered foreign lawyers and other multi-national practices;";

(ac) after the definition of "property" there shall be inserted—
"registered foreign lawyer" means a foreign lawyer who is registered under section 60A;".'
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 244.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 244.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
[Amendment No. 244A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 244, not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
245 Schedule 6, page 99, line 17, at end insert:
`and
(c) in the definition of "unqualified person", after the word "person" there shall be inserted ", other than a multi-disciplinary practice,".'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 245.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 245.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
246 Schedule 6, page 99, leave out lines 46 to 50 and insert:
' "14A. In carrying out their duty under paragraph 14, the Tribunal may refrain from publishing any names, places or other facts the publication of which would, in their opinion, damage, or be likely to damage, the interests of persons other than—

(a) the solicitor against whom the complaint was made; or

(b) his partners; or

(c) his or their families,

but where they so refrain they shall publish their reasons for so doing.".'
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 246.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 246.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
[Amendment No. 246A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 246, not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
247 Schedule 6, page 100, line 44, at end insert:
Companies Act 1985 (c. 6)
1676
30A.—(1) The Companies Act 1985 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 38(1) (appointment of attorney to execute deeds abroad), the words "under the law of England and Wales" shall cease to have effect.
(3) In section 39(3) (official seal for use abroad), the words "or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B," shall cease to have effect.
(4) In section 186 (share certificate to be evidence of title), the words "(or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B)" shall cease to have effect.
(5) In section 188(2) (issue and effect of share warrant to bearer), the words "(or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B)" shall cease to have effect.
(6) Subsection (2) of section 462 (power of company to create floating charges under Scots law) shall cease to have effect.'.
248 Page 101, line 9, at end insert:
`Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45)
31A. Section 53(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (execution of instrument appointing receiver) shall cease to have effect.'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 247 and 248 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 247 and 248. —(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
249 Schedule 6, page 101, line 11, at beginning insert:
`In subsection (3) of section 4 (Scottish Legal Aid Fund) of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986—

(a) paragraph (a) shall cease to have effect; and

(b) in paragraph (c), after the word "property" there shall be inserted "(including money)".

(1A).'.
250 Page 101, line 11, leave out 'the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986' and insert 'that Act'.
251 Page 101, line 40, at end insert:
`(4A) After subsection (2) of section 17 (contributions and payments out of property received) of that Act, there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(2A) Except in so far as regulations made under this section otherwise provide, any sum of money recovered under an award of or an agreement as to expenses in favour of any party in any proceedings in respect of which he is or has been in receipt of civil legal aid shall be paid to the Board.
(2B) Except in so far as regulations made under this section otherwise provide, where, in any proceedings, there is a net liability of the Fund on the account of any party, the amount of that liability shall be paid to the Board by that party, in priority to any other debts, out of any property (wherever situate) which is recovered or preserved for him—

(a) in the proceedings; or

(b) under any settlement to avoid them or to bring them to an end.".

(4B) Subsections (3) to (5) of that section shall cease to have effect.
(4C) In subsection (6) of that section, for the words "subsection (5)" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (2A) or (2B)".
(4D) In subsection (8) of that section, for the words from "subsection" to the end there shall be substituted the words "subsection (1) above and in section 33 of this Act to "fees and outlays" include references to sums which would have been payable to that solicitor if he had been so employed.".'.
252 Page 102, line 2, leave out from 'words' where it first appears to the end of line 3 and insert '", his counsel" there shall be substituted the words "or a solicitor holding rights of audience by virtue of section 25A (rights of audience) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, his counsel or such a solicitor".
(8A) In subsection (9) (b) of the said section 31, at the beginning there shall be inserted "Subject to subsection (11) below,".
(8B) At the end of the said section 31 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(11) Nothing in subsection (9) (b) above shall enable the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising the granting of legal aid only to solicitors holding rights of audience under section 25A (rights of audience) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.".'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 249 to 252 en bloc. These amendments are technical and seek to remove inconsistencies.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 249 to 252.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
253 Schedule 6, page 102, leave out lines 10 to 13 and insert:
'33. In section 6(1) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 (definition of implicative gifts), for the words "mentioned in section 5(2) of this Act" there shall be substituted "on which, in respect of a person suspected of, or charged with, an offence to which section 1 of this Act relates, the warrant to arrest and commit was granted, or a restraint order was made (whichever first occurs).".'.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 253. This is a consequential amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 253.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
254 Schedule 6, page 102, line 26, leave out 'section 23' and insert 'section (Consideration of applications made under section 23)'.
255 Page 102, line 27, leave out from '1990' to 'shall' in line 28 and insert '(consideration of applications made under section 23)'.
256 Page 102, line 30, leave out '12(a)' and insert '(7) (a)'.
257 Page 103, leave out lines 16 to 18.
258 Page 103, leave out lines 24 to 27.
259 Page 103, column 3, leave out lines 28 and 29.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 254 to 259 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 254 to 259.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
260 Schedule 6, page 103, line 40, column 3, at end insert 'In section 133(4), the words "and (6)".'.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 260. This is a technical amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 260.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
261 Schedule 6, page 103, column 3, leave out lines 41 to 43.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 261. This is a consequential amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 261.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
262 Schedule 6, page 104, leave out line 2.
263 Page 104, line 4, column 3, at end insert—
'Section 31(3).'
264 Page 104, leave out lines 5 and 6.
265 Page 104, leave out line 8.
266 Page 104, line 40, at end insert—

'1985 c.6.

The Companies 1985.

Act In section 38(1), the words "under the law of England and Wales".

In section 39(3), the words "or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B,".

In section 186, the words "(or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B)".

In section 188(2), the words "(or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B)".

Section 462(2).'

267 Page 104, line 44, column 3, after 'In', insert 'Part I of.
268 Page 104, line 47, at end insert—
'1986 c. 45. The Insolvency Act 1986 Section 53(3).'
269 Page 104, line 48, column 3, at beginning insert—
'In section 4(3), paragraph (a) and, in paragraph (b), the words "a court".'
270 Page 104, line 50, leave out '(12)' and insert '(3) to (5)'.
271 Page 104, line 56, at end insert—

`1988 c. 34.

The Legal Aid Act 1988.

In paragraph 3 of Schedule 4, sub-paragraphs (b) and (c).'

272 Page 104, line 58, at end insert—

`1989 c. 40.

The Companies Act 1989.

Act Section 130(3). In Schedule 17, para-graphs 1(2), 2(4), 8 and 10.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 262 to 272 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 262 to 272.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
273 Schedule 6, page 105, leave out lines 2 to 7.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that thi. House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 273.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 273.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
274 In the Title, line 9, after 'licensing: insert `to make special provision in relation to the giving of evidence by children in criminal trials;'.
275 Line 9, after 'licensing: insert `to empower a sheriff court to try offences committed in the district of a different sheriff court in the same sheriffdom;'.
276 Line 11, leave out 'as to fines and as to imprisonment', and insert 'and for supervised attendance as an alternative to imprisonment on default in paying a fine;'.
277 Line 15, leave out from 'trafficking,' to second `to' in line 17.
278 Line 18, leave out from '1987' to third `to' in line 23.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 274 to 278 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 274 to 278.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past ten o'clock.

  DOG REGULATION: NEW MODEL BY-LAWS
  DOG REGULATION: NEW MODEL BY-LAWS
  COMPENSATION CASES: ADMISSIBILITY OF ACTUARIAL TABLES
  COMPENSATION CASES: ADMISSIBILITY OF ACTUARIAL TABLES
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BILL: PART I REGULATIONS
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BILL: PART I REGULATIONS
  GREAT CLOCK: HOUR STRIKE
  GREAT CLOCK: HOUR STRIKE