Sitting of 25 April 1991

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

    KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Thursday 2 May.
    Mr. Speaker: As the next eight Bills have blocking motions, I shall put them together.

    CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)
      LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) BILL (By Order)
        EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
          LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
            LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL (By Order)
              REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
                BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

                LONDON UNDERGROUND (SAFETY MEASURES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
                Orders for Second Reading read.
                To be read a Second time on Thursday 2 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Miscarriages of Justice
    Mr. John Garrett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to update the Home Office response to the 1982 report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on miscarriages of justice in the light of recent events.
    Mr.Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to deal with miscarriages of justice.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): On 14 March, my right hon. and learned Frind the Lord Chancellor and I announced the appointment of a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, with very wide terms of reference. It would not be right at this stage to try to anticipate the outcome of the royal commission, but the Government will be submitting evidence to the commission and will introduce such measures as are considered necessary in the light of its report in due course. In the interim, I remain prepared to consider very carefully any representations alleging that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
    Mr. Garrett: Does the Home Secretary agree that if the Home Office had listened to the unanimous report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs 10 years ago, in which it stated that the Court of Appeal was incapable of dealing with miscarriages of justice and that there should be an independent review body, most of the disasters of the past few years would not have happened?
    Mr. Baker: The Government accepted several of the recommendations of the 1982 report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, especially those relating to the Crown prosecution service. As for miscarriages of justice, an undertaking was given that the Home Secretary would in future be prepared to exercise his powers of reference more readily. That has happened. The hon. Gentleman will know that the royal commission's brief goes much wider than the findings of the Select Committee in 1982.
    Mr. Grocott: I very much welcome the Home Secretary's assurance that he will listen carefully to any further evidence on cases. Does he agree that following the Birmingham and Guildford cases, all instances where the prosecution depended on uncorroborated confessions must give rise to great anxiety? Although we welcome the royal commission, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not use it as a reason for delaying consideration of other serious allegations of miscarriages of justice? Will he confirm that where there is new evidence, especially in cases of uncorroborated confessions, he will take them seriously and deal with them speedily?
    Mr. Baker: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. While the royal commission is sitting, deliberating and formulating its proposals, I shall consider any cases put to me that concern miscarriages of justice

    1193
    and give them the scrupulous attention which I and all my predecessors have exercised. That applies to the cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred and to all other cases that may be referred to me.
    Mr. Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while it is an undoubted miscarriage of justice for the innocent to be convicted, it is as much a miscarriage of justice for the guilty to be acquitted? Will he ensure that the Runciman inquiry considers that as well as the other matters to which he referred?
    Mr. Baker: The introductory words of the terms of reference of the Runciman committee refer specifically to that. The purpose of justice is to ensure that guilty people are found guilty and that the innocent are not. I fully support what my hon. and learned Friend said. The Runciman committee will consider specific matters of concern, including the way in which the right of silence is treated by the courts.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Home Secretary make it a little clearer than he has that when he receives new evidence which casts doubt on the safety of convictions, such as those of the people who were held responsible for the terrible Bridgwater crime and those of the Tottenham Three, he will seriously consider the evidence and argument without waiting for the outcome of the Runciman inquiry? Will he give the House an assurance that he will pay special attention to cases of that sort where serious allegations have been made against police officers or where investigations are under way?
    Mr. Baker: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. He will know that since I have been Home Secretary I have referred to the Court of Appeal one convicted prisoner in the Broadwater case to see whether the sentence was still safe in the light of evidence which was sent to me and which I examined carefully. If additional evidence is provided in relation to any prisoner in Britain I shall certainly examine it carefully and if I am convinced that there should be a further hearing I will refer it to the Court of Appeal.

    Estate Security Schemes
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individual estate security schemes have received Home Office grants in the last two years.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Home Office grants have been given for 135 separate crime prevention schemes to increase security on housing estates during the past two years. All those grants were made under the safer cities programme for the 16 towns and cities in which crime prevention projects have been established.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that the North Lynn industrial estate security scheme in my constituency, which was one of the first in the country, has had the effect of almost completely eradicating break-ins and crime? Is he also aware that the local borough council of Kings Lynn in west Norfolk, is setting up a town centre security scheme to cover car parks and housing estates which local
    1194
    industrial estates will also be able to join? Will my hon. Friend congratulate that excellent Conservative-controlled council?
    Mr. Lloyd: North Lynn is an impressive example of what can be done. It is not part of the Home Office safer cities programme. As my hon. Friend implied, it is entirely the idea of the local authority, local business men and the local police. It is a good idea which has been well carried through and I hope that it will be copied by other local authorities.
    Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister agree that the amount of grant should be based on the level of crime in a particular area? He will know that Leicestershire has the highest crime rate in the country. Therefore, does he consider it necessary to increase the amount of money payable under the schemes—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Home Secretary will allow me to ask my question without talking across me.
    Would not it also be appropriate to increase the number of police officers in areas such as Leicestershire to administer the new schemes that have been implemented? Will the hon. Gentleman look again at the figures requested by Leicestershire county council and award the county more officers, because that is the best and most effective way of tackling crime?
    Mr. Lloyd: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the safer cities scheme is directed to areas, particularly inner city areas, where rates of crime are particularly high. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, my right hon. Friend takes his decision on the number of police officers required for Leicestershire on the need as assessed and the priorities stated by the inspector of police. The figures for this year have already been decided, but I am sure that if next year there are good reasons for increasing the number of police, my right hon. Friend will be anxious to do so.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm the importance of the secure by design schemes entered into by a number of police forces with house builders as a means of preventing crime? Is not it important that secure by design is dovetailed into the initiatives of the National House-Building Council so that most house builders can offer such improvements to potential purchasers?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we can build out to some extent—sometimes even to a greater extent—the possibilities of crime in the way that an estate is designed, it will be valuable. That is something which the Department of the Environment bears very much in mind in its estate action improvements. It includes exactly the sort of thing that my hon. Friend is thinking of—lighting, secure doors and improvements in the design of footpaths and in layout—so that crime is discouraged and much more difficult to perpetrate.

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. Cartwright: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about reform of the law on Sunday trading.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his consultations with retailers on the reform of Sunday trading laws.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): Since my reply on 15 November to a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), up to 23 April we had received about 570 written representations broadly in favour of Sunday trading and about 362 against.
    I have now begun my extensive programme of separate discussions with bodies representing retailers and other interests to assist the possible development of acceptable proposals for reform.
    Mr. Cartwright: May I wish the right hon. Lady well in her difficult task of trying to find a workable compromise or solution to the problem? Does she accept that a key element in that compromise must be effective statutory protection for the rights of shop workers? Any system of Sunday trading that left shop workers vulnerable to pressure and to exploitation would not be likely to carry a majority in the House or, indeed, outside.
    Mrs. Rumbold: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes for my endeavours. I assure him that I am discussing any possible solution and compromise that we could reach with the relevant organisations, with my colleagues in the Department and with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment so that the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised can be safeguarded. As he knows, there would be no sense in bringing to the House a proposal that would not be enforceable and would not command a majority in the House.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of deep regret that many people still believe in the nanny state and, therefore, do not allow the people of this country to have the freedom to choose whether to shop? Is not it time to change the law and bring it up to date?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend will know that, following the Auld report and the introduction of the Shops Bill in 1986 which would have met his criticisms, the House decided to reject total deregulation. It is because of that rejection that I am now trying to find a practicable solution—a compromise—to resolve the anomalies in Sunday trading, a compromise that will command the support of all hon. Members and be enforceable outside.
    Mr. Duffy: The Minister and certainly the Home Secretary know that it is precisely the ideological approach to deregulation expressed by the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) that has put the Government in some of their recent trouble. The Keep Sunday Special campaign has produced some detailed ideas for reform in its REST proposals. Is she aware that a Harris poll shows that 88 per cent. of consumers believe that most of their shopping needs could be met by those proposals?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me know about the Keep Sunday Special campaign's proposals and I shall, of course, study them carefully. I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss the matter with that organisation, but I look forward to meeting its representatives shortly.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Do I gather from what my right hon. Friend said about the 1986 Bill that the Government are still committed to a policy of total abolition of all Sunday
    1196
    trading restrictions, or have they come to their senses and realised that a compromise is likely not only to achieve success, but to correspond to what most people want—a special status for Sunday?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend knows that I am in discussion with many different people at the moment. Since the Shops Bill failed in 1986, we have sought to find a compromise between total deregulation and the current position in which there are many anomalies, which is most unsatisfactory and which leaves people uncertain. At this stage, I cannot give my hon. Friend any greater assurances.
    Mr. Randall: Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding the statements that she has made so far, there is still deep concern about the mess that the Government are in over the Shops Act 1950? [Interruption.] The Government are in a mess. Is she further aware that the Labour party is prepared to co-operate with the Government in a responsible, constructive and positive fashion to push sensible, amending legislation through the House at the earliest opportunity? I wish to ask the Minister one simple question—what target date does she have in mind for pushing a new Shops Bill through the House, or will she continue to dither?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am riveted to hear that the Labour party, which introduced the Shops Act 1950, is offering co-operation with the Government. It has not been forthcoming in offering co-operation at any other stage. Frankly, I am not certain that I should want to take that poisoned chalice. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want the Government to step into the arena of introducing legislation until we were certain that there were agreed grounds for legislation that would meet the requirements of the largest number of people.
    Mr. Randall: Dithering.
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am not prepared to go further than that. It is outrageous for the hon. Gentleman to say that we are dithering. If he does not wish the Government to consult, that is an amazing position. I should be very interested to read specific proposals from the Labour party which would reassure the many people who have different ideas.
    Mr. Latham: As a fully-paid up member of the nanny state, may I commend to my right hon. Friend the thought that if 500 representations are one way and 300 are the other, the best thing to do is to push the ball down the pitch?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend has been very helpful. I do not intend to push the ball down the pitch, but to continue my consultations and discussions with interested parties to try to reach a compromise.

    Detective John Brand
    Mr. Meale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to whether detective John Brand is still on duty.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: No, Sir. It would not be right for my right hon. Friend to do so.
    Mr. Meale: Will the Minister confirm that, so far, none of the officers accused of perjury has been suspended? Is not that silly, especially in the light of the seriousness of what occurred in relation to the Birmingham Six? Is not it about time that the Government ensured that such an action is carried out immediately?
    Mr. Lloyd: The chief constable of the West Midlands has asked the Devon and Cornwall police force to investigate what evidence there is against the officers connected with the case. When that evidence is available, it will be a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions, not for my right hon. Friend. Meanwhile, it is entirely a matter for the chief constable of the West Midlands whether those officers are on duty or not.

    Slopping Out
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reduction in slopping out in the three prisons in the Isle of Wight.
    Mrs. Rumbold: Work is already in hand to provide access to night sanitation at Camp Hill and Parkhurst and work will start at Albany early next year. Slopping out is due to end at Camp Hill and Albany in 1993 and at Parkhurst by September 1994.
    Mr. Field: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent answer. Will not the ending of those degrading practices facilitate the excellent work of prison officers at the three prisons on the Isle of Wight in humanising some of the most evil men in our society? Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how that work has been recognised by a number of improvements in our island gaols? Will she ensure that those who continually criticise the prison service are manacled to the facts for a change, rather than to their own rhetoric?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I recognise that, with three prisons on the Isle of Wight, he is in constant contact with the prison service. I also support what he says about the extremely difficult job that prison officers have to carry out, working with people who may not be the most willing group in the world. The officers do a good and sound job and I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that since "fresh start" they have been well recompensed for that work.

    Terrorist Offences
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will bring forward proposals for reform of the constitution and procedures of the courts for the trial of terrorist offences.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: We have no plans at present to do so.
    Mr. Trimble: Will the Minister consider having plans to do so? Will he look at the examples that could be drawn from the other legal jurisdictions in the United Kingdom where there are procedures that would be of assistance in dealing with these matters? I refer especially to Scotland, where the inquisitorial system in pre-trial procedures would help to avoid some of the problems that have recently been encountered in England. I also refer the Minister to the procedures in Northern Ireland, where juries have been dispensed with in terrorist cases because
    1198
    of their inappropriateness. That has advantages in dealing with miscarriages of justice because the inscrutability of the jury verdict is not an obstacle.
    Mr. Lloyd: Juries have been dispensed with for the present in terrorist cases in Northern Ireland because they are frequently intimidated there. That does not apply on this side of the water. As for the hon. Gentleman's general question, no doubt a number of possible changes might be considered, but that could most sensibly be done by the royal commission that has been set up to look specifically at the working of the criminal justice system.

    Young Criminals
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the level of juvenile and youth crime.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The Government have several programmes to divert young people from crime. Some safer cities schemes focus on alcohol abuse and anti-social behaviour. Some youth crime prevention panels aim specifically at reducing vandalism and graffiti. We are also working with the Department of Education and Science on its measures to deal with truancy. Several police forces organise activities for young people in the summer holidays. However, some parents could do more to influence their children's behaviour and the emphasis on parental responsibility in the Criminal Justice Bill will encourage them to do so.
    Mr. Greenway: With those under 21 responsible for half Britain's crime and with young people so often being the victims of crime, must we not involve our youngsters more in crime prevention measures, so that they understand their responsibilities in society and are encouraged to believe that they can play an active role in combating crime, making for a safer society? Against that background, will my right hon. Friend warmly welcome the youth crime prevention scheme launched last week by Crime Concern and give youth crime prevention his full support?
    Mr. Baker: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The rise in crime committed by young people is very disturbing. It is a long-term trend. One has to do everything that one can to combat it. As he rightly says, one of the best ways is to engage young people to help to solve the problem rather than being part of it. The scheme that he mentioned—youth crime prevention panels—and the work of Crime Concern are important. During Crime Prevention Week last week, there were literally thousands of schemes involving young people in fighting crime.
    Mr. Hood: Last week's statement by the Secretary of State that a third of all crime is committed by under 17-year-olds will have shocked many who are trying to come to terms with such a statistic. Will the Secretary of State support tomorrow my Bill on under-age drinking, which will make it an offence to drink alcohol under the age of 18 and will give law enforcement officers powers to enforce some discipline in our play parks and housing estates, to stop the dreaded anti-social behaviour of young kids who become involved in alcohol abuse?
    Mr. Baker: Alcohol abuse is a serious aspect of criminality for young people and for people of all ages. I

    1199
    shall certainly look at the terms of his Bill, although I cannot say whether I shall support it. Anything that can be done to get the dangers of alcohol abuse over to young people is to be welcomed and some crime prevention panels do that. In some city centres efforts are being made to ensure that there is no open drinking of lager—it has now been banned in the city of Coventry—as very many young people were doing so. One must use efforts of that sort to try to reduce the attraction of alcohol to youngsters.
    Mr. Favell: My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) mentioned that 50 per cent. of all crime is now carried out by juveniles. Is not it apparent that the soft approach that has been advocated by the so-called experts for years has patently failed, that the day that we abolished approved schools and borstals was a sad one for this country arid that we should look back to it?
    Mr. Baker: Let me make it clear that some juveniles certainly have to be held in custody because of the nature of their crimes, their inherent violence and the threat that they pose to society. In the past four or five years the number of juveniles—14 to 16-year-olds—held in custody each year has declined from about 6,000 to 2,000 because we believe that it is easier to help them grow out of crime if they are kept out of custody. I assure my hon. Friend that the different alternative sentences now available must be administered in a tough and realistic way. They must not be seen as a soft option. Those young people who have to be locked up should certainly continue to be locked up.
    Mr. Hattersley: Will the Home Secretary confirm that a large proportion of the crimes committed by juveniles is associated with motor cars? In the light of that, why will not the Government limit the sale of duplicate and skeleton keys to those who can demonstrate a legitimate use for them?
    Mr. Baker: First, I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said. It is true that a large amount of juvenile crime, especially among young males, is associated with motor cars. Indeed, the motor car is involved in some 24 per cent. of all crimes. The evidence that we have from a wide survey is that there is little use of skeleton keys in breaking into, and stealing, cars. The youngsters who get up to these practices have simpler tools and have become experienced in breaking into cars. That is one of the reasons why yesterday I met the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. Next week, I am seeing the car manufacturers to encourage them to design cars in a way that makes them safer and more secure.

    Prison Building
    Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of his review of the prison building programme.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend and I are reviewing the prison service estate. We hope to be in a position to announce our conclusions later this year.
    Mr. Wilshire: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that the continuing uncertainty about what will be done with the sites is causing considerable concern among those who live close to the sites? Therefore, will she undertake to clear up the uncertainty at the earliest
    1200
    possible moment, rather than later this year? In the case of the site at Ashford in Middlesex, while local people are grateful for the short-term help that has been given, will she take the opportunity this afternoon to put them out of their misery and announce that she no longer requires that site?
    Mrs. Rumbold: As my hon. Friend will know, we are undertaking the prison estate review as quickly as possible. As he will be aware, there are some 150 prisons. When we prepare the White Paper, we shall certainly seek to incorporate in the review the best way to meet some of the requirements in the Woolf report.
    I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that we are about to agree a lease on the land at the Ashford site for the local authority for the next three years. At this stage, I cannot commit us any further than that because we could not then conduct a proper review of the whole estate.
    Mr. John P. Smith: Does the Minister have any plans to build a training prison in Wales to help to alleviate the suffering of families of prisoners who are serving long sentences?
    Mrs. Rumbold: That is one of the issues. We are considering, not necessarily a training prison in Wales, but whether people are sufficiently close to their families when they are put in prison. That is particularly necessary for young offenders. We are aware of the importance of access to families and relatives while young people are serving sentences. The matter will be part of the review.

    Mandatory Life Sentences
    Mr. Lawrence: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the retention of the mandatory life sentence for murder.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The arguments for maintaining the mandatory life sentence for murder still seem to us to he very strong. Other matters were raised in the debates in the House of Lords and we will, of course, consider them.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is not this a matter of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system? Surely the public are more confident in a system that uses a unique sentence to mark out the most heinous of all crimes—the deliberate taking of the life of another individual. The public are overwhelmingly in favour of capital punishment. They were given assurances, when capital punishment was abolished, that it would be replaced by a life sentence marking out the uniqueness of the crime. If that were taken away now, public confidence would be substantially undermined and the public would feel betrayed.
    Mr. Baker: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the issues raised in the capital punishment debates before Christmas. Many hon. Members clearly expressed the view that if there were to be no capital sentence, society should show its utter condemnation of the appalling and dreadful crime of murder by a mandatory life sentence.
    Mr. Bernie Grant: I refer the Home Secretary to the case of the Tottenham Three—three young men currently serving a life sentence for the murder of P.C. Keith Blakelock. Could I ask the Home Secretary about the case

    1201
    of Mark Braithwaite, which went before the European Court last week and in which the British Government successfully argued that he had not exhausted the internal machinery of appeals? If that is the case, will the Home Secretary now give us an undertaking that he will refer to the Court of Appeal the cases of Mark Braithwaite and Winston Silcott so that they can go through the internal appeals mechanism?
    Mr. Baker: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a great personal interest in this case and I believe that he is coming to see me quite soon about it. He will know that I referred one of the sentences, that of Mr. Raghip, for consideration by the Court of Appeal when I received further evidence. If I receive fresh evidence in relation to the other two who have been convicted, I will, of course, consider whether their cases should be so referred.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Mr. Silcott has been found guilty not of one murder but of two murders and was indeed tried for a third murder?
    Mr. Baker: I believe that was so, but that is not strictly relevant in relation to the Broadwater Farm case. If evidence is brought before me as Home Secretary in relation to this particular case, I will look at it.

    Superintendent Richard Bryant
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to whether Superintendent Richard Bryant is still on duty.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: As I said earlier, it would not be right for my right hon. Friend to do so.
    Mr. Madden: Is not public confidence in the police and in British justice undermined if police officers who may have committed serious offences remain on duty, in this case duty within the police complaints procedures? Will the Minister make representations to the chief constable of the West Midlands that he should suspend all officers who may have committed offences, until conclusions have been reached as to whether charges are to be brought?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of adding to a major injustice, about which he is quite rightly most concerned, a series of minor injustices to police officers by pillorying them in public before the Director of Public Prosecutions has had the opportunity to see all the evidence that there may be against them.

    Auto Crime
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the incidence of crimes involving the taking of or from motor vehicles.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Last week I published a car theft index to draw attention to the vulnerability of certain models. Yesterday I met the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Association of British Insurers to discuss car crime.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend, while deploring the commission of 1·3 million thefts of or from motor vehicles every year and while urging motor
    1202
    manufacturers to improve the security of their vehicles, confirm that a large proportion of those thefts take place when the cars are left unlocked? What advice can he give the public to prevent those thefts?
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is right in that the record shows that in London, for example, 27 per cent. of all cars broken into last year were unlocked. Given the value of the car or the possible value of the various pieces of equipment that may be in the car, this is most regrettable and careless. We are trying to ensure that people take much greater care of their cars, but it is also up to the car manufacturers to put higher priority on the design of more secure cars, and some car manufacturers are doing this.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Home Secretary ask his Department and the police to report on the effectiveness of car alarms? These ear-splitting instruments, which make the night hideous for the general public, have no justification if they do not lead to apprehension of offenders or prevention of crime.
    Mr. Baker: There are many types of intruder alarms and car alarms and some insurance companies give rebates off the premium for cars equipped with them. I think that people should appreciate more keenly that a car is a valuable asset, worth something between £5,000 and £10,000. Cars are often left in streets, some of which are unlit, and that is an opportunity for casual crime.
    Mr. Gregory: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the reasons why we have such a high incidence of theft and unauthorised use of motor vehicles is that those who take them think that they can get away with it? Will he issue a circular to the chairman of the Magistrates Association confirming that the penalties are up to £1,000 but penalty points can be added to a driving licence and the facility to drive a vehicle can also be removed? Magistrates in many cities, including York, are sentencing those without insurance to only one quarter of the penalties that they could suffer.
    Mr. Baker: We can certainly draw the attention of the magistrates to the range of penalties available. The maximum penalty for taking a vehicle without authority is a fine of £2,000, six months' imprisonment, or both. Many of the people in young offenders' institutions and juvenile prisons are there because they have committed crimes related to cars.
    Mr. Sheerman: The House will know how fond the Government are of a week of exhortation and glitz as a substitute for real policies. Rather than the expenditure of £4·5 million on a Crime Prevention Week, we need properly resourced, properly thought-through crime prevention programmes. Is it not a fact that the Government have dithered for five years, when they could have introduced decent minimum car security standards and imposed them on the industry? If they had done that, we should have a much better situation now.
    Mr. Baker: The country may want carefully thought-through proposals on crime prevention, but it will not get them from the Labour party. The Crime Prevention Week last week was very successful, and I am not the least bit surprised that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are a bit sour. I can tell the hon. Gentleman

    1203
    that we are pressing our European Community partners to accept our proposals for a Community directive on car security. Any such measure will have our support.

    Crime Prevention
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on new crime prevention initiatives.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Last week we held the first-ever national crime prevention week. We launched the Home Office car theft index, which provides valuable ad vice to car owners, car buyers and car manufacturers on which cars are particularly attractive to car thieves. In addition, the safer cities programme will be brought to its full complement of 20 projects later this year, when those in Derby, Hammersmith and Fulham, Leicester and Middlesbrough come into action.
    Mr. Thompson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there has been a positive response to recent crime prevention initiatives in Norwich? In particular, will he commend the work of the crime prevention panel, crime stoppers and the neighbourhood watch scheme? Does he agree that deterrence and sentencing policy should play a very real part in crime prevention, and that we should not calmly accept the present level of crime?
    Mr. Lloyd: We certainly do not accept the present levels of crime. Nor, obviously, do my hon. Friend's constituents in Norwich, who have been so active in crime prevention measures. The value of Crime Prevention Week is that we have put the problem high on the agenda. There were about 5,000 local initiatives during the week. These will be valuable in crime prevention activities over the coming weeks, months and years.
    Miss Lestor: Does the Minister accept that the reoffending rate is greater among juveniles than in any other group? As was underlined earlier, there is some evidence that, in the case of young people, non-custodial sentences are more effective than any other sentences. Does the Minister agree that, as truancy may be linked to juvenile crime, it is important to remember that truancy has its roots in the lack of appropriate education and training for many young people? Unless that problem and the rising rate of unemployment among young people are tackled, juvenile crime will continue to increase.
    Mr. Lloyd: I accept the hon. Lady's first point. Indeed, it reiterates the Government's policy as set out in the Criminal Justice Bill that is before the House. It is true that the tendency to reoffend is greater among young people. It would be surprising if it were not so. The in-community penalties that are now being introduced are clearly a better way to proceed than were the actions of previous Governments.

    POLNET Computer Network
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the implementation of the POLNET computer network; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: Representations about the POLNET computer network have been received from members of the Hampshire police authority and from a number of my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Havant district of the Hampshire police authority has conducted a successful experiment with a POLNET computer network over the past few years and now wishes to extend it county wide. For that purpose, it has applied for approval for £5 million expenditure over three years. Will the Home Office give favourable consideration to that application, which would save Hampshire the equivalent of the work of 400 policemen a year and help to combat the 22 per cent. increase in crime in the county last year?
    Mr. Lloyd: Nationally, the equipment grant is up by about 25 per cent. this year, which is not sufficient, I am afraid, to meet all the information technology schemes that have been put forward, so we are currently considering a specific grant for IT projects. We shall not be in a position to decide priorities until the police national network for communications between police forces, into which the POLNET scheme would need to fit, has been evaluated later this year.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Agriculture Spending
    Ql. Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the discussions of the Council of Agriculture Ministers on the level of agriculture spending in 1991.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): The Agriculture Council is currently considering proposals to keep spending on the common agricultural policy in 1991 within the agricultural guidelines. I hope that the issue will be resolved before the meeting of the European Council.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Prime Minister accept that, despite the brave battle that is being fought alone by Britain and Holland to maintain the legal limits that his predecessor fought hard to achieve, Brussels will inevitably find some device or accountancy fiddle to break through, as has happened before? As the agricultural policy is causing damage to taxpayers, consumers, the third world and, now, to farmers, and as we are suffering from an uncontrollable protection racket which is riddled with graft, will my right hon. Friend consider suggesting to Brussels that it would strengthen the Economic Community and everyone else if agriculture were repatriated to individual member states?
    The Prime Minister: I confirm to my hon. Friend that we shall continue to insist that the guidelines are respected. I am not sure that it would be in the interests of the United Kingdom to see the break-up and repatriation of the common agricultural policy. The danger I foresee is that separate national agricultural policies would lead to increased protectionism and considerable distortions of trade. I believe that our interest is best served in this area by common policies and by seeking to improve them. In essence, we need to win the match in Brussels, and that we shall seek to do.
    Mr. Cryer: It is outrageous that the British Government are allowing to continue a common agricultural policy that is costing every family in this country £16 a week as part of the policy of the Conservatives, who have handed over in 10 years more than £40 billion to the Common Market. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is time that the food mountains were made available to the starving nations of Africa and to help the Kurds? Instead of that, the CAP ensures that food is bought on the open market. Stocks continue to soar and the Prime Minister is doing nothing about it.
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been in the forefront of the battle in the Community to impose guidelines and to prevent unnecessary agricultural production. The answer to his second point about food mountains being used to assist people in need is that I agree that whenever that can be done, it should be done.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: In his consideration of United Kingdom agriculture within the context of the European Community, will my right hon. Friend continue to bear it in mind the remarkable contribution that has been made by agriculture to the rural economy? Will he also bear it in mind that farm incomes are now about half what they were two years ago and that the Samaritans have expressed grave concern about the increase in suicidal thought in the farming industry? Will he bear those points in mind at all stages because we must protect the foundation of our rural economy?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to bear those matters in mind. He will know that some of the direct assistance that we have been able to give within the common agricultural policy has been aimed at areas like hill farming, where there are particular difficulties.

    Engagements
    Mrs. Irene Adams: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Speaker: We had better have the answer.
    The Prime Minister: I made the mistake because of the tedious aspect of the regular questions that I am asked.
    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 will be having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Adams: Has the Prime Minister seen the letter in today's Evening Standard from the private secretary of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) which says that the Government's new local tax is
    "not fair—grossly inequitable and hurtful"?
    The lady goes on to ask why she should pay more for a small, one-bedroomed flat on her own in one part of London than the entire family of the Secretary of State for the Environment will pay in his luscious home in the west end? What answer will the Prime Minister give to that lady?
    The Prime Minister: The answer that I will give to the lady is that she lives in one of the most expensive houses in London. The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends need to make up their minds. They allege with one breath that the council tax will benefit the rich, who, they say, are Conservative voters, and with the next breath that it will hurt Conservative voters.
    Mr. Fry: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to examine the illustrative bills for the new council tax for those authorities where householders will pay substantially more than under the existing community charge for two people? Will he note, for example, that for the dearest house in Westminster, the tax will be less than for the cheapest house in Wellingborough? Whereas Westminster has benefited from large Government grants, Wellingborough has been penalised by loss of grants because it has traded profitably and passed the profits on to its charge payers. If I am to propose that the new tax is fair to my constituents will my right hon. Friend initiate an investigation without delay into Wellingborough's position?
    The Prime Minister: If councils spend at the same standard spending assessment, they will pay the same in each band. That is the essential equity of the scheme that we have proposed. Over 70 per cent. of people will be gainers under the scheme that we have proposed. Where there are losers, there will be transitional protection and, for people on low incomes, the generous rebate scheme. That is by far the best deal that the ratepayer, the community charge payer, or in future the council taxpayer, has ever received.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister agree with the considered view of the Governor of the Bank of England, who recently testified that Britain's deep and worsening recession is, in his words, "home grown"?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, for he has asked me that question on previous occasions, I do not accept the proposition that the recession is home grown. There are a variety of causes of the downturn in world trade here and elsewhere and we cannot be immune from all those.
    Mr. Kinnock: Did not the Prime Minister notice the comments of the Governor of the Bank of England on the subject of the recession's origins? He said that, while Britain
    "is in recession, Japan and Germany undeniably are not and our other EC partners"—
    [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to quote the Governor of the Bank of England, who is not yet a member of the Labour party. He said that, although the economies in the remainder of the European Community have slowed down, they are not in recession.
    Is the Prime Minister aware that that view is borne out by the International Monetary Fund and that Britain's condition is the direct result of the Prime Minister's policies? Why will he not accept his responsibility or, better still, take action to reverse the recession that he has caused?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had examined the matter more carefully, he would have seen that the United Kingdom is coming out of its economic difficulties, while other countries are still facing deepening difficulties. He might also have observed that we have been

    1207
    in a position, since joining the exchange rate mechanism, to make five cuts in interest rates—four in the past 10 weeks. At the same time, we have seen an appreciation, not a depreciation, in sterling.
    Mr. Kinnock: I wish that the Prime Minister's optimism was well placed. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer testified to the Treasury Committee a few weeks ago, rather diffidently:
    "I think that there arc cautious grounds for believing we, somewhere about the middle of this year, may begin to come out of recession".
    The Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the International Monetary Fund and anyone else with eyes to see, and who is concerned about the condition of our economy, knows that the right hon. Gentleman has plunged Britain into deep recession. What will he do to combat the rises in unemployment and the depression of our economy?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman, who has policies for a minimum wage that will create another million unemployed, has nothing to say about that. With interest rates and inflation having fallen and being set to fall significantly further, and with a balance of trade gap narrowing, it is difficult even for the right hon. Gentleman to deny the improvements now coming about.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: In the course of his busy day, might my right hon. Friend find a moment to visit the organ transplant exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall? If he does so, he will be told that there are 5,000 people awaiting transplants in this country and that current organ donation must double to meet that demand. In those circumstances, will it be possible to include an item on organ transplantation and the increase in the programme at the weekend meeting at Chequers that my right hon. Friend is having with health service managers?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that, at my weekend meeting in Chequers, I shall be able to discuss with health professionals a wide range of matters and I shall endeavour to include that subject among them.
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Prime Minister aware that last year, in a secret ballot supervised by the Electoral Reform Society of Great Britain and Ireland, the employees of the North of England building society voted by 257 to 81 to join the Banking Insurance and Finance Union? The response of the management was to embark upon a programme of' intimidation designed to get employees to resign from that union. Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is Government policy that employers as well as employees should be bound by the outcome of properly conducted secret ballots? Or am I being naive?
    The Prime Minister: I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of being naive. The strict answer to the first part of his question is that I was not aware of that incident. However, if it is as he describes, I can confirm that both sides should be bound by the agreement.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: What would happen to the figures produced for the local council tax if we were to abolish capping and competitive tendering, and raise a higher proportion of local funding from local taxes—the policies of the Labour party? Would the figures, like those in the Labour party's unfair rates proposals, go through the roof?
    The Prime Minister: There is absolutely no doubt about what would happen to council tax bills under Labour's proposals—that is precisely why the figures that it has produced are wholly bogus.

    Refugees (Kuwait)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards receiving ecological refugees from Kuwait and surrounding countries into the United Kingdom.
    The Prime Minister: All applications for entry to the United Kingdom are individually considered against the requirements of the immigration rules and in the light of compassionate considerations outside the rules.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are not thousands of Kuwaitis now taking residence in countries as far away from the photochemical smog and respiratory diseases as they can, and is not the root of the problem that, frankly, Kuwait is so paralysed that Kuwaitis cannot tackle the oil inferno? In those circumstances, would the Prime Minister consider the advice from the Saudi sources that I have named that, with the Americans and the Saudis, we should step in and tackle the oil fires, as we did with operation Desert Storm?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point that he wished to raise. I can assure him that the United Kingdom Government are treating the matter of the oil well fires in Kuwait very seriously. The United Kingdom industry, together with officials from both the Department of Energy and the Department of Trade and Industry, are examining how best to contribute to the resolution of the problems faced in Kuwait. A number of possibilities have been identified and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will tomorrow lead a delegation of key British industrialists to Kuwait to pursue the specific proposals that have already been put to the Kuwaiti Government.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: 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 (Mr. John MacGregor): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 29 APRIL—Second Reading of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill.
Motions relating to the Education (National Curriculum) Orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 30 APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Debate on motions on estimates and supplementary estimates relating to the community charge and related grants. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 1 MAY—Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate to approve the first report (Session 1990–91) of the Select Committee on Broadcasting (House of Commons Paper No. 11), followed by a debate on the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 2 MAY—Debate on the Royal Air Force on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 3 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
TUESDAY 7 MAY—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill, followed by progress on Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the spring Adjournment on Thursday 23 May until Monday 3 June.
[Monday 29 April
Education ( National Curriculum) Orders

i Education ( National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Geography) ( England) Order (S.I. 678).

ii Education ( National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in History) ( England) Order ( S.I. 681).

Tuesday 30 April
Estimates and supplementary estimates: Relevant documents:
supplementary estimates for class VIII, vote 14 (community charge and rate rebate grants, emergency assistance to local authorities, non-domestic rates outturn payments, etc, England); class XV, vote 22 ( Rate rebate grants transitional relief and community charge reduction grants, Scotland); class XVI, vote 11 ( Rate rebate grants and community charge reduction grants, Wales) ( HC 377); and
the corresponding main estimates (contained in HC 236-VIII, HC 236-XV and HC 236-XVI respectively).]
Mr. Grocott: I thank the Leader of the House for agreeing to arrange a debate on the work of the ombudsman next week. In view of the fact that the ombudsman is empowered to inquire into cases of maladministration where people have been misled about the likely cost of Government action or have been
1210
overcharged because of Government departmental incompetence, would not the prime target for the ombudsman be the shambles of the poll tax?
When may we have a debate on the criminal justice system, particularly in the light of the royal commission that has been announced?
When will we have a debate on the public expenditure White Paper? We have asked for it many times and it is long overdue. We know why the Government do not want to debate the economy and, in view of this week's information, I cannot say that I blame them for not doing so, but it is high time that we had a debate.
Will the Leader of the House confirm that, apart from the poll tax panic Bill that we had just before Easter, the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill to be debated on Monday is the first piece of new Government legislation to be introduced into the Commons since the Finance Bill was presented on 25 March? Is not that absolutely clear evidence that the Government are running out of steam?
If all the press reports are correct—that the Prime Minister is running away from a June election and talking about one in the autumn, or maybe next year—what on earth shall we find to do to fill our time here?
Mr. MacGregor: I know that the hon. Gentleman is standing in for his hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), but that was a most tedious, irrelevant and feeble set of questions. They were irrelevant both to the real issues and to the business of the week. However, I shall endeavour to answer them.
First, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome of the debate on the parliamentary ombudsman, as recommended in the report of the Procedure Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). I cannot promise that there will be regular debates, because of the pressure of business on the House every year. Those debates will not therefore be automatic. However, it is desirable to have a debate at this stage, in particular because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) played a distinguished part as Chairman of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Select Committee. He will be leading in that debate and it will be an important parliamentary occasion.
As for the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the criminal justice system, I have already said that there is considerable pressure on Government time in the parliamentary timetable. However, I have noted his request. A large number of Government days are taken up with legislation at this time of the year, including Report stages and Third Readings. We have seen that this week, and the same will apply both next week and for some time to come. That is why I cannot promise an early debate.
That also demonstrates the utter nonsense of the point that the hon. Gentleman tried to make about the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill being the first Government Bill since 21 March. He knows very well that most Government Bills are introduced early in the Session, as we have done. This is not a light Session for Government legislation. Already, 35 Bills are going through both Houses—rather more than in the last two Sessions. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point was totally irrelevant to what is happening in the parliamentary timetable.

1211
As for the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the public expenditure White Paper, I confirm that I hope to arrange such a debate reasonably soon. I have already made that clear. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of legislation to be got through.
The hon. Gentleman was again off beam when he suggested that the Government do not want to debate the economy. During the last few weeks, we have debated the economy on many occasions, and there will be an opportunity to debate it again for a full day next Tuesday. That will provide us with the opportunity yet again to deploy our arguments as to why our economic policies are right and to expose the total inadequacy of the Opposition's economic policies.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend will have noticed early-day motion 667.
[That this House notes with grave concern the findings of a survey by the National Association of Taxi and Private Hire Licensing and Enforcement Officers which revealed that in the 136 councils that replied 486 criminal records had actually been discovered in a 18 month period, none of which had initially been declared during the interviews which took place under the provisions of the Local Government ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 which required a district council not to grant a licence unless they are satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a taxi driver's licence; calls upon the Home Office, the Department of Transport and the Association of Chief Police Officers to co-operate in the release of past criminal records of all new applicants to the chairmen of district licensing committees in a confidential file, so as to prevent any recurrence of what occurred in Southampton where a licence was given to a convicted rapist and calls fir a similar system to be introduced as that practised in London where the Metropolitan Police have access to criminal records when determining applicants for Hackney carriage driver's licences to be expanded to all district councils in the United Kingdom.]
It points out that people in the London area are fully protected because the Metropolitan police use their police records to vet taxi driver applications, whereas outside London there is no collusion between the police computer and the chairmen of the licensing authorities. Many anomalies are growing up whereby rapists and people accused of causing grievous bodily harm, exposure and molesting young children, as well as of other offences, are managing to get a taxi driver's licence. May we have a debate as early as possible about this most serious national issue?
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in the issue and I have seen early-day motion 667. Recently the Home Office discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers whether the police could take on the task that is mentioned in the early-day motion. The question will be looked at again in the light of the forthcoming report on Home Office scrutiny of criminal records. I suggest that that is the time when we ought to consider whether there might be some way of raising the matter in the House, although I cannot promise a debate.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Leader of the House will be aware that in its report on Ravenscraig the Select Committee on Trade and Industry recommended that there should be an early debate on the steel industry in the United Kingdom as a whole. Since
1212
British Steel is now apparently engaged on dismantling the steel strip mill at Ravenscraig and transferring elements of it to south Wales. Is the Leader of the House able to say when it will be possible to have a debate on the steel industry so that both those issues, and others that affect the industry in the United Kingdom as a whole, may properly be discussed?
Mr. MacGregor: The Government are carefully considering the Select Committee report, including its recommendation for an early debate on the future of the steel industry, as the hon. and learned Gentleman requested. We shall respond in the normal way. I cannot give an undertaking that there will be an early debate in Government time, because, as I said a moment ago, there is considerable pressure on Government time. It is always open to those who have time available for debates to raise the matter.
Mr. Tim Devlin: As the recession appears to be much worse in the south than in the north, and as the strip mill to which the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East referred is moving to Teesside, is it not high time that we had a debate on the north-south divide? We could then discuss the excellent Government policies which are regenerating our regions, and which are being so ignobly glossed over by Opposition Members who wish to ignore that transformation.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend about the excellent Government policies that have made such a difference to areas such as his. There will be opportunities when we are debating economic affairs—including, perhaps, next Tuesday's debate—for him further to develop the points that he has made.
Mr. Peter Hain: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 691 on the import of Japanese tosa dogs?
[That this House draws attention to the proposal to import a second Japanese Tosa dog for breeding purposes; notes that this species of dog grows to 17 stone and was originally bred fir fighting; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to propose amendments to the law so that the import of new breeds of dog may be prohibited if it is against the public interest by virtue of the size, nature and purpose of the animal and so that, where appropriate, even where dogs are imported conditions may be attached to import licences as to the custody and breeding of such animals.]
They are the sumo wrestlers of the dog world. They can grow to a weight of 17 stone, and can stand 6 ft. on their hind legs. They are absolutely lethal, having been bred to fight to the death in public. In view of the frightening attacks on children in recent years, and as last year there were 7,400 dog attacks on postmen—leading to 5,300 days of absence—will the Leader of the House ask the Government to make a statement and to introduce early legislation to ban the import of such dogs?
Mr. MacGregor: I understand the concern about those dogs, as I said last week in response to points raised by a number of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members. I have raised the problem with the Home Office, and I have nothing to add to what I said last week.
Sir Timothy Raison: As my right hon. Friend is aware, one of the most appalliing events in Kuwait during recent months was when Iraqi scientists,

1213
doctors and academics went to Kuwait university and the medical school—which I have just visited—and took away masses of equipment, fine libraries and so on. May we have a statement from the Government setting out what can be done to restore those objects to their rightful owners in Kuwait?
Mr. MacGregor: I understand my right hon. Friend's concern, and I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 726, which I tabled last week, referring to the closure of two factories at Pilsley and Stonebroom in my constituency?
[That this House is appalled at the announcement of the closure of the Reeve Burgess bus factories at Pilsley and Stonebroom, in the constituency of Bolsover, with the loss of more than 160 jobs; notes that the letter signed by the Chairman of Reeve Burgess blames the Government for failing to respond positively to the proposals of the Bus and Coach Council to encourage the development of the bus as the major means of tackling congestion in our towns and cities and providing effective public transport; and calls upon the Prime Minister and his colleagues to reverse the dole-creating policies that bring so much misery to thousands of families in every area in Britain.]
The firm of Reeve Burgess is more than 100 years old, and 160 workers have been thrown on to the scrap heap by Plaxton plc, which is transferring the work to Scarborough. May we have a debate on that matter—or, better still, a debate on unemployment—so that we can discuss the issues?
Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and ask him to meet the workers at Stonebroom and Pilsley so that they can put their case for saving their factory and their jobs?
Mr. MacGregor: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the closure of the Reeve Burgess bus factories in the east midlands—whose impact on local employment is to be regretted—is part of a rationalisation of bus manufacturing——
Mr. Skinner: No.
Mr. MacGregor: It is part of a programme of rationalisation of bus manufacturing capacity by the parent company, Plaxton, to its more modern Scarborough plant that is currently under-utilised. That is a commercial matter for the company to decide.
We welcome every opportunity to debate the Opposition's alternative employment policies and to draw attention, as I did last week and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did earlier, to the impact on and the great increase in unemployment that would occur if the Opposition were able to implement their proposals.
Miss Emma Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, last Saturday, the Woolf report on prisons was discussed at a seminar held in All Souls? Will he consider providing time to discuss the findings of that seminar, which offer a way forward on
1214
several aspects of the Woolf report, such as a pilot scheme and experimentation? Some of the findings were very interesting.
Mr. MacGregor: I have not had the chance to acquaint myself with that seminar. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I do not see an opportunity in the immediate or early future for a general debate on these matters because of the pressure on the parliamentary timetable.
Mr. Peter Shore: Will the Leader of the House raise with the Foreign Secretary a matter of major importance to the whole House? Nine days ago there was tabled by the Luxembourg presidency the draft of the treaty on political union which will affect the rights of this Parliament and which seeks greatly to extend the area of control and competence of the European Community over the affairs of this nation. The treaty has not yet been made available to the House, despite many queries by hon. Members. Will the right hon. Gentleman please ensure that the draft treaty is made available without delay—there have been delays on these matters previously—so that we can study it and, if necessary, raise it with him and his colleagues at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. MacGregor: Of course I recognise the importance of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman is raising, and I shall look into the matter straight away.
Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the growing distaste of our fellow citizens for those who have deliberately not paid their share towards the cost of local government finance by not paying their community charge. Will he arrange as a matter of urgency for a statement to be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that these lawbreakers will be pursued in the near future and until the provisions of the council tax are in place and operating?
Mr. MacGregor: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance now. It will not be necessary for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there is great public disquiet among all those who pay the community charge—this issue is raised all the time in our constituencies—and complaints about those, often among the better-off, who do not pay their community charge and thus run the risk of causing higher charges to be imposed on those who are law-abiding and who pay. We have consistently drawn attention in the House to Labour Members and Labour councillors who have not paid. There is a great deal of criticism of them. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that those who do not pay and who should be paying will be pursued. He is right to say that they should continue to be pursued until the new council tax takes effect.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Is it possible to have a debate next week to consider the implications now that there has been official acknowledgment that the civil service review board that heard the appeal of Colin Wallace was improperly approached by senior officers of the Ministry of Defence? Until this moment, the Government have pooh-poohed the allegation that this happened and have pushed it to one side. Now that we

1215
have an official acknowledgment that the board was improperly approached—undoubtedly by members of MI5—may we have a debate so that everything comes out into the open?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise that there will be a debate on the matter in Government time. There are so many requests for debates on other matters that it is not possible to accommodate them all. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are other ways of pursuing issues of concern to hon. Members.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: May we have a debate as soon as possible on the true cost of eating out in London? Has my right hon. Friend heard that the Labour party plans to hold a £500-a-head dinner in London? Should it not be obliged under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 to say on its invitations that, if the dinner helps to get a Labour Government elected, it would end up costing people very much more than £500? Would those who attend be entitled to ask for a refund if they found themselves sitting next to the hon. Member for Kingston Upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)? Is not the case——
Mr. Speaker: Order. How does the hon. Gentleman relate his question to Government responsibility?
Mr. Oppenheim: During a debate on the matter. could not Conservative Members argue that the fact that people can afford to pay so much money for such a daft dinner shows that 12 years of Tory rule have not been in vain after all?
Mr. MacGregor: I should like to be in a position to promise my hon. Friend such a debate so that he can elaborate his case even further. I am sure that we would all be pleased to hear what he had to say and many of us might think that he would make many pertinent points, but I cannot find time for that next week.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ron Brown—do better than that.
Mr. Ron Brown: Since Gerald Ratner has made a fortune selling "total crap"—to use his words—may we have a debate next week on consumer protection?
Mr. MacGregor: I have seen the hon. Gentleman's early-day motion and I have equally seen that the gentleman in question said that he made his comments, which were meant to be amusing, in jest, at a time when he thought that his audience was rather sleepy. It reminds me of the comments that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) sometimes makes in the House, which I have to assume that he too is making in jest.
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that questions should be about business for next week.
Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon Friend will, like the rest of the House, have thought that the Cleveland child sex abuse saga was behind us. Does he find it disturbing, as I do, that my constituents, whose children were kidnapped and withheld from them for such long periods, are still awaiting compensation as a result of the reluctance of those acting on behalf of the doctors and Cleveland county council who perpetrated the kidnap? Is it not time that something was done in the House of
1216
Commons so that compensation due to such unfortunate children and their parents was paid quickly and not when the lawyers finally got round to settling it?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not know the precise details of the compensation aspect, but I am sure that my hon. Friend understands them well, and I understand the importance of the point that he makes. I shall raise it with my right hon. Friend, but I am sure that he too will be pursuing it.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the multi-fibre arrangement to clarify whether the Government intend to support the EEC view that the MFA currently in force should be extended for a minimum period of 17 months in order to provide proper protection for the textile industry which, as the Leader of the House knows, is suffering from short-time working and unemployment, with mills facing closure in west Yorkshire and elsewhere? The textile industry is one of the most important industries in Britain in terms of employment and negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade will not be concluded before the MFA expires and will probably go on well into 1992. This is an important matter on which a statement should be made next week, and I hope that the Leader of the House will arrange for it.
Mr. MacGregor: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point on the need to extend the MFA. We have discussed this at business questions on other occasions, and I will not go into the background of the GATT talks now. The Government accept the need to extend the MFA pending conclusion of the negotiations.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have an early debate on events connected with horses and ponies taking place this coming weekend, so as to draw to the attention of the nation the horror of the appalling suffering of horses and ponies exported for slaughter in European abattoirs that we shall see after 1992 unless something is done? Would it not be appropriate to have a debate on early-day motions 2 and 3, which have been signed by about 150 hon. Members on both sides of the House?
[That this House abhors the prospect of a resumption in the export of horses and ponies to continental abattoirs after 1992; urges the European Community ( the European Commission, European Parliament and all member states) to recognise that the ending of British export controls linked to minimum values would mean the rounding up of Dartmoor and other wild ponies for degrading and wholly unfamiliar transport to and across Europe; and calls for changes to proposed European Community measures on the protection of animals during transport, in order to maintain restrictions which avoid cruel treatment to British horses and ponies during long journeys and at continental slaughterhouses.]
Mr. MacGregor: I am well aware of the importance of the points raised in the early-day motions. I think that my hon. Friend knows that the Government remain fully committed—I stress—fully committed to retaining control to ensure that horses and ponies are not exported from Britain for slaughter abroad. I know from the many conversations that I have had with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the matter that he takes it extremely seriously in the negotiations. He has made that clear in innumerable letters

1217
on the matter, and many of my constituents have raised the matter with me. Therefore, even if I could find time for such a debate in the forthcoming week, I do not think that such a debate is necessary. The Government's determination to go on fighting this is clear.
Miss Kate Hoey: I am sure that the Leader of the House will wish to join me in congratulating Manchester on winning the bid for the Olympic games. Is he aware from early-day motion 744 that the Minister for Sport has not yet answered an oral question in the House of Commons?
[That this House regrets that the Minister of Sport, although appointed in the summer of 1990, has yet to answer a single oral question on sport in the Chamber; and calls on the Procedure Committee to arrange for sport to have a question time allocation, as do the Arts and Overseas Development.]
If a statement is the only way for us to discuss sport, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for one to be made, particularly so that we can look at the Government's strategy towards building support for the British city for the Olympic games in the year 2000?
Mr. MacGregor: Hon. Members who have put down questions to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport have not been successful in the ballot shuffle. I am sure that my hon. Friend feels that that is unfortunate because he is unable to answer oral questions. It is purely a matter of the ballot shuffle. There are ways in which the position could be made clear other than by oral statements. However, I will draw to my hon. Friend's attention what the hon. Lady has said.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the press speculation that the Ministry of Defence has decided to buy Challenger 2 as its replacement tank? That follows from the superb performance of Challenger I during the Gulf war. Can my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made in the House as soon as possible? It is vital to many of my constituents who work at David Brown Gears, because their jobs depend on that decision.
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot make any promises at this stage about when a statement might be made or whether it would be appropriate, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks and request for a statement to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Dave Nellist: As tomorrow will be five years since the nuclear explosion and fire at Chernobyl, which was not only the worst peace-time nuclear accident—equal to 90 Hiroshimas—but the worst official cover-up, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made to allay the fears of the Ukrainian community in this country that 300,000 children and adults will die from radiation-induced cancers? Will the Government increase direct medical aid to the Ukraine and introduce in this country a programme for treating Ukrainian children?
Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means about a cover-up. We all recognise the serious——
Mr. Nellist: By the Soviet Government.
Mr. MacGregor: I assumed that that was what he meant. I dealt with various aspects of the Chernobyl disaster and I can assure him that there was no cover-up here.
Mr. Nellist indicated assent.
Mr. MacGregor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that. Complete information was given to the public. The point that he raised is not for me, but I shall draw it to the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friends.
Mr. Tony Favell: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has driven through Stockport, but if he has he will have had plenty of time to admire my constituency because the busiest non-dual carriageway—the A6—runs north to south—or south to north if one is going to Manchester to see the Olympic site there. May we have an early debate on the disturbing news that the A6(M) bypass, which two weeks ago the Department of Transport said was about to be started, is now likely to be delayed or even scrapped because of a Brussels directive which states that there should be environmental consideration of the project? Is not that intrusion into Stockport—and indeed, British—affairs unnecessary, unwarranted and cheeky?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not know the details of the case, but I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the road improvements. I cannot promise a statement for the reason that I have already given—there is great pressure on the timetable—but I am sure that he will draw the matter to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House reflect on his answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the unemployed? Does he agree that there are more than 2 million reasons why the House should debate unemployment? His words will bring anger to the unemployed because of the way in which he has virtually disregarded the appeal for a debate in the House on such an important and serious matter.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have been listening not only to what I have said on many occasions about unemployment issues, but to what many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said. As we are discussing the business statement, all I will say now is that there have been many opportunities to discuss employment and unemployment issues. I have welcomed those opportunities because I believe that our policies have ensured that our unemployment levels are still below the European average, and that the number in employment is higher than in most other European countries and a good deal higher than it was even four or five years ago. We have plenty of opportunities to make those points. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no lack of concern. The fact that we can debate the issues so often shows our concern for employment policies to be debated properly. In the coming week, there will again be opportunities to do so.
Mr. Barry Field: Would my right hon. Friend arrange for an urgent debate on the restructuring of local government so that we can make it clear to the electorate, before the elections for borough and district councils next week, that this time the Government intend to listen to the voice of the people rather than to the petty

1219
political posturings of councillors who hope that their councils will survive? A debate would especially make it clear to constituencies such as Isle of Wight, that have already had a Boundary Commission recommendation, that the elections are nothing to do with the restructuring of local government because that restructuring still requires primary legislation in the House, which will not happen before 1992?
Mr. MacGregor: It is not necessary to have a debate, because my hon. Friend has made the point clearly himself. To make it clear yet again, I point out that we have, as my hon. Friend knows, issued a consultation document on restructuring, and there will be consultation over the summer on that. The intention is that there will be legislation on that issue. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the restructuring cannot take place until that is done. He is right to say that it is not an immediate issue in the forthcoming local elections. What is far more important in those elections is which councils are more likely to deliver the best services at the best value for money, and therefore at the lowest cost to the community charge payer.
Mr. Greville Janner: Following the happy and successful visit to this country of President Lech Walesa of Poland, may we have a debate on the help that not only Poland but other eastern European countries such as Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the Soviet Union need from us? Bearing in mind the fact that a group of Members of Parliament will shortly go to Poland to visit, among other places, Auschwitz, and that they are very concerned about the growth of anti-sernitism in those countries, will the right hon. Gentleman ask his colleagues who deal with those countries to emphasise to them that it is important to the House that, if they want that help, they should look to human rights in their own countries and not least to the rights of the Jewish communities?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall have the pleasure of being with the President this evening. I am sure that the point is frequently made that the United Kingdom has given considerable aid to Poland. That includes the cancelation of a large element of the debt that Poland has incurred, which is an important contribution in itself and is well recognised. However, I cannot promise the hon. and learned Gentleman an early debate on the matter, for the reason that I have already given.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement next week on the progress that has been made into the claims of the nuclear test veterans? He will know that I have raised the case of John Hall, a constituent of mine, on a number of occasions. We have tabled an early-day motion and I met the Prime Minister to discuss the case. I had a call today from the royal infirmary in Leicester to say that Mr. Hall's condition has deteriorated rapidly. We are in a race against time. Will the Leader of the House please arrange for a statement next week, and will he bring my comments to the attention of the Prime Minister?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that I cannot comment on the merits of the individual case, although I am very sorry to hear the information that he has just given to the House. I cannot
1220
make any promises about a statement next week, but I will, in the normal way, draw the attention of my appropriate right hon. Friend to his comments.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have a debate on the first report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests on the question of Committee chairmanships? May we have an assurance that we shall have a debate before the end of the Session?
Mr. MacGregor: I would not wish to give an absolute assurance because of the pressures on the timetable. As I hope is clear from the two debates on one day which we shall have next week, I am anxious to find time for debates on parliamentary matters. Next week's debate on broadcasting is the urgent one because we need to get on with the arrangements for the permanent televising of the House; that is why that debate is first. I know of the other Select Committee report and I am in the process of studying it. However, I cannot be sure when we will debate it.
Mr. Harry Cohen: May we have an urgent debate on the housing crisis that continues unabated, especially in London? Because of the Government's policies, council rents have gone up by three times the level of inflation. The Government allocation for repairs and decorations in my borough has been cut by 30 per cent. this year, virtually no new homes are being built, and people who have huge numbers of points are still stuck on the council waiting list and cannot get a home. Ministers are well housed; why do they not care about those who are not?
Mr. MacGregor: For reasons I have already given, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that there will be an opportunity for a debate on those matters, but there are plenty of opportunities to question Ministers on housing policies generally, and we have very good and robust responses on them.
Mr. David Clelland: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Cabinet has discussed the replacement for the Chieftain tank, and that the Challenger 2 tank will be the preferred replacement? Will there be an announcement on that next week, or is he going to tell us that, as Leader of the House, he does not know?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) a few moments ago.
Mr. David Trimble: We welcome the provision for a debate on the omsbudsman next week, but can the Leader of the House confirm that that debate will also include the Northern Ireland ombudsman and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, who is responsible for complaints?
Is the Leader of the House in a position to respond to the report of the Procedure Committee on Select Committees? Is he in a position to provide for Select Committees for all the Government Departments? Does he agree that it is quite wrong for the internal procedures of the House not to be considered on their merits but to be left open to the influence of political horse-trading elsewhere involving foreign countries?
Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, I shall have to check, but obviously we want the debate on the ombudsman, since it is an important debate, to range over as many ombudsman issues as possible. If I may, I shall check exactly what motion we will put down and let the hon. Gentleman know.
On the second point, I hope shortly to give the response of the Procedure Committee's report on Select Committees.
Mr. David Winnick: May I press the Leader of the House again for a debate on the deepening recession all over the country, not least in the west midlands, where hardly a day goes by without news of further redundancies and, in some cases, closures? How many more people must suffer as a result of Government policies—policies which, to use the phrase of a certain store owner, may well be described as crap?
Mr. MacGregor: There is to be a full day's debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill next week, and as the Bill contains a number of tax measures of great importance and help to companies, it will be possible to raise economic issues in that debate.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Before the debate on community charges next week, will the right hon. Gentleman direct the Government's attention to the perverse effect of the so-called council tax on one Welsh council where, according to the preliminary figures, virtually half the bills will go up substantially? Detailed analysis has proved that, in Monmouth, bills will go up by a ferocious amount. Monmouth constituents will be the worst hit in Wales as a result of the Government's proposed changes. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that as a matter of urgency?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will make clear responses on that matter. I hope to be visiting Monmouth shortly, and I shall do the same.
Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House allow time for a serious and urgent discussion on the provision of a heart research centre in the Leeds area to serve the Yorkshire and south Humberside region? Eight months ago, a fund was started to raise money for the heart research centre, but it has now been scrapped. The future of services at Killingbeck hospital hangs in the balance because of the attitude of the Yorkshire regional health authority. This is a serious and urgent matter and the campaign that has been announced by the Secretary of State for Health makes it more urgent. May we have a debate on the provision of a research centre, which is needed in the Yorkshire and Humberside region?
Mr. MacGregor: From what the hon. Gentleman says, that is primarily a matter for the regional health authority. I simply cannot say that there will be time for a debate in Government time. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are opportunities for Members to raise in other ways in the House issues which cause them concern.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it part of the Leader of the House's thinking to have a debate on the extremely well written report by the Select Committee on rain forest destruction? Is there any possibility next week of a statement in response to the moving report by the Quakers from Baghdad which foreshadows hepatitis, meningitis, cholera, diphtheria and typhoid and in particular, the moving statement of a Karbala doctor who needed water. He said:
"To get water I need electricity. To get electricity I need a generator. To work the generator I need fuel. To get fuel I need a tanker. There are no tankers."
We are facing a health disaster. May we debate it?
Mr. MacGregor: On the latter point, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have had a statement recently on some of the subjects that he has raised. I will draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. On the Select Committee report, the hon. Gentleman will recognise from the many pressures on me for debates in the House on many different subjects, including matters dealt with by other Select Committees, that it simply is not possible to accommodate them all in the near future.
Mr. Dalyell: On the Consolidated Fund?
Mr. MacGregor: If the matter can be debated in a Consolidated Fund debate, it certainly will not be the Consolidated Fund debate that we shall have on Tuesday week. That relates to the motion that we shall debate on Tuesday evening. Perhaps this is an opportunity to say that the Consolidated Fund debate in the following week will follow from that motion and will be mainly automatic. It is not possible to debate the Select Committee report.
I have noted the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the Select Committee report to which he referred.

BILL PRESENTED
  SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBUTIONS)
  Mr. Secretary Newton, supported by Mr. Secretary Baker, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. Nicholas Scott and Miss Ann Widdecombe, presented a Bill to introduce contributions under the Social Security Act 1975 in respect of cars made available for private use and car fuel: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 145.]
Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
  New Clause 1

    POWERS OF SNH WITH REGARD TO STORAGE OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE
    `(1) It shall be an offence for any person to store radioactive waste under the land without first informing SNH of their intention to do so.
    (2) Where SNH are of the opinion that any such dumping could result in damage to the natural heritage they shall serve notice of that fact on the person proposing the storage.
    (3) Where such notice has been served it shall be an offence to commence or continue with the storage without the permission of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    (4) The Secretary of State shall not give such permission without first consulting SNH.
    (5) For the purposes of this Act "radioactive waste" has the meaning assigned to it by section 18 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. "Land" includes land covered by water and the definition of land in section 21 of this Act shall not apply for the purposes of this section.'.—[Mr. Wilson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.11 pm
    Mr. Brian Wilson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    I am glad that we have begun the debate early. The Opposition certainly do not intend to prolong the proceedings unnecessarily. However, in the spirit of our proceedings in Committee, I hope that we can have a series of fairly short but substantial debates before we come to Third Reading.
    New clause 1 is of tremendous importance to the Scottish environment and will attract a great deal of interest in Scotland. I hope that at the end of the debate, we shall hear from the Minister something of substance about the Government's attitude towards adopting Dounreay as a site for nuclear dumping. There is no doubt that there is overwhelming opposition in Scotland to that proposal. It would be no bad thing if the Government, who this week have made some efforts to get on the right side of public opinion, came out and said that they, in common with every other party represented in the House, will have no truck with the proposal.
    It may be worth pointing out at the start of the debate what a lonely figure the Minister poses. This may be the only Scottish debate in which the Minister replying to the debate is the only Scottish Tory Member in the House of Commons. I do not know where the other Scottish Tory Members are. The mind boggles about where they might be. As our discussions proceed, I hope that there will be some evidence that they exist and have some interest in these matters. We are discussing a matter that may be peculiarly of interest to the Highlands but is also of great interest to all parts of Scotland, including several of the constituencies represented by Conservative Members. I know that one has to trail around a little to find any Scottish Tory Members, but in this matter the Perthshire constituencies at least are directly affected by the transport issues. We shall be watching closely for the presence of those hon. Members as our discussions continue.
    This is an important debate, with four purposes. The first is simply to give an airing on the Floor of the House of Commons to the prospect of using Dounreay or perhaps Caithness for deep nuclear storage. I think that it is overdue and I am pleased that, by tabling the new clause,
    1224
    the Labour party has succeeded in having a debate that will be noted by all parties and people interested in the issue.
    4.15 pm
    The second reason for having the debate is to flush out the Government's views on deep storage at Dounreay and in particular to force them to defend their apparent willingness to trample upon local democracy. In particular, I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us today whether it is the Secretary of State's intention to overrule the planning authority on the latest application by Nirex for 6,000 test bores in the same way that he overruled that authority on the issues of both the structure plan and the initial test bores. It would be helpful for guidance if the Minister told us whether it is once again the intention of the Secretary of State to thwart local democracy and to overrule the planning authority.
    A frisson of excitement has run through the House as a second Conservative Member has entered. We all know of the interest in these matters of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), so we are not surprised to see him.
    The third reason for having the debate is to state unequivocally that the possibility of Dounreay being used as a nuclear dump will immediately vanish with the election of a Labour Government. The fourth reason for having it, particularly appropriate in the context of this Bill, is to encourage—I hope that the Minister will join in this encouragement—the new Scottish Natural Heritage to express a view on this and other enormously important environmental issues, rather than steer clear of them, as has sometimes been the practice of the Nature Conservancy Council, for fear of offending its political masters. It was remarked at a meeting that we had with the Highland regional council yesterday, when some people were down from Caithness, that it was deemed very odd in Caithness that the Nature Conservancy Council is prepared to tell people where they can and cannot cut peat but at the same time desists from taking or expressing a view on the desirability of having a nuclear dump on their doorsteps.
    The transport issue is also important, apart from the immediate impact within Caithness. This is where the whole of Scotland becomes directly involved, because part of the price that would be paid, if by any chance this were allowed to go ahead, would be that nuclear loads would be passing through Scotland on an extremely regular basis. There is no need to take my word for this; I have a letter from Nirex which was sent to Mr. Mervyn Rolfe, the excellent Labour candidate for Perth and Kinross. Mr. Rolfe had asked Nirex how many trainloads would be passing through Perth in the event of deep underground repositories being established at Dounreay.
    I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) is not present to hear this information, but Mr. McInerney, the managing director of Nirex, was nothing if not frank. He said:
    "Consultants acting for Nirex are carrying out assessments of the transport implications of moving radioactive wastes to Dounreay or Sellafield. Should the repository be sited at Dounreay, we estimate that about 15 trains a week would pass through Perth. Road transport would be used infrequently to Dounreay … Should the repository be sited at Sellafield, only waste generated at Dounreay would pass through Perth. This would amount to around one small train load per week."
    Mr. McInerney went on to say:

    1225
    "the likelihood of an accident involving a train carrying radioactive waste of sufficient severity for the release of radioactivity from a waste container is extremely remote."
    It is only fair for me to place that caveat on the record.
    I should have thought that the great majority of the constituents represented by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross, and those in all points north and south who are threatened with the prospect of 15 trainloads per week of radioactive nuclear cargoes passing through their communities, would, to say the least, be disturbed by that prospect. It is not a regular trade that Scotland wishes to see. In addition to the security and safety problems that would immediately be created in Caithness itself, monumental problems of security along the route would be created. We have it on the authority not of any political scaremonger but of Nirex itself that that is the volume of cargo that would be involved if Dounreay were selected and approved by the Government for this purpose.
    I was astonished to read in the Glasgow Herald of 23 January 1991 the headline
    "Nuclear dump safety 'cannot be guaranteed'".
    Once again, it might be supposed that this was scaremongering by some vested interest opposed to the selection of Dounreay. Not so. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I shall quote a little of the report. It states:
    "The nuclear waste agency Nirex will not be able to guarantee that Britain's first national nuclear waste repository will be completely safe until after it has been built.
    This was confirmed yesterday"—
    not by a scaremonger—
    "by a Nirex spokesman at the agency's headquarters at Didcot in Oxfordshire. The admission astonished Highland region, the planning authority which would have to consider any planning application for a nuclear waste repository at Dounreay."
    I have no doubt that it will astonish hon. Members who are hearing it today.
    The report continues:
    "The Nirex spokesman said the company would select Dounreay … or Sellafield … as its preferred site for a national repository for low and intermediate waste some time between November and the beginning of 1992.
    `After that we would submit a planning application'."
    In this remarkable statement, according to the Glasgow Herald the spokesman went on to say
    "the regulatory authorities, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and HM Inspectorate of Pollution, would be able to form a provisional view of the acceptability of the repository, but Nirex would not be able to present its full safety case."
    The newspaper goes on to quote the Nirex spokesman directly:
    "We will only be in a position to do that once the repository is actually built and we have managed to established quite conclusively if there are any problems with the geology of the site.
    Only then would the regulatory authorities be in a position to inspect everything before granting an operating licence."
    I have no need to embellish or embroider, because the case is here in black and white from the Nirex spokesman. He continued:
    "With the present schedule that might not be until the year 2003 or 2004, and we"—
    that is, Nirex—
    "might have spent up to £500 million constructing the repository but we could still end up walking away from it. That's the risk."
    The report continues:
    "Highland regions vice-convenor, Councillor Peter Peacock, said yesterday:
    1226
    `It beggars belief that Nirex could suggest going forward to a planning enquiry without considering fully the safety case, probably the most worrying aspect to the public.'"
    Hon. Members on both sides of the House would be astonished if the proposition were that any Secretary of State should give planning approval, in any shape or form, for Nirex to go ahead at Dounreay on such a basis.
    I was most interested to read in The Daily Telegraph of 11 March 1991 a report under the heading
    "Nuclear chief attacks lack of information on dump's safety".
    Once again, I am pleased to quote the source. Here too, it is not some over-enthusiastic anti-nuclear person, but Professor John Knill, chairman of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. I quote from The Daily Telegraph report by Mr. Roger Highfield, the newspaper's science editor:
    "The failure of British Nuclear Fuels to have a full safety assessment of £2·7 billion national nuclear waste dump ready in time for a public inquiry has been attacked by the Government's most senior adviser on the industry.
    The BNF argument that safety at the site is a matter for experts rather than for the public has been branded as unsatisfactory by Professor Knill ….
    Government nuclear waste advisers wanted a public discussion at the inquiry of the technical case for the safety of the repository, the location of which was expected to be announced later this year."
    But by the time of the inquiry, according to Mr. Christopher Harding, chairman of BNFL, one of the principal shareholders of NIREX,
    "we won't have the full safety case. There's a huge amount of work involved … We believe it is desperately important to get on. This may be seen by the public as the industry trying to pressurise it through … That would worry me."
    If it worries Mr. Harding that BNFL and Nirex are seen as trying to pressurise the development through on that basis, it must be worrying to the people of Caithness and all who are living on the doorstep of the proposed development and along the transport route.
    Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that I was late arriving because I was involved in discussions concerning the naval base at Rosyth, where we have an interest in nuclear capability. He will know that a number of his hon. Friends, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and I have today been trying to see what can be done to keep the base open.
    Mr. Wilson: That is one of the most convincing notes to the teacher that I have heard for some time.
    Dr. John Reid: My hon. Friend will not object to my intervening, since I have listened to all his speech. He is to be thanked for the revelations that he has produced, particularly the revelation that not only will the events he has been describing take place without guarantees about safety but that, in one case, Nirex has admitted that £500 million may be spent before the safety issue has been analysed. Did my hon. Friend go on to say that at that stage Nirex would be prepared to walk away from it? Can my hon. Friend think of any other example of an enterprise, private or public—with the exception of the poll tax—where hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent and the concern involved has walked away from that enterprise?
    Mr. Walker: Ground nuts.
    Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) suggests a strange analogy.
    At least Nirex might have the grace to apologise and admit that it has done a great public disservice. It is astonishing to think that it is intending to spend £500 million on a £2·7 billion development without knowing whether the geological conditions are right and the safety conditions can be met. It would be absurd beyond belief if, while all of that was going on, the new agency set up to be concerned with all aspects of the Scottish environment was the one organisation not charged with having responsibility to comment on what was going on.
    Creating the repository in Caithness—even if, at the end of the day, Nirex were to walk away from it and decided that £500 million could be written off to experience—would have an immense effect on the Caithness environment. Even more serious is the prospect of Nirex going on, after the expenditure of £500 million, to spend the entire £2·7 billion in creating the facility. Then the trains would roll and Dounreay would be identified with the nuclear dumping capital of Europe. That, ultimately, is unacceptable.
    Yesterday, some.of my hon. Friends and I—I should say representatives of the three opposition parties; as is predictable in these matters, no representative of the Government was present—met representatives of Highland regional council, who came to London to brief Scottish Members on the case against nuclear dumping at Dounreay.
    Councillor Jim Fry, a member of that delegation, worked, until he retired, at Dounreay and by no stretch of the imagination can he be described as anti-nuclear. He said that the Caithness people had been, and remained, loyal to the nuclear industry but knew that Nirex was trying to exploit that loyalty to an end that was unacceptable to the Caithness people.
    They know that Nirex is not interested in Caithness because of its geological suitability. Nirex has not gone round the country in good faith looking for the area that is most suitable geologically. When it did so, it came up with a site somewhere in the Tory heartland of middle England. We remember that, in the week the general election was declared in 1987, the Government told Nirex that it could not go there because some marginal Tory seats were involved. That was the ,outcome of the geological examination. A political decision was taken to tell Nirex that it could not go ahead with its choice of site.
    4.30 pm
    We know that Nirex has not arrived at Dounreay because of its unique geological suitabilty, which for this project above all others should be the one factor that matters. What Nirex knows is that Dounreay and Caithness have a long history of involvement in the nuclear industry. As Councillor Fry said, they have been loyal to the nuclear industry and have been good neighbours to it, as indeed the nuclear industry has been to them in the view of most people in that part of the world.
    Nirex saw the difficulty of Caithness as its opportunity. It saw vulnerability in Caithness because jobs were to be lost. The place had a nuclear background. When other places said that they did not want anything to do with Nirex and deep storage, Nirex decided that, if it moved into Caithness while it was vulnerable, the people might swallow the proposition. That was the crude thinking behind Nirex's proposal for deep storage at Dounreay.
    1228
    As Councillor Fry also said, the people of Caithness and, indeed, of Scotland are capable of making the distinction. There is no overwhelming hostility to the civil nuclear industry in Scotland. Certainly there is none in my constituency where a nuclear power station is the biggest employer, or in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). We live with civil nuclear power. Whatever the rights and wrongs of its emphasis in our energy programme, they are not being debated today.
    The people of Caithness can differentiate between playing a positive and mutually rewarding part in the British civil nuclear programme and being used as a dump simply because unemployment looms and because they have a background in the industry. They have made that distinction successfully.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does not the hon. Gentleman also agree that the people of Caithness have, through a referendum, shown everyone how overwhelming is the opposition of the community to the use of Dounreay as a site for the disposal of nuclear waste? Is he aware that in other areas of Scotland where referendums have been conducted there has always been overwhelming democratic opposition? Is not that a strange contrast to the effect of four Conservative voices that were raised in 1987 when there was a threat to Huntingdonshire and other places in England?
    Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I agree entirely with the point that she has made. At the briefing which we both attended yesterday. Highland regional council stressed the outcome of the referendum in Caithness. Propaganda had suggested that there was majority support for the proposal in Caithness and only voluble minority opposition. That was put to the test in a local referendum and was shown clearly to be untrue there, as in other parts of Scotland. No doubt Nirex was taken aback by the result of the referendum, because it almost certainly thought that Caithness was one of the few places in Britain where it would get a warm welcome. I do not want to introduce inter-party dissent among Opposition parties, but I suspect that Lord Thurso might not have been completely dissociated from encouraging that belief.
    Caithness does not want Dounreay to be the repository for nuclear waste for Britain or Europe. Scotland does not want it to be there. The Labour party says that the proposal will not go ahead when we are in office. Only the Government are ambivalent about the idea.
    The new clause is perfectly clear. It states:
    "It shall be an offence for any person to store radioactive waste under the land without first informing SNH of their intention to do so."
    To say that it is an offence for any person perhaps draws it a little widely because the average citizen would not do that. We mean Nirex. We are using the Bill as a vehicle for a debate on this issue but it is right to stress that there is an environmental interest and that many industries in the highlands and islands depend on the image of a clean and healthy environment, which would be fatally tarnished by the presence of a nuclear dump at Dounreay. I hope that the Minister will join me in encouraging Scottish National Heritage to express views on the matter.
    I do not expect the Minister to say that he will write the new clause into the Bill. However, I draw a parallel with similar debates in Committee on fish farming, shipping in the Minch, forestry and other environmental interests in

    1229
    Scotland, when the Minister's response was that there was no need to write into the Bill specific responsibility to make representations on those issues because the terms of Scottish National Heritage are drawn so widely that it can and will be expected to do so.
    If the Minister says today that he is prepared to encourage Scottish National Heritage to come forward with views on this matter, it will be a great step forward and will embolden and strengthen the new agency from the outset. However, we stress the environmental, economic and wider national interests. To say that Nirex will provide jobs is a false bait: for every job that is gained in the short term, two or three will be lost in the long term because of damage done to the image and environmental purity of the highlands and islands.
    I shall not prolong the debate, as we have made our point. We are delighted to have the opportunity to debate this subject and I hope that the Minister will take on board the strength of feeling on this subject which will be expressed in the debate and which exists throughout Scotland.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: It may be helpful if hon. Members cast back their minds to the days before the 1987 election, when the Government made the most extraordinary bare-faced about-turn that the Tory party has ever made—it was even more extraordinary than the Government's about-turn on the poll tax. The then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) made a statement in the House on I May 1987 about a letter that he had received from Nirex. He said:
    "Nirex … concludes that, although a safe near-surface disposal facility could certainly be developed at any of the four sites currently being investigated, the economic advantages of separate near-surface, low-level waste disposal are nothing like as great as Nirex earlier thought".
    The four sites to which he referred are in constituencies represented by Conservative Members of Parliament. Bradwell is in Colchester, South and Maldon represented by John Wakeham; Fulbeck is in Grantham, represented by Douglas Hogg——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she should refer to the constituencies and not the names of Members.
    Mrs. Michie: The third site is Estow; and the fourth is South Killingholme.
    The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury went on:
    "Nirex will therefore now concentrate on identifying a suitable location for a deep multi-purpose facility for both intermediate-level and low-level waste".—[Official Report, 1 May 1987; Vol. 115, c. 504.]
    We would do well to remember what happened then. I recall extremely well the day when I heard the announcement on the radio. Later that day, in a speech at Pitlochry, I said that the Secretary of State for the Environment had made the decision because he knew that Conservative seats would be lost unless he made this about-turn and, having done so, he need not allow Nirex to turn its attention north of the border. Nirex did just that very thing.
    Although the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) spoke at length about Dounreay and
    1230
    Caithness, I want to make it clear that my opposition to a nuclear waste dump or deep level storage relates to the whole of Scotland, particularly the highlands and islands. The Liberal Democrats believe and have proposed on many occasions that there should be on-site, aboveground, dry storage until safe methods of long-term disposal and management are found.
    I hope that the Minister will say how much money is being put into research. Nirex has been spending millions of pounds boring holes in Caithness—that money could have been used for research. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North spoke of the billions of pounds that are being used. We need to know what effort is being made in research. This is not a case of the "Not in my back yard" syndrome. We have to acknowledge that we must look after our own waste, and we do not advocate it being sent up and down the country into England or wherever for deep disposal. We know that we must look after our waste on site.
    The Nirex document, "The Way Forward", identified 35 per cent. of the United Kingdom as suitable for waste disposal. I recall that the people of Argyll and Bute were alarmed, as I was, because the map in the document identified districts in my constituency such as Islay, the Ross of Mull and Iona as suitable geological sites, which was unbelievable. So concerned were local people that they organised a petition to be sent to Nirex. More than 10,000 signatures were collected in various locations in support of the policy of the local council—Argyll and Bute district council—which had already taken a decision that it would
    "as a matter of policy, oppose with the utmost vigour, any attempt to place a repository within the area of Argyll and Bute district or under the seabed around the shores."
    That is a quote from a so-called independent council, which is not Labour, Conservative, or even Liberal Democrat or Scottish National party—all those parties are represented on it. A cross-party view was taken on the issue.
    I want to highlight the fact that I am talking about the highlands and islands and the whole of Scotland, not just Dounreay. It is disgraceful that the then Secretary of State should have overruled in such a cavalier manner the decision of the elected members of the Highlands regional council to refuse Nirex planning permission to drill test bore holes. What right had he, one man at the Scottish Office, to take such a decision? We have no way of making him account for or justify his actions. It is another reason why the Government refuse to set up a Scottish Select Committee: because they can thus get away with such decisions and nobody can question them or the Scottish Office on exactly what is going on.
    We have heard much about the clean image of the highlands and islands, and I cannot stress too strongly how important that is. To go ahead with a nuclear dump in that district would destroy that image at a stroke. It would harm farming, fishing, tourism and the whisky industry—all of which depend on the district being kept pollution-free and environmentally safe.
    4.45 pm
    There is another threat coming down the line. In an exclusive report in the Sunday Mail on 21 April, Angus Macleod stated:
    "A total of 17 sites around Scotland's coast are being touted as possible 'graveyard' sites for radioactive submarine hulks".

    1231
    Some five or six of the districts mentioned are in my constituency—Loch Goil, Campbeltown, Rothesay, Loch Striven and Loch Fyne. Are we to be threatened with a nuclear dump and then threatened with nuclear submarines being parked for goodness knows how long in that beautiful district of the highlands?
    Unless the Minister gives a categorical assurance today that there will be no nuclear dumping in this district, it makes nonsense of the Bill and its fine words about caring for and protecting the environment. The Minister has already been asked, and I push him again to answer the question—what are the views of the Scottish Nature Conservancy Council and the Scottish Natural Heritage Agency? If they have not already done so, they must make a statement; they cannot sit on the fence. If they do, their credibility will sink even lower.
    As we have heard, the Government can pronounce happily about what should happen in the so-called flow country, but are they not going to make a statement on the dumping of waste in the highlands? If they do not, their membership, like the membership of the health boards appointed by the Secretary of State, must be called into question.
    The dumping of waste is not a decision for the Minister, the Secretary of State or the Department of the Environment, but a decision only for the people of Scotland.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that there are a wide range of well-canvassed reasons why Dounreay would not be an appropriate site for a repository for nuclear waste. I strongly agree that there must be effective safeguards for the environment, and in every other respect.
    The proposals of Nirex and other authorities for the disposal of nuclear waste are widely misunderstood. The subject needs some well-informed debate—perhaps we can start it here this afternoon. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (M rs. Michie) referred to the remains of decommissioned nuclear submarines. We already have one lying at Rosyth—HMS Dreadnought—which has been there for many years and has now been joined by HMS Churchill, which is being decommissioned. I do not know whether HMS Warspite is there too—it may be at Devonport. That is an example of what goes wrong if decisions are not taken about where such material is to be stored in the long term. At present, the submarines are lying on the dockside in Rosyth. A decision must be taken about what to do with them.
    I have a particular interest in the nuclear industry, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North. He has the Hunterston power station in his constituency, while I have the Torness power station in mine. Yesterday, I received a parliamentary answer to a question that I had put to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I had asked him to make a statement on his policy for the storage of used fuel from nuclear installations in Scotland after 1993. I received the following answer from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart):
    "Questions about operational aspects of nuclear installations in Scotland, such as spent fuel storage, are a matter for the operators concerned. Scottish Nuclear Ltd. have recently put forward proposals for the long-term storage of spent fuel
    1232
    at both Hunterston and Torness; these proposals are currently being evaluated."—[Official Report, 24 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 458.]
    That is a major departure from the original planning consents for both Hunterston and Torness.
    The understanding was that the intermediate waste would be stored on site in a vault that is part of the integral design of the power station and that low-level waste would be transported to Sellafield. We need not get unduly worked up about low-level waste—overalls, boots and so on—but we understood that the fuel, probably the most sensitive material of all, would be taken away either for long-term storage or reprocessing at Sellafield. The Minister's reply, however, was that there had been a proposal to store not only the waste substances but also the spent fuel on site.
    I understand that, from now on, Torness will produce approximately 37 tonnes of waste fuel each year. Over the full life of the power station, therefore, that amounts to 1,200 tonnes of waste fuel. The spent fuel is not being reprocessed at present. There is no call for advanced gas-cooled reactor spent fuel to be reprocessed, as no more AGR reactors are being built. The Government are actively considering the proposal, therefore, that spent fuel should be stored in dry stores at Torness and Hunterston. That material continues to generate heat for about 50 years, after which it is possible to store it in an underground repository, were there to be such an underground repository. Nirex is considering constructing an underground repository but that will not be for spent fuel, so we do not yet know where it would go. The new suggestion is that it should be stored in dry stores at Torness and Hunterston.
    This is a long-term problem. If Torness is to be decommissioned in 2030, the earliest possible date for clearing the dry store, if such a store were to be built at Torness, would be 2080, and that would depend upon whether by then a long-term store would be available for the material.
    All these issues ought to be properly considered and evaluated, but the fundamental issue is whether it would be better for there to be a single national processing and storage plant, as at Sellafield—a specialist facility to handle all this material—or whether there should be a proliferation of smaller stores dotted around the country at the various nuclear installations.
    What worries me about the suggestion that there should be a dry store at Torness is the evidence concerning the only dry store in the United Kingdom—at Wylfa power station in Anglesey—where Nuclear Electric has a dry store. According to an article in the New Scientist of 2 March 1991:
    "Rotting fuel rods in the world's largest dry store for spent radioactive fuel in North Wales could cause a catastrophic fire. The manesium 'can' which surrounds the rods has corroded so badly that the radioactive metal is exposed. If water penetrates the cladding of the element it can react with the metallic uranium fuel. One of the corrosion products is uranium hydride, which can ignite spontaneously in air. If enough uranium hydride burns, it can ignite the metallic uranium and release the highly radioactive fission products `held' in the uranium bar. This would constitute a major nuclear accident … The design of the facilities at Wylfa forms the basis of a new store for spent fuel from advanced gas-cooled and pressurised water reactors. Nuclear Electric has been looking at a potential site for such a store at Heysham, in northwest England. It would like to be able to keep spent fuel in dry storage for up to 100 years., removing the need for early reprocessing."

    1233
    We understand that similar dry stores are now being suggested for Hunterston and Torness.
    I recognise the value and importance of the nuclear industry to the economy of both my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North. I recognise that these nuclear installations are doing a valuable job and that they will continue to do so for a long time. However, well-considered decisions must be taken about what to do with the waste products—in particular, about what to do with the spent fuel.
    We are debating the possibility of providing an underground repository somewhere in Scotland. The environmental issues must be discussed. I have yet to form a firm view about the best thing to do, in the light of the evidence. However, my instinct is to say that it would be far better to continue to reprocess the material in a specialist facility, such as that at Sellafield, rather than that there should be a proliferation of small stores at nuclear sites all over the country where things could go wrong, as they appear to have gone wrong at Wylfa.
    There should be the fullest and the most open public debate about what to do with this material. All these matters could then be properly considered, and acceptable decisions reached from the point of view of the nuclear industry and the wider public.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In supporting new clause 1, I wish to refer to amendments that were tabled but not accepted. I have been asked during the last few days why Scottish Members of Parliament should be considering the disposal of nuclear waste when dealing with this Bill. That is an absurd question. The most critical environmental question that faces the people of Scotland is the disposal and transport of nuclear waste and its management. Therefore, the amendments that my hon. Friends and I tabled dealt with the transport of nuclear waste.
    Many people believe that this problem relates specifically to Dounreay and the highlands of Scotland, but the whole of the country of Scotland is affected by it. It is intended to dispose of nuclear waste created in the United Kingdom and, furthermore, in other countries. The nuclear waste from other countries would have to be transported through Scotland to a particular site for processing. If Dounreay were to be selected as the processing site, the A9—the main arterial route that runs from north to south in Scotland—would become the irradiated spine of our nation.
    The debate therefore affects all the people of Scotland. I am wearing a badge that was produced by Highland regional council, which is currently spearheading the campaign against Nirex's plans to come to Dounreay. Highland regional council says that it wants a nationwide campaign to be organised against the disposal of nuclear waste in Scotland.
    This is a key issue for Scotland. Earlier today, I met the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) outside this building. He referred to the badge that I am wearing and suggested that we want to close down all nuclear plants in Scotland. I had to point out to him that the words on the badge produced by Highland regional council are "Bury Nuclear Waste." Everyone accepts that there is a responsibility to dispose of the nuclear waste that is created in our country, but there is a consensus—it is
    1234
    certainly the view of my party—that it should be stored on site, above ground, where it can be carefully monitored and is accessible for regular checking.
    Mr. Bill Walker: I am astonished by the hon. Lady's remarks. She follows the speech of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who, if I understood him correctly, said that he did not want the waste from his constituency's nuclear station to be stored on site. He said that it should go to Sellafield. That is the opposite of what the hon. Lady wants.
    5 pm
    Mrs. Ewing: Thankfully, I am not responsible for the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). I must stress that, in the campaign against a Nirex site at Dounreay, it should not be regarded as a victory if nuclear waste is buried at Sellafield. The burying of nuclear waste is the greatest danger we face, because no one can predict seismic or underwater movements. The waste will need to be monitored for centuries, and that is why it must be stored on site and above ground.
    There is an international aspect to the issue, and the disposal of nuclear waste should be dealt with internationally. It is such a major issue that one country cannot come to grips with the problem. We should consider with other countries more effective ways of disposing of nuclear waste.
    Safety is critical. Highland regional council was at pains yesterday to stress that Nirex has said that it cannot put the case for safety in time for any public inquiry. In The Independent on 21 January, Ron Flowers—a director of UK Nirex—referred to the nuclear waste disposal company and a possible public inquiry. The article said that Nirex would
    "present a preliminary safety case to the inquiry but detailed geological research will have to continue—possibly for as long as a decade after the inquiry ends—before the safety case is finished … Dr. Flowers believes that at the planning inquiry, the regulatory bodies—the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and HM Inspectorate of Pollution—will give provisional views of the ultimate acceptability of the repository, provisional views of what they expect to say by the year 2000, when the repository is expected to open."
    When the residents of Caithness and the people of Scotland are being asked to accept that the disposal of nuclear waste will be safe, it is ridiculous that there cannot be a ruling on safety until the repository is open.
    The Daily Telegraph in March stated:
    "The failure of British Nuclear Fuels to have a full safety assessment of a £2·7 billion national nuclear waste dump ready in time for a public inquiry has been attacked by the Government's most senior adviser on the industry."
    There is report after report showing that neither Nirex nor the Government can produce correct safety arguments to persuade the people of Scotland that they should accept the plans for the disposal of nuclear waste. I fully understand the reservations of the communities involved. Referendums and public opinion polls have all shown an overwhelming opposition to the idea of Nirex taking our country into its greedy hands.
    I wish to stress the implications for industry. Much reference has been made to the perception of a clean environment and its importance for Scottish industries. The best references that I can cite are those from people involved in the industries of Scotland. Highland regional council produced a document following its conference on 28 November 1990. Several hon. Members attended the

    1235
    conference but, as happened yesterday, no one from the Government attended, even though they had received invitations. Other hon. Members representing industries in their constituencies managed to attend.
    Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Lady should put her criticism in context. The invitation gave only two days' notice. Many hon. Members already had fixed commitments on Scottish matters at 4, 5 and 6 o'clock on that day, so it was not possible to attend at such short notice.
    Mrs. Ewing: All hon. Members have difficulty in meeting many of our obligations, but some did manage to attend the conference at short notice. Given the circumstances, it was possible for someone from the Government at least to turn up and listen to the arguments of duly elected representatives of the community.
    At the conference, Mrs. Julie Crowe of the Caithness National Farmers Union made a lengthy speech about the importance of agriculture to her area. One short quote will suffice to give a taste of what she said:
    "The whole world is now striving to produce the environmentally safe food so we have to compete. However, with a dump in Caithness I would suggest the playing field will not be level for us. The presence of a nuclear repository—dump—and the transport of nuclear waste through the area will blight local produce. This will mean we have a problem marketing our produce."
    In referring to the fishing industry, Mr. Douglas MacLeod of the Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers said:
    "The clean waters of the Highlands were a priceless asset to shellfish growers and it would be a major disaster for the industry if Nirex was successful in identifying Dounreay as the site for the establishment of a repository. There was no apparent means of ultimately preventing leakage of radiation into the marine environment and accordingly the future of the shellfish industry and its employment prospects rested with the success of the campaign of opposition to Nirex."
    Mr. Jamie Stone of Highland Fine Cheeses said:
    "The existence of a nuclear waste repository in the Highlands would have a detrimental effect on the clean image of the area which was a vital element in the marketing of specialty food products and whisky from the Highlands and also in the tourist industry. The Highlands were widely acclaimed for being one of the cleanest areas in Europe at the moment and this situation should not be threatened by Nirex."
    Mr. J. P. MacDonald, the manager of Dalmore Distillery in Alness said:
    "As you are probably aware, being a distiller one is constantly monitoring the quality of the distillery water supply for any contamination, be it oil, diesel, sewage or whatever. Should a disaster happen during the transportation of radioactive nuclear waste across our water supply, either by road or rail, the consequences to us would be horrific. Our water supply is of prime importance and is guarded, if you like, jealously."
    I could give many other quotations. I recommend the Minister to read the report and to take account of the views of those who provide jobs in the north of Scotland—vital jobs in my constituency. They are desperately worried that the perception of an unclean environment will prevent them from competing in the world market. More than 40 distilleries operate in my constituency, and just one unscrupulous Japanese whisky producer spreading a rumour throughout the world that Scottish whisky may be contaminated would result in the bottom falling out of the market. Where would the Chancellor of the Exchequer be if he no longer had revenue from the Scottish whisky industry?
    1236
    The statements at the conference were made not by scaremongers but by people anxious to maintain the industries in their communities. They are trying to ensure that there is a future for young people in the rural communities of Scotland. I do not know what the politics may be of any of those people, and I do not really care: they work in the highlands of Scotland and are deeply concerned and angry about the Government's attitude.
    The hon. Member for Tayside, North is twitching. I wish to quote no less a person than the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sorry that he is not here to listen to the debate. In 1980, consideration was given to using Mullwharchar, in the Galloway hills, as a disposal site. It appears that there are double standards at the Scottish Office.
    It is important to put on record exactly what the then hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), a Back-Bench Member, said during the inquiry. On 3 March 1980, the 10th sitting day of the inquiry, the then hon. Gentleman said:
    "The terms and nature of this inquiry are inadequate and risk bringing our democratic processes into disrepute. The drilling itself would be a 'serious case of planning blight', and would affect tourism, agriculture and the locals' peace of mind."
    He claimed that public opinion in Galloway was
    "strongly against the proposed geological research programme."
    On 16 November 1980, The Scotsman reported the then hon. Gentleman as saying:
    "the lingering threat of the dumping of nuclear waste casts a dark shadow over all his constituents. 'They are concerned with the long term threat to future generations who would have to live in an environment ravaged by the irretrievable lodging in their midst of poisonous waste matter of inestimable danger.' "
    Those were the words of the man who is now the Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope that he will recall his words and ponder them carefully. Having done so, perhaps he will reverse the governor-general attitude that was displayed by his predecessor. For example, the structure plan for Highland regional council and reports of planning inquiries were overturned with a few strokes of a red pen in St. Andrew's house. If there is genuine democracy—I hope that the Minister will convey my remarks to the Secretary of State—what is good enough for Galloway is good enough for the rest of the people of Scotland.
    We are supposed to live in a democratic society. Those who have been consulted have overwhelmingly stated their opposition to the siting of a deep waste depository in Scotland. They have made their opposition crystal clear on every possible occasion. I hope that the Minister will say clearly that he is prepared for once to listen to democratic opinion. We are not prepared to sit back any longer while the people of our communities are the victims of autocratic treatment as the Government ride roughshod over them. We want public opinion to be taken into account. Jobs should be protected. Future generations should be able to feel that they have a future in our country instead of being forced to emigrate.
    I feel passionately about these matters, because I know how the people in my constituency feel about them. Everyone in Moray—fishermen, farmers, distillers and everyone else—presents the same case as that which I am advancing this afternoon. The Government have not advanced logical arguments. They are unable to advance arguments that will persuade my constituents to think

    1237
    otherwise. In a recent visit to Buckie in my constituency, SAND—Scotland Against Nuclear Dumping—with its specially designed nuclear dustbin, found that everyone in the area was willing to sign the petition that it had prepared.
    Will that petition and others mean anything if the Scottish Office will not listen and will not take account of the genuine views of the people of our country? It is no wonder that the Tories were left with only 10 seats in Scotland after the 1987 general election. I suspect that they will have even fewer seats after the next general election. There will be Scottish National party gains in constituencies such as Tayside, North, where people feel as strongly about these matters as those elsewhere.
    The Conservative party appears to have double standards when it is in power. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) referred to what took place in 1987—shortly before the general election—when four Conservative Members were not prepared to accept low-level waste disposal in their constituencies. When the Secretary of State, who was then the Back-Bench Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, argued his case during the Mullwharchar inquiry, it was accepted. When the people of Scotland speak with a democratic and united voice against something they do not want and about which they have strong feelings, why cannot it be accepted?
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Bill Walker: The new clause is important because it touches on a controversial matter that should be discussed objectively, rationally and sanely. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson): this matter is much too serious to be treated flippantly or to be presented in a manner that distorts the truth.
    We have just listened to the most appalling speech that I have heard for a long time, on nuclear dumping. One of the difficulties that we face in Scotland is misinformation, which is disseminated by certain politicians and political parties. I am reminded of a leaflet about nuclear dumping that was distributed in my constituency during the 1987 general election. It was full of lies. It suggested that the Government had decided that there should be nuclear dumping in the Schiehallion area, which is an area of special scientific interest in my constituency. It stated that the source of the information was a well-known Sunday newspaper, the Sunday Post. It failed to explain that the story that was being referred to in the Sunday Post was the result of a press release of the prospective parliamentary candidate of the Scottish National party for Western Isles. He issued the press release a few days before the general election, and it was reported upon in the Sunday Post on the following Sunday.
    The report alluded to the source, but the leaflet referred to no source. It was not stated that the Scottish National party was presenting an SNP story—a lie. It did not claim that the source was the Sunday Post. I believe that the wrong date of publication was a deliberate error and a means of ensuring that a check could not be made. That is the sort of nonsense that we have learnt to expect from the SNP. It involves itself in various controversies and then dresses up the issues, misrepresents them and tells downright, blatant lies to obtain political advantage. A
    1238
    careful study of the speech of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) will reveal examples of deliberately placed Goebbels-type misinformation.
    Of course everyone in Scotland is concerned about keeping the environment safe. Those of us who have a special interest in the Scotch whisky industry—the hon. Member for Moray is not the only one—realise that it is vital that watercourses and the sources of barley and grain are uncontaminated. Those are essential ingredients in the manufacture of whisky. I must declare an interest, because I sponsored the Scotch Whisky Act 1988, which sets out minimum standards. I am also treasurer of the Scotch whisky parliamentary group.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Walker: I shall. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman failed to visit the Marines before they went off.
    Mr. Welsh: I contacted the Marines and said, "If you have just returned from Northern Ireland and you are going to Iraq, the last thing you will want is a Member of Parliament chatting you up."
    The hon. Gentleman objects to the purported actions of others but acts similarly himself. If Tayside, North were targeted as a nuclear dump, would the hon. Gentleman adopt the same attitude as the Secretary of State for Scotland, or would he join his constituents in opposing the siting of the dump in the area? I invite the hon. Gentleman to have regard to the large mote in his own eye.
    Before he talks about leaflets, for example, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the Conservative party in my constituency issued a leaflet in Scottish National party colours. It contained no statement to tell the reader whence it had come. I suppose that it was an example of attack as a means of defence. The Lord Advocate was taken to his own courts and his election agent was defeated. Heavy expenses were incurred.
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman puts a hypothetical question, and I could equally ask him such a question. My answer is clear. I hope that if, at any time in the future, anyone proposes any kind of nuclear disposal anywhere in Scotland, the matter will be debated fully, sensibly and clearly, just as the hon. Member for East Lothian suggested. That is the correct way to tackle a difficult and tricky problem.
    Mr. Wilson: I do not want the debate to turn into a bickering match between the tiny Tayside tigers about leaflets that have nothing to do with it, but there is a serious question here. It is proposed that 15 trains with nuclear cargoes should pass through Perth, if not through the hon. Gentleman's constituency, every week. I am sure that his constituents would like to know whether he views that prospect with equanimity.
    Mr. Walker: That is a realistic question. If an area north of my constituency were to be chosen for the disposal of nuclear waste, the hon. Gentleman would be astonished if I did not ask all the relevant, important and pertinent questions regarding safety and transport. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that I hope later to raise the whole question of transport, including nuclear waste transport.
    Mr. Alistaire Darling: I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on

    1239
    reminding us what the Secretary of State for Scotland said 10 years ago, when there was a realistic prospect of Nirex dumping nuclear waste in his constituency. However, she should not hold out too much hope that he will stand by those same concerns 10 years later. If she has followed what he has said about the poll tax, she will know that the Secretary of State is flexible about his firmly held views. I am sure that, when it comes to the dumping of nuclear waste in Caithness or anywhere else, the Secretary of State will take a quite different line.
    Following Nirex's proposals is rather like swotting flies: every time one tries to hit it on one site, it lands on another site with similar proposals for the dumping of nuclear waste.
    I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), because, if the nuclear waste generated by the power station in his constituency is moved, it will go by rail through my constituency and the constituencies of other Edinburgh Members—but not, of course, that of the Under-Secretary of State.
    I do not profess any particular expertise in the properties of nuclear waste. I prefer to approach the problem with common sense. It is daft to dump nuclear waste where it cannot be recovered when we do not know what will happen to it in the next 50 or 100 years, or even the next few thousand years. Once we put nuclear waste beyond recovery, if it is discovered in the distant future that it can cause untold damage, whether through leakage or in generating heat which might lead to the cracking of rocks and so on, it will be too late to do anything about it. Therefore, until we know what to do with the stuff it is eminently sensible that it should be kept in a place where we can keep an eye on what is happening to it. I wish that those who were responsible for developing nuclear energy and nuclear power had, within minutes of discovering what it could do, set about discovering what we should do with the end products of the industry.
    All of us are rightly concerned about the damage that has been done to our environment by what I might call conventional energy sources. Many of us see the smoke belching from power stations such as Longannet, not far from Edinburgh. We wonder what it is doing to the ozone layer and the environment, and naturally we look to alternative sources of energy. The people who promote nuclear energy have always done so on the grounds that it does not cause that much damage, but I am not fully convinced about that, particularly as it is not known what happens to the end products of nuclear fusion. Until we know that, it is madness to go ahead with producing more and more waste which will have to be kept on site or moved across the country. It is certainly daft to dump it down a hole with all the attendant problems.
    If nuclear waste is produced at Torness it will be transported along Edinburgh's suburban railway line system and possibly along part of the mainline system to Sellafield. Because I was so concerned about the matter, I arranged to visit. Torness, and last year I spent a day there with Scottish Nuclear, which now owns and operates the plant.
    I often feel that the nuclear industry is its own worst enemy. It is excessively secretive. It has been at pains to deny things that were subsequently found to have been fact. For some reason, it seems to prefer to shroud its
    1240
    business in secrecy, repelling any inquiries and treating those who ask questions with disdain and sometimes contempt.
    When I went to Torness and spoke to some of those at Scottish Nuclear, I was pleased to find that they showed an openness with which I was not familiar when I spent some years as a member of the joint consultative committee when the Torness power station was being built. At that time, truth was often one of the first casualties when we were discussing the legitimate concerns of people living in the area, particularly on employment questions, of which my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian is well aware.
    I went into the chambers at Torness where the nuclear products will be produced, and spent some time clambering across the cask where the nuclear material will he loaded. I am satisfied that Scottish Nuclear has done much to try to reduce the risks, but it can never be absolutely confident that there is no risk. Nuclear material could leak through the seals on top of the cask that will carry the spent material. That possibility could never be excluded, and Scottish Nuclear was candid about it.
    I suggested that Scottish Nuclear should invite the community groups and the people living in Edinburgh and along the railway lines to see for themselves and should hold public meetings, as the previous chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board had said that he might be prepared to do. At the time, I thought that it responded positively, so I was dismayed to find yesterday that, when the Edinburgh Evening News made inquiries about such public meetings, there had been a complete about-turn and there were to be no such meetings. If people wanted to visit Torness, they could do so as part of the general public tours that are being organised.
    I hope that the Minister will use his influence with the nuclear industry to encourage it to start being open with people, to discuss people's legitimate fears and to admit that there might be mistakes, leakages and some risk. People might then more easily believe what it has to say.
    The present problem—Nirex is no exception—is that people have no confidence in the nuclear industry because of its track record. It is for the nuclear industry to put matters right and to show openness that hitherto it has not shown. If it does not, it cannot be surprised when people vehemently object to anything it proposes.
    If nuclear material is taken by train to Sellafield, for some reason using the more elderly Edinburgh suburban line, there is a risk of derailment. I know from having travelled on passenger trains that have been run by British Rail on special occasions on that line that the trains have to travel extremely slowly. If trains have to travel the length of Scotland, there is the risk that they may be the subject of a terrorist attack or something of that sort.
    Unless such matters are addressed, people are right to be concerned about the prospect of nuclear waste being transported around Scotland. That concern is not helped by the suggestion that, at the end of the day, some nuclear waste is to be dumped in a place from which it cannot be recovered, if not at Caithness then at some other point. There is no guarantee that Nirex or one of its successor bodies will not crop up somewhere else, if not in the north of Scotland then in the United Kingdom. People living in different parts of the United Kingdom cannot rely on a general election to save them, as happened to people living in four constituencies in England in 1987.

    1241
    I conclude by asking the Minister to respond to a question asked by other hon. Members—what research has been carried out into the treatment and safety of nuclear waste? Has the nuclear industry any idea what might be done to make it less dangerous or to reduce the risks for people who come into contact with it? What urgency has been injected into such research?
    For the time being, I am happy to agree that nuclear waste should be stored on site and not transported around the country. I am also happy for it to be put where it can be recovered and checked, but that is not a long-term solution. Unless we can deal with such problems, the nuclear industry will always have the same question mark over it.
    5.30 pm
    Lest I am thought to be concentrating overmuch on the nuclear industry—although that is clearly what the movers of the new clause had in mind—I should say that there is no doubt that, if the Government were to concentrate on additional research into other forms of energy generation, perhaps some of the problems with which we are dealing today would be solved. I accept that there are forms of nuclear waste which are not the direct by-products of the nuclear industry and that we must deal with them, but we must consider the fundamental question about nuclear waste.
    All types of waste are being generated every day, yet it seems that the effort made to deal with the end product is minimal. Unless the Secretary of State can reassure us, the same questions and doubts will continue. In any event, I hope that he will support the new clause, because surely the dumping of nuclear waste must have some bearing on the heritage of Scotland. I hope that he can make some encouraging noises rather than merely read one of his interminable briefs supplied by the Scottish Office.
    Sir Hector Monro: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), because he has added a tone of moderation and constructive thought to the debate, which, to a great extent, had become an attack on the nuclear industry.
    For 35 years, I have lived within two miles of a nuclear power station and brought up a family there. I have confidence in the safety of operation at Chapelcross, and I am sure that the same could be said for those at Hunterston and Torness. The standard of safety at our nuclear power station is exceptionally high, and rightly so. I am glad that, over the years, Chapelcross has passed the tests carried out by the nuclear inspectorate and will continue in production for about another 10 years or more.
    I say in passing that there are over 500 employees at Chapelcross. If the advice of candidates fighting me at general election after general election—from the Labour party, the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens—had been taken, the power station would have shut down long ago with an immense loss of jobs. I have every confidence in the exceptionally high standards at Chapelcross, and in all the work put into maintaining that standard and the safety of everyone who lives in the surrounding district. That work is accepted by the neighbourhood, by those who work at Chapelcross and by all involved.
    1242
    Nuclear fuel is moved from Chapelcross to and from Sellafield. It is transported by road, with extreme safety and caution, in vehicles of exceptional toughness which I do not think would cause a nuclear accident if they were involved in an incident. Road transportation could not be practical other than for the relatively short distance from Chapelcross to Sellafield, because the vehicles are large and move very slowly. The thought that they might travel longer distances on Scottish roads is a non-starter.
    Doubts—or worse than doubts—have been expressed today about rail transport. All of us will remember the spectacular film on television which showed a train crashing at 100 mph into a nuclear transporter truck. The truck emerged unharmed, so it is fair to say that, with regard to rail transport, the nuclear industry has taken immense trouble—and rightly so—to ensure that its transportation vehicles are of the highest standard. It is wrong to imply that there will be a series of rail crashes in Scotland in which nuclear fallout could occur. Such scaremongering is unacceptable.
    I agree that nuclear dumping is an emotional issue. The word "dumping" is not strictly correct, but it has now become standard. The thought of nuclear dumping anywhere in the United Kingdom, or anywhere in the world, brings an immediate reaction. I agreed with my right hon. Friend that there should not be dumping in Mullwharchar. That was 11 years ago. [Interruption.] Let me finish what I am saying. I still say what I said then. Eleven years ago, Nirex's knowledge about the disposal of nuclear waste was even less broad than it is now.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Even less?
    Sir Hector Monro: Yes, it had not gone into the issue in the depth that I should have liked. Its knowledge of vitreous disposal, storage under the sea or elsewhere, was then not as deep as it is now.
    It is right to say—and I keep saying it—that we are rushing the issue. There are magnificent new facilities at Sellafield for reprocessing an enormous amount of nuclear fuel, so what are we hurrying to make a decision about? Dry storage was mentioned by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). It is merely an insurance policy should Sellafield be unable to reprocess the fuel. In that case, the fuel would go into a dry store, which would be used as a waiting station until it could go to Sellafield for reprocessing.
    Mr. Home Robertson: It is an insurance policy not merely in case the fuel cannot get to Sellafield but for Scottish Nuclear's business plans. The current debate might have more to do with the business plans of British Nuclear Fuels plc at Sellafield and of Scottish Nuclear Ltd. negotiating about the price of processing waste fuel. I am not sure that that is the most satisfactory basis on which to make such decisions.
    Sir Hector Monro: We are getting into details, which shows the complexity of the operation of the Atomic Energy Authority, or of British Nuclear Fuels and Scottish Nuclear.
    The problem at Chapelcross for the past 10 years has been that of selling the power because, geographically, Chapelcross is not where the power is required. That is why the long-term future of Chapelcross and of its possible successor plant, on which British Nuclear Fuels is carrying out a detailed survey, is so important.

    1243
    We cannot sweep the issue under the carpet, but Nirex is accelerating the search for a solution which is perhaps not required while Sellafield can cope adequately. The new facilities at Sell afield where British Nuclear Fuels is dealing with reprocessing cost hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds. There are adequate facilities for storage, so I do not think that storage at Dounreay immediately or in the next couple of years, is as urgent as the nuclear industry is implying in Scotland.
    I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say. Delay and further study a re the answers in the disposal of nuclear waste. We should not press on too fast when there may still be an alternative method of disposing of waste other than at Sellafield. From all my contact with the nuclear industry, I believe that that is some years ahead.
    Mr. Wilson: I should like the hon. Gentleman to address himself to the specific question of Scottish Natural Heritage. He has experience of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, so I should be genuinely interested to hear whether he thinks that it is a matter on which Scottish Natural Heritage should at least take a view and express it to the Secretary of State.
    Sir Hector Monro: I must return to the narrow issue of the new clause, around which we have wandered a long way for the past couple of hours. However, the issue is important and it is rare that we get a chance to talk about the Scottish heritage on the Floor of the House.
    If I remember rightly, the Nature Conservancy Council was asked about the marine aspect at Dounreay. It would be right for Scottish Natural Heritage to take a view. I am saying not so much that the new clause is necessary, but that it is impossible for me to think that we could go into the issue without the major statutory bodies such as the NCC. We are leaping a year ahead because Scottish Natural Heritage will not come into being for another 11 months. We must live with the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland until 1 April 1992. I cannot believe that, in his deliberations over this major issue, the Secretary of State would not consult those bodies to hear their view.
    I am sure that my hon. Friend will say that it is very likely—I cannot imagine otherwise—that SNH will be consulted when it is in place. If there was ever an issue on which we must try to take everyone in Scotland together, the disposal of nuclear waste is it. My own feeling is that Sellafield will be able to manage for a long time. We are rather rushing an issue which we do not need to do at present.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: I follow the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) in begging colleagues not to use the phrase "nuclear dump". We are talking about a repository that will be fully engineered, managed and monitored. Its design will take account of the results of extensive research into the behaviour of radioactive waste underground, including leaching and gas generation. That will be augmented by detailed studies into the behaviour of natural deposits of radioactive material over hundreds of thousands of years, which will enable the designers of the repository to plan the optimum method of containment.
    Anyone who has been to Sellafield will have to concede—I note the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), a member of
    1244
    the Amalgamated Engineering Union, who may catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that, whatever his view on general nuclear issues, Sellafield is quite superb. Having visited it six times over the years, I think that it is one of the most impressive places to which I have been.
    5.45 pm
    I have a question for the Minister. I am an unashamed friend of the nuclear industry. I am an unashamed friend of the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive, of British Nuclear Fuels plc and of Trade Unions for Safety in the Nuclear Industry. Mr. Roger Morgan, officially on behalf of the AEU, and Mr. Eric Hammond have invited me to be one of the speakers at its conference in Edinburgh on 18 May. I say that simply to give myself the credentials for asking my question. Is it really necessary to stir up a gratuitous hornets' nest?
    I have listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). She obviously feels passionately about the issue and I do not doubt for a moment that, in this matter, she represents her constituents. I listened to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). Whatever I think, and my view of the nuclear industry is deeply different from theirs, I have to concede that they represent strong feelings—not only theirs, but those of many people.
    During the 1987 election, I was asked all about my supposed views on the storage of nuclear waste in various parts of the West Lothian constituency, as it used to be. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who told me how foolhardy I had been on the subject, will no doubt recollect, that.
    Mr. Donald Dewar indicated assent.
    Mr. Dalyell: I see my hon. Friend nodding.
    Is it necessary to stir up a hornets' nest when there is an easy way out of the problem? The easy way out is at least to wait until such time as the geological surveys in the Sellafield area have been completed. Christopher Harding, the chairman of BNFL, whom I contacted before the debate, said:
    "The selection of a repository site is not limited soley by geological consideration, although these are of major significance. For instance, a substantial proportion of Britain's radioactive waste is currently stored at Sellafield and, from a logistical point of view, this makes Sellafield an attractive option if the geology is acceptable."
    The sooner we find out whether the geology is acceptable the better.
    I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has a very real point. Many people are concerned, whether I like it or not, about transport. I said to a Government Whip that I thought that the Secretary of State for Energy should be with us for this debate. Cannot we wait, before creating any more difficulties in the north or elsewhere, to find out what the answer is from Sellafield? I have met plenty of people at Sellafield who are content to live against or above the waste facility that is envisaged. Any visitor to the thermal oxide reprocessing plant project—I have visited it recently—and to the various engineering projects at Sellafield must be deeply impressed by the sheer expertise there, and rather proud of Britain having it. I suspect that we are the best in the world.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend says about his recent experience of a visit to the THORP project at Sellafield. It is a purpose-built, specialist facility for handling, processing and storing nuclear material. Would not it be rather ridiculous if, when we have such a national facility in public ownership through BNFL, organisations, including Scottish Nuclear, went off at a tangent, failed to take advantage of that facility and started using a new, largely untried and perhaps rather suspect technology to store the material in dry stores at individual power stations?
    Mr. Dalyell: I am very much against untried technology. I do not want to take up the time of the House, because we have a lot of business. I want simply to say that, for heaven's sake, we should look at the Sellafield option.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: The brevity of my contribution owes most to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) has spoken in the debate and I agree with everything that she said. It is also due to the fact that time is moving on, there is a lot more business on the amendment paper, and I want to hear the Minister's reply. The issue arises from within the boundaries of Highland regional council and from the campaign—which I very much support—that the regional council has run against the Nirex proposal.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about how one is constantly caught, and that is not merely true of the Nirex issue but about matters nuclear more generally. It is rather like the abortion debate. No matter how much persuasion is used, people have a gut instinct about where they stand on nuclear matters, and persuasion in the House or on any other public platform tends to go out of the window.
    Let us compare the Nirex issue to the poll tax. Adherents of that former flagship called it the community charge, whereas those who were against it let it be known that it should be called the poll tax. Similarly, people who are against what Nirex has been instructed to get on with call it a nuclear dump whereas people who are more neutral—perhaps more scientifically accurate—or who are in favour of what Nirex is doing tend to talk about deep site nuclear repositories, which has a more neutral sound than the more emotive and more easily understood expression, a nuclear dump. Part of the problem is that people have gut reactions on the issue. While people follow details of both sides of the argument, once they form a conclusion there tends to be very little shifting of opinion.
    The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and I attended the opening of the Highland regional council campaign in Inverness some time ago. She quoted a number of people who spoke there. The cross-section of business, cultural and tourist potential and opinion that they represent within the area speaks for itself. I pay her special credit because she quoted my constituents far more than I would ever have dared to do, with any degree of modesty, in a speech.
    The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) spoke about the need for an informed debate, and I agree with him. However, those of us who have been dealing with the Nirex proposals, or the investigations that it has been carrying out in Highland region in the past four years, have found that Nirex would have nothing to do
    1246
    with any opportunity extended to it to appear on a public platform and put its case. I was involved in a local referendum, which Lorraine Mann, a constituent of mine and a leading member of Scotland Against Nuclear Dumping, helped to organise, and I pay tribute to the work that she has done on this issue in the past few years. Once again, when ballot papers were sent out, Nirex was invited to enclose information material to put its side of the argument, but, as on every other occasion, Nirex would have nothing to do with it.
    It is difficult to have the informed debate that the hon. Member for Tayside, North and many others want when the agency charged with carrying out the investigations will not put its case except within carefully controlled circumstances of its choosing—as opposed to public dissemination of the facts—often with personnel that it has invited. All too often, that makes for a frustratingly one-sided debate. I do not think that Nirex does itself much good by pursuing that line.
    One must consider the backdrop to this issue—the natural heritage and its role within the highlands. Successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, in the late 1950s and through to the 1960s, supported opening up the highlands to try to reverse historic depopulation. Successive Governments supported the establishment of the Corpach pulp mill, the Invergordon aluminium smelter and the Dounreay fast breeder reactor research site.
    When the late Willie Ross opened the Second Reading debate on the Bill that formed the basis for the Highlands and Islands development board, he said that the highlander was "the man on every Scot's conscience." I suspect that that would no longer be the case, because the sort of problems that have visited themselves upon the highlands have affected in equal measure other parts of Scotland, whether in the steel or coal industries or elsewhere.
    There was general public support for development in the highlands. However, in the past 10 years, the pulp mill and the aluminium smelter have gone; and, more recently, the fast breeder reactor research programme was run down.
    Let us be clear about the Nirex proposals. Although I cannot claim any scientific qualification, I understand that any jobs that might accrue from the siting of a nuclear repository—with respect to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, I shall use the neutral term—will not require the same scientific qualifications that have been developed at Dounreay in the preceding decades. Also, the numbers involved will not be nearly as encouraging as was perhaps first thought. However, that is not the crucial issue, which is that, as both my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute and the hon. Member for Moray made clear, given the essentially fragile nature of the highlands—their location and economic base—the public perception of products from that part of the country is all-important to ensure success in the national, European and international markets.
    As successive chairmen of the HIDB and anyone else who has tried to promote the economy of the highlands will confirm, if added value is the name of the game and is the only viable means of securing an economic base for the highlands, something that is liable to run directly against the indigenous interests of added value in any form—whether fishing, farming, tourism or any other activity—clearly has little economic rationale.

    1247
    People say of matters nuclear, especially a nuclear dump, "Not in my backyard." We saw a graphic example of that before the last election. However, Highland regional council, with all-party support, has put a distinctly different case. We are not saying, "Not in our back yard." If nuclear material is produced in the region, whether Dounreay is the source or whether it is low-grade waste from Raigmore hospital as a result of hospital processes, the council has been the first to say that we have a geographical and moral responsibility to take stock of it, to look after it and to secure it within Caithness, above ground level in dry storage, so that it is retrievable at a later date.
    We are not saying that we will have nothing to do with it. We want to take responsibility for waste that accrues in our region. However, we are saying "Not in our back yard," to a nuclear dump and we are also saying that it should not be in anyone else's back yard either. It does not represent success if one moves the problem from one part of the country, that has perhaps been earmarked, to another.
    I referred at the beginning of my speech to the fact that there are different views about the efficacy and desirability of civil nuclear power. I speak as one who sees a continuing need for a civil nuclear power programme in this country. I do not think that it is sage, in the long term, to put all one's energy eggs in one basket. A mixed provision of supply is only sensible for a country that is dependent on declining fossil fuels.
    Scotland Against Nuclear Dumping is a good example of an interesting aspect of the Nirex proposals. Some people in that organisation oppose anything to do with the nuclear industry, whether a power station, a reprocessing plant or Nirex. Others may accept the need for civil nuclear power as a part of electricity generation, but do not want the Nirex proposals or may not be in favour of foreign reprocessing contracts being carried out in the United Kingdom.
    However, there is a unanimity of view about Nirex. People may be in favour of a civil nuclear power programme of against it, but whatever their views on the rights and wrongs of that per se, everyone has agreed that Nirex is not a worthwhile object that they would wish to support. When people who would otherwise support civil nuclear power think that, it should cause the Scottish Office, the Department of Energy and the Department of the Environment to think again.
    6 pm
    Only last Friday, the Minister was in Dornie, a part of the highlands that he knows rather well, as he spends the occasional family holiday there. As he opened the new Dornie bridge bypass, he waxed lyrical about the natural beauty of the area. I know that he appreciates how crucial that perception is to the highlands as a whole, so I hope that he recognises the genuine and deeply felt acute anxiety in the highlands and elsewhere in the country about the damage which even talk about deep-site nuclear disposal could do. If he does, I hope that he will have a word with the Secretary of State and tell him not to ride roughshod over Highland regional council as the planning authority, as the Scottish Office has done so far.
    He should also ask him to encourage sanity in other parts of Whitehall and of government and recognise that to lock away nuclear material so that it will not be retrievable in the future is madness. Even if we went for
    1248
    on-site storage, we might discover in future the scientific knowledge to deal with the long half lives involved. We might be able to find a solution. If that is a scientific possibility, it would be crazy physically to block off future access to the material.
    Not one hon. Member has spoken in support of what Nirex has been instructed to do. It is worth stressing that that is what has happened. The argument is always directed against Nirex, but it has been instructed as an agency to do something in the name of the Government. At the end of the day, it is a political decision. As we saw before the last general election, the Government are in a position to put an end to the hornets' nest, as it was rightly described, and the damaging uncertainty that has been created. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister can go a long way to calming the waters.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) raised a major issue. How can we register the feelings and anxieties of people and ensure that the worries of the people of Scotland who will have to live with these decisions are given democratic expression? Will Scottish Natural Heritage be able to fulfil that purpose? I have my doubts.
    We have had a wide-ranging debate on one of the most important issues that will face Scotland for generations ahead. It has shown how inadequate a body is Scottish Natural Heritage to deal with the issue. The Minister said that SNH will be able to comment on such matters. That is not good enough. The Minister can comment. Anyone can comment—the Minister's granny can comment. But it is important that SNH should have the powers to make inquiries, be consulted and take action. Clearly, SNH does not have such powers now.
    Any environmental agency worth its salt should have a major say and be able to take action on issues such as the dumping of either nuclear or toxic waste. It is incredible that SNH will not. Those are the most important issues which face our environment. The acid test is whether SNH, as planned by the Government, has the power to take action or even to be consulted. That shows how inadequate an instrument the Minister is creating.
    I appreciate the Labour new clause, but I note that it uses the word "person" when it seeks to make nuclear dumping without SNH permission an offence. However, the greatest dumping threat does not come from individuals. It comes from an organisation—Nirex. Labour probably has in mind individuals such as landowners who may be only too happy to allow their land to be used for dumping. Perhaps that is why the new clause is phrased in that way. However, there is an obvious distinction between a legal persona and a Government Department. I do not care which one proposes nuclear dumping—it simply should not be allowed.
    I hoped that the Scottish National party new clause would be selected. It would have strengthened the purpose of the Labour new clause. It is incredible that we do not have an adequate democratic forum in which to discuss these matters. We should be able to call representatives of Nirex and question them in detail about some of the anxieties raised in the House today. The obvious way of doing that would be through the Scottish Select Committee. Such a Committee could bring in Nirex, other organisations and expert witnesses and question them in detail. Such matters should be brought before the Scottish people——
    Mr. Bill Walker: The Scottish National party refused to serve on the Committee.
    Mr. Welsh: As usual, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) appears to be jumping his guns. If anyone is to be blamed for the lack of a Scottish Select Committee, he is a prime candidate. It is a pity that we do not have a forum in which these matters could be discussed.
    I regret that the much stronger SNP new clause was not selected. It refers to both nuclear dumping and the dumping of toxic waste. Scotland needs the protection of a cast-iron guaranteed halt to threats of nuclear dumping. Our new clause takes a much stronger stand against nuclear dumping. It includes protection against the transportation of nuclear waste. The lack of such protection is an unfortunate and serious weakness in the Labour new clause, which appears to be more of a probing new clause than one which Labour Members intend to press. I hope to find otherwise, and that the Labour party will press the new clause.
    I also regret that there is no mention of toxic waste dumping in the Labour new clause. Dumping of toxic waste is not a greater threat than nuclear dumping but in many ways is a massive threat to the environment of Scotland. The acid test for the Minister is whether, with the powers proposed in the Bill, Scottish Natural Heritage, will be able to take a major part in making decisions on such issues. It should be a sounding board for the views of the people of Scotland.
    No environmental protection organisation can fail to tackle or discuss nuclear and toxic waste dumping. The ramifications of such dumping spread across the whole social and economic fabric of Scotland. If Nirex or any other body uses Scotland as a nuclear dumping ground, it will be a disaster for the entire Scottish population who have to live with it, and for all visitors to the area. It will be a disaster for tourism, agriculture, fishing and other industries dependent on a good, clean environment and the worldwide understanding that Scotland has a wholesome environment.
    We are discussing employment, as well as the primacy of safety. Nirex proposes to create only a few jobs, but the dump will result in a massive loss of jobs locally. On the basis of Nirex's own figures, the operational phase of the Dounreay installation would create only about 100 jobs. Yet in the fishing industry alone, 250 jobs would be lost if the industry lost only 1 per cent. of its capacity. If that is extended to other industries and activities in the highlands, we shall face a disaster in local employment.
    The Bill is simply inadequate, for the reasons that I have given and other reasons given today. Unfortunately, inadequate as it is, it is probably the best that we are ever likely to get out of the Government. The issue of nuclear and toxic waste dumping shows how deficient the Bill is in meeting, the environmental needs of Scotland.
    What is the Minister's personal position not only on the plans for Scottish Natural Heritage but on nuclear dumping? What standing does he have in the debate? We have already noted that the Secretary of State for Scotland was opposed to nuclear dumping in his constituency. His colleague the Secretary of State for Energy, who is responsible for Nirex, was opposed to nuclear dumping in his constituency. Both Ministers stopped the creation of such dumps in their constituencies. What firepower does the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon.
    1250
    Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), have to offer in these circumstances? We have a right to know the Minister's position on the subject. Does he agree with his colleagues, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Energy—the man in charge of Nirex—in opposing dumping?
    Will the Minister give a commitment to the people of Dounreay and of the whole of Scotland that he will ensure that they are not subjected to dumping plans for their area similar to those to which the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Energy were opposed? The timing is right. We are headed for a general election, as we were when the Secretary of State for Energy opposed nuclear dumping in his constituency. He succeeded because the Government feared a loss of votes.
    Perhaps they do not have too many votes to lose up there, but what is the Minister's own personal position? Will he join his right hon. Friends in coming out and clearly opposing nuclear dumping in Scotland? If he does, I will certainly applaud him. Let us hear from the Minister what he says on this issue.
    Mr. William McKelvey: I will be extremely brief on this matter, but I feel compelled to say something, since I have been unashamedly put in the frame by my unashamed hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who mentioned my own unashamed membership of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and I may have to say something unashamedly about its policy in the nuclear field.
    As one who was from the beginning very much opposed to the whole concept of nuclear energy, my views have been somewhat tempered—not because of any direct pressure through my trade union but through a great deal of discussion throughout the trade union movement, especially on the whole aspect of safety. Irrespective of one's view of nuclear energy, I think we are all united on one thing: we are all extremely concerned about safety in that industry and will try our best to see that the safest methods are used for the production of nuclear energy. The AEU in particular taught me the lesson that we have a problem with the removal and storage of nuclear waste and how best to do it.
    On many occasions, I have unashamedly been the ally of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Munro), who has unashamedly joined me in several campaigns—one, obviously, about the production and excellence of Scottish whisky of which he is the chairman. I can therefore understand why he wants to keep the water in Scotland as pure as possible. However, he said that there might have been a smack of hysteria in this debate. I honestly have not detected any hysteria. I welcome the debate because I think that it is extremely useful, and I believe that we shall have to go into this matter very much more fully in the near future.
    One point that the hon. Gentleman made and on which I agree with him conceived haste. Why is there this undue haste? I went to Sellafield with my hon. friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) when we were invited to see for ourselves what they had done there about safety. I have to say, as someone who was apprehensive, to say the least, about that visit, that I was extremely interested in what I saw, and very impressed. The people there were trying to extend the range of what certainly seemed to me, as a layman, a centre of excellence as in the storage and handling of this dangerous matter.

    1251
    Why, then, is it considered necessary to seek to impose this repository upon the people of the Highlands? There should be no imposition upon the people of the Highlands. We should not say that they must handle the storage because we happen to believe that the borings we have done show, that that is the best part of the country in which to store these wastes. If the people of the highlands say that they do not want it, that ought to be the end of the matter.
    I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will reflect on the words that he used 10 or 11 years ago, speaking quite eloquently, before an election. He fought his corner; he certainly did not wish waste to be dumped in his own backyard, as was going to happen then. No matter how we dress it up, although the safest repository in the world might well be in the highlands, if the people in the highlands do not want it there, that should be that.
    The Secretary of State ought to learn the lessons of recent events. We did not want the poll tax in Scotland. It was foisted upon the people of Scotland, and we can now see the result of foisting it not only on us but on the people of the rest of the United Kingdom. We do not want opted out hospitals to be foisted on us, and we are having that rammed down our throats. We certainly did not want the examination of our seven-year-olds, and we are having that rammed down our throats. But the people of the highlands—they will be backed by the rest of the people of Scotland—will not have a repository for nuclear waste brought in from outside that area and stored in the highlands. We and the Secretary of State ought to learn that lesson: we cannot foist that upon the people of Scotland.
    I saw the report that came up from the Highland region. Unfortunately I could not get to the meeting because I was at another meeting on Scottish business. I was impressed by the fact that the authors of the report said that they recognised that there was waste arising from production in their area and were prepared to take care of their own waste. They are not saying that the waste should be shoved into some other area. They have faced up admirably to their responsibilities.
    We should recognise that the campaign is not hysterical but very responsible. The Secretary of State ought to recognise that, and he certainly ought to be in the lobby with us tonight supporting a genuine attempt to bring this matter fully in front of the people of Scotland and to legislate for it. We are giving the Secretary of State for Scotland the opportunity tonight to do so.
    6.15 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): When this debate began, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) made it clear that this was a vehicle for a general debate as well as a debate on the specific terms of the new clause. May I first make it absolutely clear that Scottish National Heritage, under clause 2 as drafted, would be expected to advise the Secretary of State on any matter affecting the natural heritage of Scotland, and that would most certainly include the disposal and storage of radioactive material and waste.
    The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said most appropriately that a distinction should be drawn between nuclear power and nuclear waste, because it is within the knowledge of all of us that successive Governments have
    1252
    supported nuclear power. In fact, it was the former Secretary of State, Bruce Millan, who gave approval for Torness to be built under the electric lighting Act. Therefore, we all—certainly the members of the major parties—have a moral obligation to make absolutely certain that nuclear waste is dealt with in the safest possible way and in a way that gives the greatest reassurance to the public.
    I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and other hon. Members that there must be as much openness as possible on this subject. That is why, in the last Parliament, I sought to discuss on the Consolidated Fund with the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) the subject of nuclear power.
    One point which I feel that I should answer concerns the planning implications. If Nirex were to decide that either Sellafield or Dounreay would be suitable as a repository for nuclear waste, planning permission would be required. The Government have made it clear that, if such an application were made, it would be called in for decision by the relevant Secretary of State and a full public local inquiry would be held. Scottish National Heritage, as the Secretary of State's adviser, would be asked for its views. Any proposals and objections that it might make would be fully considered at the inquiry. The planning framework is well established and capable of dealing with contentious cases. No special legislative provision is necessary.
    The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made a courageous speech. He made absolutely clear his support for the trade unionists who are most engaged in safety procedures. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) rightly suggested that the safest method possible should be used, and that I wholeheartedly support. I am sure that Nirex will take careful account of what the hon. Members have said.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I thank the Minister for confirming that a planning application would be called in and would be covered by a full public inquiry. Can he confirm that similar planning arrangements would apply to the establishment of a dry store for nuclear fuel waste at Hunterston, Torness, and so on?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member takes me a stage further on. I can confirm that that subject is now under consideration. The hon. Member made a speech about spent fuel. Spent fuel which is not radioactive waste is currently sent to Sellafield for reprocessing. Dounreay is involved in reprocessing smaller quantitites of reactor fuel. Recently, however, Scottish Nuclear Ltd. put forward proposals to store spent fuel on site at Torness and Hunterston rather than send it to Sellafield. These proposals are currently under consideration. However, I shall be very happy to correspond further with the hon. Gentleman if he wants me to follow up any details in relation to spent fuel. If hon. Members wish, I can tell them how different forms of waste are dealt with.
    Mr. Darling: Is the Minister saying that Scottish Nuclear has abandoned its plans to take spent fuel by rail, through Edinburgh, to Sellafield, and is considering keeping it on site? If that is what he is saying, it seems to be a departure from the position that the Government have taken up to now. The people of Edinburgh, as well as people elsewhere, will want to know.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I did not say that, but I shall make inquiries and write fully to the hon. Gentleman.
    I was asked by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North about the Secretary of State's decision on Nirex's application to drill 6,000 boreholes. Nirex appealed to the Secretary of State against the regional council's decision to refuse approval. The Secretary of State will announce shortly the decision and the outcome of the appeal.
    I was asked about the views of NCCS and SNH. Obviously, it is for NCCS to express its own view; it is not for the Government to speak on its behalf.
    The hon. Member for Linlithgow and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) asked me about submarine hulks. No decision has yet been taken on the most appropriate means of disposing of out-of-service nuclear submarines. Currently, when a submarine has finished its active live, it is defueled, the radioactive material is removed for storage, and the submarine is beached at secure moorings. The disposal of the residual radioactive components of such submarines is now under active consideration.
    Mr. Dalyell: This matter was raised nine years ago. It has been considered for a long time.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence, who clearly is involved in these matters.
    I was asked about expenditure on research into the long-term disposal of radioactive waste. In 1990–91 the Department of the Environment spent about £9 million on such research. Details are given in the annual report of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. In 1990–91, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food also spent £3·5 million, and the industry itself spent about £27·5 million. The total of £40 million shows the seriousness with which this problem is rightly treated.
    New clause 1 seeks to give to Scottish Natural Heritage new functions which, in our view, are inappopriate. The purpose of SNH is to combine the functions of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland—not to cross the work of the pollution control agencies. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Environmental Protection Bill in 1990. That legislation introduces tighter controls over possible sources of pollution, but uses the expertise of the existing regulatory authorities, which, with regard to nuclear substances, are the nuclear installations inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.
    Part I of the 1990 Act established a new system of control over the most potentially polluting processes that do not involve emissions of radioactivity. This will be administered by the industrial pollution inspectorate and the river purification authorities. Part II introduces tighter controls over the disposal of non-radioactive wastes. These will be exercised by the waste regulation authorities, overseen by the hazardous waste inspectorate of the Scottish Office. Part V of the 1990 Act strengthens the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, which is the statutory framework within which the industrial pollution inspectorate controls the keeping and use of radioactive material and the disposal of radioactive waste.
    1254
    I do not recall that during the passage of that legislation the hon. Member for Angus, East expressed any dissatisfaction about this matter. It really is not good enough for him to suggest that it should be dealt with in the context of this Bill. Everybody knows that Scottish Natural Heritage is much more concerned with soft green issues. The Standing Committee of which the hon. Gentleman was a member dealt with hard green issues. He had every opportunity on that occasion to raise the matter if he was dissatisfied.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Minister saying that the new agency will have no say whatsoever if it is proposed that a nuclear dump be located at Dounreay? He says that SNH has the right to advise the Secretary of State, but has no legal right to be consulted or to take action. In refusing to rule out nuclear dumping in Caithness, is the Minister a Scottish Office NIMBY, like his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, or a Scottish Office namby?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: New clause 1 seeks to give Scottish Natural Heritage statutory power in relation to any development of an underground repository for radioactive waste that may be proposed for Scotland. I am glad to see that the new clause leaves the final word with the Secretary of State. In effect, therefore, it merely requires the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Natural Heritage before allowing the development of any underground repository. For a very simple reason, that is unnecessary.
    I am very happy to give an undertaking that, if there is any proposal to develop an underground repository, the Secretary of State will make certain that Scottish Natural Heritage is notified and given the opportunity to express its views. It will be free to express its views to my right hon. Friend directly, or at the local planning inquiry, to which we have already committed ourselves, if Nirex proposes that the United Kingdom's underground repository should be located at Dounreay. That commitment dates from 1984.
    I want to refer to a point that is of particular importance and is relevant to a matter raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. Nirex has made it clear that, other factors being equal, Sellafield—not Dounreay—will be the preferred site because of transport considerations. It would simply be much cheaper to site the repository near Sellafield, where most of the waste arises. Of course, this gives rise to the question of transportation, about which I want to speak briefly, although it comes within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
    Mr. Dalyell: Some of Nirex's friends, of whom I am one, are rather exasperated. Why should Opposition Members and their constituents be stirred up if the Government have more or less made up their minds—rightly, I believe—that Sellafield should be the location? I am told that the geological conditions there are very favourable. Why on earth should all this trouble be caused gratuitously? The Government's friends begged them not to take this course. They did it once in Ayrshire, and now they are doing it again.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Nirex will take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and will bear in mind the fact that he is a very strong supporter of nuclear power and of the most stringent safety conditions.
    The question of transportation was raised—in particular, by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling).
    Mr. Kennedy: Hon. Members have made the point that Nirex is not a free-standing agency, that it has a degree of accountability to Ministers. The Minister may draw the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to the attention of Nirex, but can he explain what the Government were thinking of when they decided to drill in Caithness? By strong implication, we are now being told that Sellafield has been the preferred option all along, and is beginning to look as if it was the more likely option all along.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that, if various parts of Britain have nuclear power, the best and safest means of disposing of waste must be employed.
    I have been asked what contact there has been between Secretaries of State and Nirex in the past. To answer that question, I shall have to check in great detail the minutes of all the appropriate meetings, and I shall be happy to do so.
    The matter raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow should be well within the knowledge of Nirex, which would be wise to take it fully into account.
    The issue of the transportation of nuclear waste is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. This Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for discussion of the issue. However, I can say that the safety record in the transportation of nuclear material in this country is excellent. The safety regulations for the transporting of such material are based on stringent internationally agreed standards, laid down by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This question has been considered several times in recent years—at the Dounreay, Sizewell and Hinkley public inquiries—and in no case did anyone produce evidence that cast doubt on the adequacy of the regulations.
    In nearly 30 years of nuclear flask movements, not one incident has occurred that led to the release of even the smallest quantity of radioactivity. The transport of nuclear waste to a deep repository, wherever it is ultimately sited, would of course be considered in detail at the local planning inquiry to which we have committed ourselves.
    Mr. John McFall: Nuclear submarines and reactors are extremely large objects to decommission. How feasible does the Minister think it would be to have such constructions taken to Dounreay? In other words, Dounreay seems to be ruled out from the start.
    6.30 pm
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am not putting forward any such proposal tonight. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that the matter is under consideration. If he has a proposal to make, I strongly suggest that he sends it to the Secretary of State for Defence, with a copy to the Scottish Office.
    The hon. Member for Linlithgow had my total agreement when he said that it was inappropriate to use the expression "nuclear dump". It is extraordinary to find
    1256
    that phrase being used so much when most of the radioactive waste that is produced in Scotland is transported into England for disposal or reprocessing. It is perhaps a commentary on the extremes to which scaremongering has extended that some people believe blatant untruths. It should be borne in mind that 50 per cent. of Scotland's electricity is supplied by nuclear energy.
    The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) spoke about reprocessing. There is an important distinction between reprocessing fuel from abroad—in which case the waste will eventually be returned to the country of origin—and the disposal of radioactive waste created in this country. Dounreay's reprocessing business, which has safely and successfully been carried out in the past, has nothing to do with Nirex's current geological investigations at Sellafield and Dounreay, which are to determine whether either would be a suitable site for a deep repository for United Kingdom waste.
    To sum up, the new clause seeks to give SNH statutory power over the development of an underground repository for radioactive waste. In doing so, the new clause cuts across the existing statutory framework in the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. The Act contains adequate provisions for controlling the disposal of radioactive waste. The authorisation procedures for disposing of radioactive waste require consultation with appropriate bodies. I assure the House that SNH would be included in any such consultations.
    I hope that, with those reassurances, Opposition Members will not think it necessary to press the clause to a Division.
    Mr. Wilson: I said at the outset that I was pleased that we had managed to get this issue raised on the Floor of the House. At the end of the debate, I am even more pleased, for this has been a first-class debate, which has proved extremely useful. Remarkable about it is the fact that we have achieved great consensus on the issue, beyond the immediate subject under discussion, of whether a repository should be established at Dounreay.
    I cannot say that this will prove to have been an influential debate, but it should be. The Official Report of it should be read in the proper circles, because the unanimity among the parties—hon. Members speaking from different standpoints but arriving at the same conclusion—is impressive. The consensus is clearly against the development at Dounreay. My hon. Friends and I are grateful to the Chair for allowing the debate to range wider than the immediate subject of the new clause.
    There have been some key contributions to the debate. Much of what the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said was common sense, although he said that there had been some hysterically anti-nuclear speeches from the Opposition Benches. A characteristic of the speeches of Opposition Members, certainly of Labour Members, has been the strong support for the civil nuclear industry.
    My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and I have major nuclear installations in our constituencies, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), whose views have been changed somewhat. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) recalled

    1257
    visiting Chapelcross during the 1987 election and giving assurances that there was no threat to that station during its commercial lifetime.
    In other words, the hon. Member for Dumfries must not lump all his past opponents together in the way he did. Any hon. Member who represents a constituency which includes an establishment such as Hunterston has his or her mind fully concentrated on the need for nuclear power and the contribution that it makes to the wider Scottish economy.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow was right to ask whether it is necessary to stir up a hornets' nest over the issue. The Secretary of State has been told that he more than anyone should recognise the unnecessary storm that will be created if he allows the matter to proceed further. He must be aware of the way in which it could develop into an enormous issue. It is not in his interests, or in those of Scotland or the community most directly affected, to allow it to be at the centre of the brouhaha that would develop particularly if at the end of the day it turned out to be a false start, either because there was no interest in Dounreay or because it was discovered, after the expenditure of £500 million, that the place was not geologically suitable.
    The Secretary of State has power quickly to bring the whole matter to an end. We were told by the Under-Secretary that he would be deciding soon on the 6,000 test bores. That could be the moment for him to make some virtue of the fact that he will uphold local democracy and say that the Dounreay option will not be pursued further. It is clear, on the basis of tonight's debate, that he would earn the gratitude of hon. Members in all parts of the House, and that would give the clearest possible message to Nirex.
    The Under-Secretary said that Nirex would take careful note of what has been said in the debate and particularly of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. While Nirex may take careful note of our words, it would take even more careful note if it received a letter from the Secretary of State saying that he was not of a mind to overturn the democratically arrived at planning decision of Scottish National Heritage.
    I welcome the comments of the Minister about the role of SNH and I hope that, on this and other issues with which the Bill is concerned, SNH will take heart from the fact that it seems to be the will of the Government that it should become involved in contentious matters in a wholehearted way. In other words, SNH does not exist simply to discuss the birds and the bees and peat cutting and the minutiae of nature conservation issues. It must get involved, from an environmental point of view, in the big issues of Scottish life and politics.
    Having said that, I fear that I must tell the Minister that he did not go far enough, and that we feel it necessary to press the matter to a Division to reinforce the arguments that we have adduced.
    I should have referred in my opening remarks to the fact that, when representatives of Highland regional council came to the House yesterday, they stressed strongly the commitment that Caithness had given to the nuclear industry. Caithness is also in the eye of the storm in conservation matters. Instead of proposals from Nirex to take up the slack in the Caithness economy, Highland
    1258
    regional council would like the Government to say that the scientific research base for SNH will be centred in the place which is relevant to environmental concerns, which has a strong scientific background and which is facing great economic difficulties.
    The convenor of Highland region, Duncan McPherson, wrote to the Secretary of State in those terms this week. He concluded his letter by hoping that the Secretary of State would support Highland regional council's desire to have the scientific research base, initially of the Nature Conservancy Council and subsequently of Scottish Natural Heritage, established in its area. What a constructive note we would end on if we could send that message to the people of Caithness and if we could tell them at the same time that the Secretary of State is turning down the application for 6,000 unwanted test bores.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 132.

    Division No. 128]

    [6.39 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Allen, Graham

    McAllion, John

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    McFall, John

    Armstrong, Hilary

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    McKelvey, William

    Bellotti, David

    McLeish, Henry

    Bermingham, Gerald

    McMaster, Gordon

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    McWilliam, John

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Madden, Max

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Meacher, Michael

    Canavan, Dennis

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Crowther, Stan

    Mullin, Chris

    Cryer, Bob

    Nellist, Dave

    Cummings, John

    O'Brien, William

    Dalyell, Tam

    O'Hara, Edward

    Darling, Alistair

    O'Neill, Martin

    Dewar, Donald

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Dixon, Don

    Patchett, Terry

    Dobson, Frank

    Pike, Peter L.

    Doran, Frank

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Prescott, John

    Eastham, Ken

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Reid, Dr John

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Richardson, Jo

    Fisher, Mark

    Robertson, George

    Foster, Derek

    Ruddock, Joan

    Fyfe, Maria

    Salmond, Alex

    Galbraith, Sam

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Galloway, George

    Skinner, Dennis

    George, Bruce

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

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

    Gordon, Mildred

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

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Soley, Clive

    Grocott, Bruce

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Home Robertson, John

    Walley, Joan

    Hood, Jimmy

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Howells, Geraint

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Wilson, Brian

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Winnick, David

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Ingram, Adam

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Kennedy, Charles

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

    Kirkwood, Archy

    NOES

    Amess, David

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    Amos, Alan

    Ashby, David

    Arbuthnot, James

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    1259

    Bellingham, Henry

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Knowles, Michael

    Benyon, W.

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Latham, Michael

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Boswell, Tim

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Bowis, John

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Brazier, Julian

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Bright, Graham

    Maclean, David

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

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Mans, Keith

    Burt, Alistair

    Mates, Michael

    Butterfill, John

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Mills, Iain

    Carrington, Matthew

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Carttiss, Michael

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Chapman, Sydney

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Chope, Christopher

    Moss, Malcolm

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

    Neale, Sir Gerrard

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Couchman, James

    Norris, Steve

    Cran, James

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Dunn, Bob

    Patnick, Irvine

    Dykes, Hugh

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Evennett, David

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Fallon, Michael

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Redwood, John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    French, Douglas

    Rost, Peter

    Gale, Roger

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Squire, Robin

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Gregory, Conal

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Stern, Michael

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Hannam, John

    Sumberg, David

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Harris, David

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Thurnham, Peter

    Hayward, Robert

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Hill, James

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Warren, Kenneth

    Hunter, Andrew

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Irvine, Michael

    Wilshire, David

    Jack, Michael

    Yeo, Tim

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Kilfedder, James

    Tellers for the Noes:

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Mr. Tom Sackville and

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Mr. Timothy Wood.

    Knapman, Roger

    Question accordingly negatived.

  New Clause 4

    SNH's POWERS IN RELATION TO PRIVATE ROADS
    `(l) It shall be an offence for any person to construct a private road without first informing SNH of their intention to do so.
    (2) Where SNH are of the opinion that the construction of a private road would result in serious damage to the natural heritage they shall serve notice of that fact on the person proposing the construction.
    (3) Where such notice has been served, it shall be an offence to commence or to continue the construction of the road without the permission of the Secretary of State sought and obtained in writing.
    (4) The Secretary of State shall not give such permission without first consulting SNH.
    (5) Any person found guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
    (6) For the purposes of this section "private road" means a road or track not maintained by a roads authority and constructed to bear vehicular traffic, whether or not it is a public right of way, and above a length to be specified by the Secretary of State.".—[Mr. Galbraith.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Sam Galbraith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    New clause 4 deals with private tracks throughout Scotland and seeks to bring them under planning control.
    Anyone who has tramped across the Scottish mountains or driven over them on local authority or other roads cannot help but be disturbed by the scars created on the landscape and to our natural heritage by those roads that clearly spread across the moorland and hills. Those tracks give access to a limited number of individuals but are offensive to a large number of people who see them. They are often unsightly because, being on private land, they come under no planning control.
    The clause attempts to bring those roads within the authority of Scottish Natural Heritage. It is a problem that has been with us for many years and is growing rapidly. It has caused great concern to the Countryside Commission for Scotland. Indeed, its 22nd annual report in 1989 says:
    "The proliferation of unsightly hill tracks in remote and scenically beautiful areas continues to cause concern".
    One of the worst cases mentioned by the Countryside Commission was the track bulldozed through Glen Feshie by Lord Dulverton, who owned that area. It was a particularly beautiful area which many of us, including the Minister—who often takes his holidays there in the winter—have often tramped. That beautiful glen has been scarred, probably irretrievably, by an unsightly track that was bulldozed through it without permission, despite the fact that the Countryside Commission recommended that Highland regional council continue to refuse planning permission and to seek reinstatement. That, however, has not been possible.
    There was a further problem in 1986 when a track above 300 m, which is the limit imposed by the commission, was bulldozed through Glen Ey within the Deeside and Lochnagar national scenic area, again without planning permission. Another example is the hill track in Strath Dionard, which lies on the northern margin of the north-west Sutherland national scenic area. Unless action is taken to bring those tracks within planning controls, the problem can only worsen.
    We are not attacking landowners, nor are we attempting to prevent tracks on private land within Scotland. Rather, we are trying to ensure that, if such tracks are necessary and a good case can be made for having them, they should at least be developed in a suitably scenic way as far as possible. Many of them lead to no significant place. For example, the track near Arduerike estate, which is three or four miles long, leads only to a small fishing loch. One finds when walking in that area that no one else uses the track. Therefore, those tracks

    1261
    are bulldozed for use by a limited number of individuals, and for most of the year they lie vacant, only to assault the eyes of those who see them.
    Another problem is the track at Beinn a'Bhuird, in a particularly nice area. It is badly designed and offensive to the eye. It could easily be dealt with, because it now lies within the Mar Lodge estate.
    What is the Government's current position on Mar Lodge estate? Will they make funds available for that estate or will it pass into public ownership? Mar Lodge estate stretches from the woods of Dee, up over Corrie Etchican down Ben McDuie across to Cairn Toul, across to the nature reserve at Glen Feshie. It forms part of an extremely beautiful landscape of great natural heritage significance. It is currently owned privately, and it is said that it could be sold to the public for £10 million to £15 million—a small price to pay for such an exquisite piece of land. If Scotland's natural heritage is to be protected, surely Scottish Natural Heritage should purchase that land on behalf of the nation.
    Today's Scotsman said:
    "Mar Lodge provides an opportunity for the state to protect and preserve an important part of Scotland's heritage, including three of Britain's highest mountains. Under the new agency it could become a model demonstrating how conservation, recreation and limited development could be practised without conflict. It is estimated that, at the most, such a venture would require £5 million from the Exchequer".
    Are the Government prepared to give not only tacit but practical support to Scottish Natural Heritage and purchase Mar Lodge estate for the nation? Were such land in public hands, we could prevent the despoilment of those areas by unsightly tracks. Everyone, whether they tramp across the mountains or merely travel through them, is offended by those roads which, in increasing numbers, are pushed through estates. The amendment seeks to bring them under planning controls to ensure that, if they must exist, they are built in the most aesthetic manner.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Two issues have arisen from the debate: private roads and Mar Lodge.
    The Prime target of this amendment is the unsightly mountain track, over which there has been some controversy in recent years. The Government agree that there has been a case for extending control over the way in which such developments take place. Since 1987, we have required all proposals for hill tracks in national scenic areas to be subject to planning permission. This requirement for planning permission, which provides for consultation with the countryside Commission for Scotland, and, ultimately, referral to the Secretary of State, will not only be transferred to Scottish Natural Heritage but would also carry forward to apply similarly in natural heritage areas.
    We are currently considering whether there is a case for a further extension of this or a similar requirement throughout other parts of Scotland. We intend to seek comments on proposals later this year.
    The amendment would create an offence for the construction of a private road without the sanction of SNH. We do not believe that the introduction of a new offence is conducive to the consensual approach we seek for the operation of Scottish Natural Heritage. More particularly, given the existing role of planning authorities, the Countryside Commission for Scotland and, ultimately,
    1262
    the Secretary of State, and the possible extension of the procedures, the introduction of an offence for failing to consult SNH on every private road can scarcely be defined as administratively efficient.
    Mr. Wilson: The Minister referred to the consensual approach, but some of the tracks are simply acts of vandalism. Other vandals are not treated in a consensual way, with people saying to them, "Would you mind not doing it?" They are rightly punished for acts of vandalism. Some of the tracks that have been made to pre-empt the controls suggest a level of irresponsibility on the part of those who make them. That irresponsibility will not be constrained by the consensual approach. Perhaps the Minister could give us a firmer proposal.
    7 pm
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This is a matter of sufficient importance for me to state that we intend to consult on it, hopefully later this summer, when we shall put forward proposals and listen to various views.
    The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) asked about Mar Lodge, which has been in the press a great deal in recent days. The Government recognise the national and international conservation status of the Cairngorms. We have already taken a number of decisions in recognition of their importance. For example, the Secretary of State modified the Highlands regional structure plan to guard against the development of downhill ski developments in Lurcher's gully to protect the gully, surrounding quarries and the adjacent mountain plateau. In that connection, the evidence relating to the road was of particular interest.
    We have established a working party under the chairmanship of Magnus Magnusson to develop a management plan for the district, which will form the basis for its protection and sustainable use in the longer term. We also submitted a case for the world heritage listing of the Cairngorms to UNESCO. I am sure that the House will agree that those steps clearly underline our intentions to ensure proper management of the district.
    We recognise the important position of the Mar Lodge estate within the Cairngorms. It comprises a range of habitats from the flood plain terraces of the Dee to the high plateau of Ben Macdui. It has significant remnants of the Caledonian Scots pine forest, as well as habitat for a wide range of important bird species. It is also enjoyed for recreational purposes and managed for sporting purposes. The question of who is to own and manage the estate in future cannot be resolved at present, but, as the House will appreciate, for most of Scotland, conservation and recreation management of land is secured through private ownership.
    I can assure the House that the Government would be prepared to look at any proposition that might be put to us—although without commitment. I understand that a series of complex discussions are under way at present between a number of organisations. I am afraid that I am not in a position to provide the House with any more detailed information now. I hope that that answers the inquiry of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden.
    Mr. Galbraith: In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), if I may say so, that was a rather vague statement about what is

    1263
    happening at Mar Lodge. I had hoped that the Minister would come up with a more definite statement and that he might even say that the Government were seriously considering purchasing it for the nation. It is in order to discuss that now, because the Mar Lodge estate includes Beinn a' Bhuird, which contains one of the tracks that has probably caused most controversy and offence over the years.
    I was not particularly grateful to the Minister for saying that it would not be administratively efficient to bring all private tracks within the planning procedure. In the immortal words of my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, if I may say so, that seems a weak excuse. Anyone who can administer complex schemes, and who attempts to administer the poll tax, will surely find bringing a few private roads under administrative control as nothing in comparison. However, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he intends to consult and make proposals, which I shall await with great interest, later in the year. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  New clause 6

    SPECIAL POWER OF SNH TO SEEK HABITAT MANAGEMENT ORDERS
    '( ) Where it appears to the SNH expedient to do so for the purpose of conserving the natural heritage of Scotland it may make an application to the Secretary of State for a Habitat Management Order for the purposes of carrying out essential nature conservation management; and the provisions of Schedule (Procedure in Connection with Habitat Management Orders) shall have effect as to the making, confirmation and coming into operation of orders under this section.
    (2) An application for an order under this section may only be made in respect of land—

    (a) which has been notified or meets the criteria for notification as a site of special scientific interest under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and

    (b) has been the subject of an offer of a management agreement with the owners, lessees or occupiers of such land in accordance with the provisions of section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 (Areas of Special Scientific Interest) and an agreement cannot be concluded.

    (3) The Secretary of State may authorise SNH (or any person or organisation which he considers appropriate) to enter the land for the purpose of carrying out any operation necessary to maintain or conserve the special interest of the land.
    (4) Any operation authorised under subsection (3) shall be specified in the order applying this section to the land.
    (5) SNH, or other person or organisation authorised by the Secretary of State under subsection (3), may give notice to the appropriate owners, lessees or occupiers of the land requiring him to pay the expenses of the operations carried out under the order.
    (6) The persons notified under subsection (5) may within 28 days of the services of the notice represent to the Secretary of State that—

    (a) the amount specified in the notice is unreasonable; or

    (b) the recovery of that amount would cause him hardship,

    and the Secretary of State shall determine to what extent the representations are justified.
    (7) The Secretary of State shall give notice of his determination, the reasons for it and the amount recoverable—

    (a) to the persons who made the representation. And

    1264

    (b) to the authority which gave notice under subsection (5).

    (8) Any expenses recoverable by virtue of this section shall be recoverable as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.'.—[Mr. Galbraith.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 1, a new schedule——

  PROCEDURE IN CONNECTION WITH HABITAT MANAGEMENT ORDERS
    Consultation
    1. Before making an order, the Secretary of State shall consult with SNH and such persons as he may consider appropriate.

    Giving of Notice
    2. (1) Before making an order, the Secretary of State shall prepare'a draft of the order and give notice—

    (a) stating that he proposes to make the order and the general effect of it; and

    (b) specifying the time (not being less than 28 days from the date of the giving of the notice) within which, and the manner in which, representations or objections with respect to the draft order may be made.

    (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), the notice to be given under sub-paragraph (1) shall be given—

    (a) to persons who had received the offer of a management agreement from SNH relating to the operations contained in the order; and

    (b) every other owner, lessee or occupier of the land to which the draft order relates.

    Unopposed Orders
    3. If no representations or objections are duly made to the persons notified, or if any so made are withdrawn, the Secretary of State may make the order with or without modifications.
    4. (1) If any representation or objection duly made by persons notified is not withdrawn the Secretary of State shall, before making the order, afford any such person an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
    (2) On considering any representations or objections duly made and the report of the person appointed to hear representations or objections the Secretary of State may make the order with or without modifications.
    Restrictions on power to make orders with modifications
    5. (1) The Secretary of State shall not make an order with modifications so as—

    (a) to affect land not affected by the draft order; or

    (b)—to include operations not authorised in the draft order.

    Notice of making of Orders
    6. (1) As soon as practicable after an order is made, the Secretary of State shall give notice describing the general effect of the order as made and stating the date on which it took effect.
    (2) A notice under sub-paragraph (1) shall be given to the persons notified of the draft order.

    Proceedings for Questioning Validity of Orders
    7. (1) If any owner, lessee or occupier of the land to which the order applies is aggrieved by an order which has taken effect and desires to question its validity on the ground that it is not within the powers of section (Special powers of SNH to seek habitat management orders) or that any of the requirements of this Schedule have not been complied with in relation to it, he may within 42 days from the date of the giving of the notice under paragraph 6 make an application to the Court under this paragraph.
    (2) On any such application the Court may, if satisfied that the order is not within those powers or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by a failure to comply with those requirements make such declaration as seems to the Court to be appropriate.
    (3) Except as provided by this paragraph, the validity of an order shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings whatever.
    (4) In this paragraph "the Court" means the Court of Session.'.
    Mr. Galbraith: The new clause and the new schedule are long and complex but deal with a fairly simple point. A major issue throughout the passage of the Bill, and one which was dealt with extensively in Committee, was sites of special scientific interest and in particular the designation and various appeal procedures involved. However, now we are taking the matter further and considering what happens once a site has been designated.
    Some sites of special scientific interest require maintenance or they deteriorate and lose their scientific interest. In its last report, the Nature Conservancy Council detailed such sites. In the year from 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990, one site was lost—it suffered damage that resulted in the denotification of its SSSI status. In that year, three sites were partially lost—part of the site was denotified—and, in 35 of them, long-term damage occurred—there was a lasting reduction in the special scientific interest of those sites. Overall, 261 sites suffered damage from which they could recover. That shows the scale of the problem. Because SSSIs can deteriorate, some require positive management.
    I do not know how many of those sites were in Scotland. The Minister may be able to get the answer to that question swiftly, so I shall talk for a few minutes if he wishes to obtain assistance. How many of the sites that were lost, partially lost or suffered long-term or short-term damage were in Scotland? Classic examples of SSSIs include the chalk downs and Wiltshire downs, where the SSSI sites lose their scientific value unless there is persistent sheep grazing. If the owner no longer wishes to graze sheep there, the area is overcome by scrub and its scientific value is lost.
    The new clause would allow Scottish Natural Heritage to restore the designation of an SSSI that is in danger of losing its designation either through neglect or change of purpose of the land. There are two caveats to that. It can be used only on a designated area and where a land management agreement with the owner has been sought. If those two criteria are fulfilled, Scottish Natural Heritage can move in to preserve the sites.
    I think that most of the examples are in England. I am not sure whether there are many in Scotland, although there has been a suggestion of one in the outer isles. The important principle set out in the new clause gives Scottish Natural Heritage a power to protect SSSIs that it would not otherwise have. It would be an important extension of the conservation principle in Scotland, and I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the new clause.
    Mr. Dalyell: I have two questions of the Minister, and I gave him notice of one of them on Tuesday.
    The Carver report strongly recommended that, in the new era, the future of nationally relevant databases and methodologies, such as the national vegetation classification and the biological record centre at Monkswood, should be assured. What steps is Scottish Natural Heritage taking, through the Joint Nature Conservancy Committee or otherwise, to ensure that the landscape and people of Scotland continue to benefit from that expertise? We are
    1266
    not marketing such factors, and we should be holding them in trust. I gave the Scottish Office 48 hours notice so that it could give a considered answer.
    Secondly, I think that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has been in touch with the Minister's Department this morning. It takes the view:
    "With regard to the Minister's statement that 'specified types of development' is not an adequate phrase to include in legislation, the RICS is not convinced that the phrase is sufficiently inadequate as to render the amendment undesirable. The alternative phrase 'such types of development as may be specified by the Secretary of State from time to time' may, however, meet with the approval of the Minister and the Parliamentary Draughtsman and the RICS would be happy to see its proposed amendment reworded accordingly."
    At some stage—I think that this is the right one—I should like the Minister to comment on that point.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I welcome the opportunity to debate the role of sites of special scientific interest in habitat protection and the principle upon which the safeguarding of sites is based. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) has proposed a far-reaching step—in effect, to compel owners and occupiers to pay for the management of their land for nature conservation purposes, determined by the Secretary of State for Scotland in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage.
    While hearings and appeals to the courts are built into the procedures set out in the amendment, and objections to the costs in the new clause, it is difficult not to interpret these provisions as being peremptory to owners and occupiers. The House will appreciate that that flies in the face of our well-established procedures—based on the voluntary principle—for site safeguard. The whole basis of the voluntry approach to nature conservation management would be undermined if we not only told people how to manage their land in SSSIs but forced them to pay for that work.
    The second reason for resisting the new clause and schedule is that the voluntary approach has stood the test of time in Scotland. Notification, allied with provision for the negotiation of management agreements and the procedure for making nature conservation orders, provides the opportunity for disagreements to be overcome. The fact that the last-resort powers of making nature conservation orders have been used so infrequently—in Scotland only 10 orders have been made when almost 1,300 SSSIs have been notified or renotified since 1981—provides ample proof of that point. In addition, the new procedures that the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland introduced early this month for SSSIs should bring about a considerable reduction in the number of disagreements.
    We are not convinced that any benefits would accrue from the new powers. I believe that they have the potential so to undermine the present system that they would hinder rather than further the management of land within SSSIs in a way that is sensitive to nature conservation interests.
    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for having given me notice that he would raise a matter in relation to the Carver report recommendations. I am aware that steps have been taken to secure the future of nationally relevant databases and methodologies, as he would wish. I can assure him, however, that the Carver report recommendations were fully implemented by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. All existing

    1267
    databases, methodologies and research contracts have been inherited by one of the new conservation bodies of the Joint Nature Conservancy Committee, as appropriate.
    Nothing has been lost in the process. The Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland has taken over data and contracts relevant to Scotland. These will, in turn, be transferred to Scottish Natural Heritage. Great Britain, United Kingdom and other international matters will be dealt with by the three new country agencies, acting through the Joint Nature Conservancy Committee.
    Only a few days ago, I was at the headquarters of the Countryside Commission for Scotland, at Battleby. The offices there, which are being converted, will be of assistance to the JNCC staff in the future.
    The hon. Gentleman also raised a point about clause 2, about which we had a useful discussion in Committee. I should emphasise that we are aware of the concern expressed by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland that development in designated areas should be of the highest standard. That is entirely proper. Our answer is that the RICS's concern is already taken account of as regards national scenic areas and SSSIs.
    There are no areas designated under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 or the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Accordingly, there is no need for clause 2(2) to refer to those enactments. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will be able to assure the institution that we are not trying to avoid the spirit of its proposals, since the essence of its concern has already been met. The present arrangements are satisfactory and will be carried forward to Scottish Natural Heritage when it comes into operation.
    7.15 pm
    Mr. Galbraith: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. He seems, however, to be slightly confused. He referred to the powers of last resort and nature conservation orders, but they are designed to deal with damaging activities on a site of special scientific interest. The new clause deals with the matter from the point of view of neglect. The question is not what a landowner may intend to do to a site but what he or she may fail to do. If a landowner were willing to enter into a land management agreement, it would cost him nothing. Therefore, the Minister's objections to the new clause are not well founded.
    I accept his statement that the attempt to deal with these matters by agreement has worked reasonably well up to now. I should not like to interfere with that arrangement. However, this would be a reserve power, to be used in exceptional circumstances when a site of special scientific interest was endangered through neglect. In those circumstances, a land management agreement could be offered to the owner. If he refused the offer, only then would this reserve power come into effect.
    Having heard the Minister's reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  New Clause 7

    ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE
    `( 1 ) No landowner or any other person or group of persons shall take any action which prohibits or impedes or reduces reasonable public access to the countryside without first reporting such proposed action to SNH.
    (2) SNH shall consult appropriate local authorities and advertise any proposed action under subsection (1) of this section.
    (3) If any objections are registered with SNH, then SNH shall arrange for a public inquiry to be held before deciding whether to approve or reject any proposed action under subsection (I) of this section.'.—[Mr. Canavan.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    During our debate on the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill it is appropriate that we should pay attention to public access to one of the most valuable parts of Scotland's natural heritage, the Scottish countryside. In terms of natural beauty, there are few, if any, countries which can equal Scotland. It is important to remember that the people of Scotland who, as a whole, have inherited that natural heritage have a duty to protect it, to ensure that it is used for the benefit of the people as a whole, and to pass it on to future generations for their enjoyment.
    Unfortunately, the land—particularly the countryside—does not in law belong to the people as a whole. Huge countryside estates, including some of Scotland's most famous mountains, hills and glens, are owned by wealthy landlords such as the Duke of Buccleuch—with 277,000 acres—the Wills family—with 263,000 acres—Lord Seafield—with 185,000 acres—the Countess of Sutherland—with 158,000 acres—and the Duke of Westminster with 113,000 acres. It is worth remembering that it was people like the ancestors of the Sutherland family who were responsible for the Highland clearances. Some of the likes of them today are not content simply with owning huge tracts of land in Scotland; they seem to be intent on trying to keep the people of Scotland from enjoying access to that land. The House should try to do something about that. The enjoyment of the Scottish countryside should be the birthright of all the people of Scotland—and of people from further afield who come to Scotland to enjoy its natural beauty and its other assets.
    I am not a lawyer, but, as I understand it, there is no common law of criminal trespass in Scotland and very little in the way of statute law and byelaws relating to criminal trespass. I hope that the Minister, who is a lawyer, will be able to say whether the law needs to be clarified and what improvements, if any, the Government have in mind, whatever the merits may be of my new clause.
    My understanding is that, if someone is causing, or threatening to cause, damage to property, or is being a nuisance, a landowner can initiate civil action through the courts by reporting the matter to the sheriff court and seeking an interdict—although that could be granted only against a named person or persons. I should welcome clarification of that from the Minister, who is a well-known Scottish advocate.
    Mr. Wilson: Is he?
    Mr. Canavan: The Minister certainly was at one time.
    It is my experience, and that of many who enjoy the countryside, that some landowners—not all—set a bad example by threatening walkers, climbers and innocent people even with violence. Those innocent people have no criminal intent; they want to enjoy a walk in the countryside or pursue a favourite sport or pastime.
    I declare an interest as I regularly enjoy walking, hill running and climbing, most of which I do in the Scottish countryside. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for

    1269
    Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), I cannot claim to have conquered all of Scotland's Munros. My hon. Friend is unique in the House—although I think that I might be the only hon. Member to have survived the Ben Nevis hill race on two occasions, and one has to be a bit of a masochist to enjoy that.
    I wish to give a couple of examples of my experiences. One winter's day a few years ago, I, my brother and some friends arrived at daybreak in Glen Lyon to do some mountain climbing. My brother, who is more civilised and polite than me, courteously asked a chap in a tweed suit to tell us the best way to go up the mountain. The tweed suit gruffly replied, "You don't." It was difficult to argue with him because he had a gun and a big dog, and there were some other tweed-suited thugs lurking in the background. They told us in no uncertain terms to clear off because they were deer stalking. They made thinly veiled threats that, if we did not clear off, we risked being shot—I do not know whether by accident or design. I was so incensed by that attitude that I initially wanted to stand my ground. However, because of the undesirability of a by-election, my colleagues persuaded me that it would be better to climb another mountain.
    I do not want to turn the debate into an argument about the morality or otherwise of certain blood sports, and whether they should even be taking place in the countryside. However, in all common sense there is a strong case for saying that there should be some regulation—preferably a statutory regulatory body—to decide whether certain activities should be given priority over other activities in certain areas at certain times. My new clause is a reasonable attempt to achieve that through the new Scottish Natural Heritage.
    I shall give another example from my home area that shows the difficulties of gaining access to the countryside. Not long ago, I was doing a bit of cross-country running—a harmless enough pursuit. I was training for the London marathon, and my route took me through a country estate. I was accosted by the husband of the landowner, who shouted, "What the hell do you think you are doing?" I kept on running, and politely replied, "What does it look like? I'm running".
    He drove ahead of me in his van and closed a gate to try to obstruct me. He virtually threatened me with violence if I went any further.
    That man did not succeed in scaring me, but I know that other people in the area, and especially elderly people, have been intimidated by his behaviour. They are being deprived of access to the countryside so that they cannot even enjoy a walk. It is not even a walk with a dog; if it were, that man would probably argue that the dog might worry sheep if it were allowed off the leash. Groups of elderly people are too frightened to go walking through the countryside because they are being intimidated. That is unacceptable, and it is time that the House got to grips with the problem. Such thuggery by landowners cannot be allowed to continue.
    I have quoted only two of my experiences; I could quote many more. Anyone who regularly enjoys countryside pursuits could cite many other instances of landowners using intimidatory and obstructive tactics, such as putting up barbed-wire fences and notices saying that trespassers will be prosecuted. Of course, in law the notices have no
    1270
    validity. Nevertheless, through that intimidatory behaviour, landowners are hounding and harassing innocent people, with the result that many of them are terrified of going into the countryside and enjoying Scotland's natural assets.
    My new clause would help to put a stop to that nonsense. The procedure that it outlines is simple. If a landowner had reasonable cause to limit or prohibit public access to an area of the countryside, he would first have to report his proposal to Scottish Natural Heritage. The agency would then consult the appropriate local authorities and advertise the proposal—something similar to a planning application—and people would have the right to register their objections. If there were such objections, Scottish Natural Heritage would arrange an appropriate public inquiry before deciding whether to approve or to reject the proposal. That is a straightforward and common-sense proposal.
    My new clause is a reasonable, practical measure that would clarify Scottish law. It would improve access to the countryside and it could lead to a charter on the right of the people to access to an important part of Scotland's natural heritage. I ask the House to accept it.
    Sir Hector Monro: I followed what the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said with great interest. He was right about the vagueness of the law of trespass—indeed, there is none. The best statement that I could obtain was from the Scottish Landowners Federation, of which I am a member, although I do not speak on its behalf. It is that no one has the right to enter anyone else's property without consent except by means of an established public footpath or roadway, and that anyone who does so is strictly a trespasser. The term "trespass" is in common use, but it has not been defined in Scotland in statute or by the courts. The main difference between Scotland and England on trespass is that the common law of Scotland, unlike that of England, provides no penalty for the simple act of trespass itself. Damage or nuisance must first be proved. That shows that in Scotland there is no law of trespass. There is, however, the right of ownership.
    7.30 pm
    We must try to bring people together when it comes to using and enjoying the countryside to the best of everyone's advantage. That is the key approach. I was quite taken by the approach of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) in Committee, where he took a responsible attitude and rightly explained the wishes of so many people to use our wonderful countryside but said that, at the same time, they should not, as it were, overstep the mark or cause a nuisance to those carrying on farming. The achievement of that careful balance is the key factor.
    So much depends upon attitudes. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West told us about his experience when running along a farm track. If he had stopped and asked the owner whether he would object if he, the hon. Gentleman, were to run along the track, I suspect that he would have been warmly welcomed to do so and told to enjoy his recreation. In many instances too much is taken for granted and not enough politeness is shown in using other people's property.
    Those of us who frequently use the hills know that we must be careful about erosion and generally causing

    1271
    damage to the landscape. The dangers become clear when we consider what has happened to Ben Lomond and the damage that has been caused in the Cairngorms. There are other concerns that turn upon farming operations, especially at lambing time. Other worries arise at nesting time, especially for many of the birds that we are keen to protect.
    I once had to speak for an hour in Committee about bulls on public footpaths. I dare say that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had to put up with my speech. I am not sure whether he listened to it with enthusiasm. There are many who can identify a bull, but not a heifer or a cow with a calf. They can be every bit as dangerous as a bull. People must be very careful when wandering about the hills if they are not aware of what they are doing.
    When so much depends on the rural economy and on providing employment in the countryside, we should not attack, as the hon. Member for Falkirk, West did, those who are carrying out legitimate sporting operations. Those activities are important and we must not prevent them. It must be realised that at certain times—for example, from mid-August to late September—important shooting takes place on the hills. The greatest worry is that on which the hon. Gentleman touched, stalking.
    We were highly critical in Committee—the same criticism has been made in the press—about the insufficient cull of deer in Scotland, and especially of hind. Stalking hind is an intricate and difficult operation, especially during the short days in Scotland in mid-winter. If hikers, hill climbers or hill walkers are on the hills at the same time, the operation becomes virtually impossible. A little co-operation either way would make a tremendous difference to everyone enjoying himself while cohabiting with our landscape.
    I shall not talk about the concerns that are expressed about litter, gates, fences and knocking down dykes. It is all too easy to think that we can climb a dyke. If the top stone is knocked out, however, the whole thing begins to fall down almost immediately. There is also the danger of fire in forests and, because of other factors, the inconvenience that is caused to fishermen. There must be a balance between water sports and the enjoyment of those who are fishing.
    When I was a Minister in the Department of the Environment and concerned with rural affairs, there was an immense amount of work to be done in protecting footpaths and bridleways. It is a relatively low key matter in Scotland. I am not sure whether district and regional councils have taken enough interest in establishing or retaining footpaths and producing maps so that people may know where there are rights of way. Similarly, I am not sure whether enough has been done to ensure that rights of way are available to enable the public to enjoy the countryside. We in Scotland are lagging behind in the development of footpaths and rights of way.
    So much could be taught in schools about how to enjoy the countryside, what to look out for and how not to be difficult at times that matter, such as nesting time and during critical farming operations. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West takes a swipe at the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry whenever he can. No one has done more than the duke and the Buccleuch estates to educate children in Scotland to appreciate the joys of the countryside. The duke takes many school parties to his estates at Bowhill, Drumlanrig and in Northamptonshire so that they may learn how an estate is run. They visit the sawmill, the farm,
    1272
    the gardens and the woodlands. The children leave with the feeling that they have begun to learn what enjoyment of the countryside is all about.
    Anything that Scottish Natural Heritage can do to bring teachers and others to understand and to teach that appreciation in our schools, the better it will be. I know that it is said that the curriculum does not allow for such teaching, but if we cannot find time for things that matter, such as the countryside, much of our children's education will be lost.
    It is extremely important to get right the balance of the use of the countryside. We must realise that everyone has an interest in achieving that. Only by working together in harmony will we all get the best out of the country.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: The major theme of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was co-operation. That is clearly a reasonable goal when we talk about access to and use of the countryside. It is the traditional Scottish attitude to these matters. We believe that the land belongs to the people of Scotland and future generations of Scots. The land is merely held temporarily in trust by the present generation.
    The Scottish attitude to our land and its enjoyment is that there should be freedom to roam, restricted only by the need to take care of the land and to be concerned about it. Passage should be allowed to those who give consideration to the needs of farmers and others who depend upon the land for their living. It is an alien experience when barriers are erected and rights of way are lost. The new clause seeks to clarify and consolidate the right of access of its people to the land of Scotland. I believe that it achieves the underlying purpose, within reasonable constraints, and will protect those who work on the land and gain a living by so doing.
    The Scots have always taken a stroppy attitude to feudal landowners who try to get them off the hills. My only criticism of the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Canavan) is that he was not stroppy enough during the incidents which he described. There is no law of trespass worthy of the term in Scotland. A person's home and garden are fully protected from unwelcome visitors, and rightly so, but provided that people keep to the countryside code and cause no damage or disturbance to livestock, there should be no barriers to wandering over the mountains or generally enjoying our magnificent scenery.
    Recent changes in ownership have led to certain changes in attitudes. Bit by bit, more and more estates are seeking to keep their lands for themselves and their friends. Many of the new estate owners come from the south of Britain, from the continent, the United States or the middle east, where the concept of public access to private property does not exist. There is a danger, because alien ideas are being introduced to Scotland by those who have no understanding of how the Scottish attitude to land has developed.
    Those new attitudes have brought with them, from the Borders to the Highlands, a growing infestation of notice boards and signs preventing and restricting access. The undeniable fact that a landowner cannot prosecute for trespass and that public authorities have limited control over campers is ignored. It is unacceptable that rights of way should be blocked up, barbed wire laid down and fences put up restricting what are clearly rights of way and the ability of people to enjoy the land of Scotland.

    1273
    Instead of the people of Scotland still imagining that their country is freely available to them, the opposite is becoming the case. Unless action is taken to reverse such trends, we will simply be herded into forestry parks or reservations of one kind or another, and that would be a great loss to Scotland. I certainly would not like to see the bulk of the Scottish people herded around and directed to specific areas, leaving our hills, lochs and mountain tops the private preserve of the fortunate and selfish few. If that ever happened, we would all be the losers and the Government would have made a big mistake. Therefore, I welcome the new clause, which reinforces the rights of the people of Scotland to their own land.
    One step in the direction of mediation and a straightforward way in which to help the people of Scotland would be if the Government were to consider ordnance survey maps which, in England, but not in Scotland, include rights of way. That would be a straightforward way in which to inform people of their rights, reinforcing traditional rights of access and preventing some of the worst practices of landlords taking over rights of way for their own purposes. Marking such rights of way on ordnance survey maps would be a simple way of informing people of their rights.
    The new clause clarifies the legal basis for access to Scotland's natural heritage. It establishes the principle that landowners should not exclude walkers from their land except where damage or intrusion into personal privacy might result. Therefore, I support the new clause and hope that the Government will accede to its basic premise that the land of Scotland belongs to the people of Scotland, and that their reasonable enjoyment of it should be allowed in harmony with other land users.
    Mr. Dalyell: About three months ago, I telephoned Sir James Stormonth Darling, the ex-secretary of the National Trust for Scotland, who is well known to the Minister and to my hon. Friends, on a completely unrelated matter. As soon as we had discussed our business, he said that he did not know why I was asking about that, because I should really be concerned about Mar Lodge.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have made a statement on that. I regret that the hon. Gentleman was not present.
    Mr. Dalyell: I know, and very inadequate it was. If it had been a half-decent statement, the House would have been spared my speech, but it is precisely because it was such an inadequate statement that I make no apology, with the good will of my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), for returning to the subject.
    I spare the House my three months of interest in the subject, but this very day there has been a leader on it, not the one in the Scottish newspaper which has been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, but in a national paper. It is entitled "Preserving Mar Lodge", and it says:
    "The decision by the American billionaire Mr. John Kluge to sell the 77,000 acre Mar Lodge estate in the Cairngorms raises questions about the future of a mountain landscape which is to Britain's natural environment what St. Paul's Cathedral is to our man-made heritage."
    Mr. Galbraith: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Dalyell: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend say, "Hear, hear." If there is scepticism among Conservative Members, let me put their minds at rest. This is not some Labour tabloid or newspaper; it is The Daily Telegraph. The leader writer goes on:
    "The sale, which coincides with the formation of the Natural Heritage Agency for Scotland, also creates an opportunity which, if not taken, will be lost for generations. The disclosure that the Prince of Wales is involved in negotiations to buy the estate on behalf of the Crown-Estate and the fledging Scottish Natural Heritage Agency shows that he believes that the opportunity to buy the estate for the nation must be grasped.
    The Prince of Wales should be wary of public ownership where other options exist. But the case of Mar Lodge is special."
    I did not think that there was much special about it from the response that my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden received from the Minister. I am on the side of The Daily Telegraph and against the Minister on this.
    The Daily Telegraph says:
    "But the case of Mar Lodge is special. It is so valuable that private ownership has meant foreign ownership for nearly 30 years. The rich men who have owned Mar Lodge have made mistakes—overstocking with deer and preventing one of the most magnificent fragments of Caledonian forests from regenerating, but they have kept it whole. The danger is now that a new buyer, anxious for a return on his investment, will split it up."
    Many of us would say amen to that. I am one of those who is fortunate to know something of this wonderful countryside.
    7.45 pm
    The Daily Telegraph goes on:
    "No government has faced up to the challenge of how to reconcile the conflicts in the Cairngorms, Britain's most important mountain landscape. Now there is the chance to demonstrate how to conserve nature on a large scale, while achieving income from sporting interests and restricting access to those who are prepared to make the long walk in. All depends on Mr. Lang, the Scottish Secretary"—
    or should we say, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)
    "He should be clear on two things: that endorsing the purchase of Mar Lodge would banish doubt about the Government's commitment to nature conservation, and that it would prove enormously popular among the moderate opinion that the Conservative party badly needs to win back in Scotland."
    It is not my business to suggest to the Conservative party how to win votes, but it is my business to say that there is a strong feeling that this is a major litmus test for Scottish Natural Heritage. The kind of statement that the Minister has made simply will not do for serious Scottish opinion.
    I do not criticise the Secretary of State for having just come in, but I am referring his ministerial colleague to the leading article on Mar Lodge in The Daily Telegraph today, of which I plead with him to take notice.
    I shall not abuse the time of the House, but I want to refer briefly to the statement made by Robert Edwards on 19 April:
    "Prince Charles was asked by Magnus Magnusson, chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council in Scotland, to approach the American billionaire, John Kluge, about the forthcoming sale of his 77,000-acre Mar Lodge estate which contains three of Britain's five highest mountains, rare flora and fauna. Kluge apparently refused to give the estate to the nation, but did agree to offer it to the Government or a consortium of voluntary organisations at the reduced price of £10 million, half of which could be paid over the next five years. It is expected to fetch over £13 million on the market."

    1275
    Are those figures available to the Scottish Office?
    The Minister will know what I am talking about i f I say, in parenthesis and without going into detail, that some individual properties have had millions—in the plural—of pounds from the national heritage memorial fund. We are not talking about something extraordinary but, dare I say, about less than the price of one Tornado. However, that is by the bye.
    An article in The Guardian stated:
    "Kluge appears to have set a deadline, the first week of May. Magnusson, unable to convince the Scottish Secretary … to fight the Treasury for cash, this week appealed to conservation organisations for help with emergency funding."
    There is nothing more urgent or important on the agenda
    of the infant body than a decision about Mar Lodge. If that body acted on Mar Lodge, it could receive a great deal of good will, and if some of it accrued to the Conservative party, so be it.
    I am not so inexperienced as to ask the Minister to get up to make a statement straight away, after what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). However, I should like him to tell us tonight that, tomorrow and in the coming week Ministers, will discuss the issue, possibly with a view to revising their opinion. It would be a heck of a pity if the historic chance to do something of lasting importance for the countryside of Scotland were lost.
    Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury): It is 107 years since James Bryce introduced the Access to Mountains Bill. For 107 years, the country has been waiting for a right for the people of this country to have access to the open countryside, which they should have the right to enjoy.
    I hope that my colleagues will forgive an Englishman for participating in the debate, but I claim a long and abiding passion for the Scottish landscape and countryside. Over the years, I have spent many happy days roaming the hills, mountains and wilderness of Scotland. I am delighted to say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) the shadow Chancellor, is now following in my footsteps and has embarked on the herculean task of completing the ascent of Scotland's 277 Munros.
    Barring a number of historical incidents of some notoriety—most notably perhaps, the famous battle of Glen Tilt, when an eminent professor and his students were on a geological expedition in the late Victorian years and were set upon by a landowner and his ghillies—the tradition in the Scottish hills, which is a good tradition, has on the whole been one of consensus. There has been reasonable access for those who want to walk, climb and take recreation in the Scottish countryside and, in return for their responsibility, permission for that access has been granted by the landowners. That consensus has been based on good will and, on the whole, it has worked. It has not worked by walkers asking permission every time they wanted to walk on any footpath—as I suspect the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) intended—but it has been a tradition of responsibility on the one side and access granted on the other.
    However, there are three problems that increasingly threaten the good practice of that tradition. First, the law does not always work well. Sadly, an increasing number of landowners deny access to reasonable members of the public who have no intention of causing damage to the landowners' property.
    1276
    A few years ago, I was sitting on top of one of the hills just to the south of Lochnagar in an area of rolling countryside and great beauty. My brother and I had walked on three or four of the mountains in the area. We were at summit Cairn when we were approached by an irate landowner who—as in the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)—carried a gun and was surrounded by a group of ghillies. He summarily ordered us off the mountain.
    We were doing no damage; we were not disturbing any sporting interests and we were not disturbing any movement of deer. We were merely out for a walk. The special irony of the event was that we were sitting in a national nature reserve—the Caenlochan nature reserve. Despite that, the landowner was able to use his intimidatory powers to remove us from the land. When something of that type can happen, I contend that the law is not operating properly or fairly in the interests of all.
    So the first problem is that the law does not always operate well. The second problem is that there is general confusion in the minds of many people who go into the Scottish hills about the exact state of the law. As the hon. Member for Dumfries stated, the law is somewhat unclear, because it does not prescribe a provision of trespass but it neverthless enables a landowner in some circumstances to remove a person from his land with the use of minimum force. An unclear law is not a good law. The new clause rightly seeks to clarify the law.
    The third problem is precisely the provision for the use of minimum force. Where it is possible for a landowner to remove walkers from his or her land by intimidation—by hassling them, by threats or perhaps by revealing rather obviously the possession of a gun—there must always be a potential problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West wishes to put that right, and I support him. He is attempting not only to put the law into a clearer perspective but to move it closer to, for example, Swedish provisions for access, which work well. They are supported almost universally within Sweden; they preserve the right balance between the landowner's right of privacy and the general public's right of access, and enshrine those rights sensibly in legal form.
    I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West will be successful in prevailing on the Government, although I doubt it. If we were able to enshrine such a provision in law for Scotland, I hope that it would give a lead for England and Wales. Therefore, I support the new clause.
    The natural heritage of Scotland is unsurpassed. It is a landscape of breathtaking beauty. It has peaks, ridges, lochs and desolation in some of the wildest parts of our country, and they should be for all to enjoy and to share. It should not be up to anyone, however mighty, to remove that opportunity for enjoyment from the rest of us. My hon. Friend seeks to secure that enjoyment for us and for future generations. It is a noble cause, and I support him in it.
    8 pm
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: I understand and share the objectives of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) who moved the new clause in his purpose of seeking to enlarge the freedom of the citizen to have access to Scottish rural areas. However, I am doubtful about the mechanisms that he has proposed

    1277
    to achieve it. His proposal appears to put in the hands of a Government-appointed quango the decision whether a right of access should be enjoyed in a particular area.
    That is a dangerous new power to give to a body such as Scottish Natural Heritage, and it could further restrict access in a way that would supplement and even empower proprietors to be more exclusive than some of them are at present. By simply prevailing on SNH that it had a good case to exclude the public, the proprietor would have the imprimatur of official approval which, at present, his ownership of itself may not give him. Far from achieving the purposes of Professor Bryce, to whom the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) so eloquently referred, I fear that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West could set back the very cause for which he so eloquently pleaded.
    We should not be unduly hung up on the precise terms and proposals of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West, who identifies a serious and important issue. Many of us who represent parts of the country to which the public wish to have access in increasing numbers are conscious that there is a problem of reconciliation of interests which should be tackled and that the law, with all the obscurities to which the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) referred, may not resolve the difficulties which are increasingly sharp in certain areas.
    Mention was made of the acquisition of estates by those who have shown less sensitivity to the custom and practice of those who have lived in the countryside than used to be the case. I do not, of course, exempt some of those who have lived in and known estates for a very long time from all blame for over-zealous exclusion of the public from their property.
    This type of debate invites anecdotal evidence in support of whatever point of view one wishes to put. I do not want to go too far down the road of recalling the occasion in the Strath of Kildonan when the proprietor spoke, with accents of earlier years, pretty roughly to me when I was sitting by the roadside eating a sandwich, having just been re-elected as member of Parliament. She spoke roughly in terms of the possible damage that I would do to her property by sitting there and allowing the crumbs from my lunch to fertilise the moss around me. Her remarks may have been animated by a certain disappointment about the result of the election. On the whole, I have not found such an attitude among those who have lived and worked in the area, whether proprietors or others.
    There are less attractive examples among the factors of estates. Factors often show the least sympathy for the public interest in access. They are rather at the sharp end of the conflict. There have been occasions when factors have deployed arguments that suggest that there is no time of year in some areas when it is suitable for the public to have access. They say that there is no time because it is either the time when people are stalking or shooting, or the time when the birdlife is breeding and the very scent of a human being could be enough to upset the eco-system over which the factors preside as the agents of the proprietor. Such an argument shows a certain lack of sympathy and understanding, and increases the desire to legislate where it is difficult to legislate without completely running into conflict over the use of land.
    1278
    Certain uses of land are inconsistent with public access at certain times. It is not consistent with public access to stalk or to drive grouse across a moor. Many other forms of activity have some benefit for rural areas, but are inconsistent with public access at certain times. The limits to those times should be subject to some agreement and understanding. We may be reaching a time when the most constructive way forward would be to seek to agree for particular areas codes of practice with proprietors and representatives of the public who could, publicly and openly, express their view of the public interest in an area of land.
    Like others, including the hon. Member for Falkirk, West, I do not wish to use the debate to run through the arguments about the appropriateness of blood sports. Field sports play a significant part, at least, in the highlands economy. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman or anyone else would wish to end such sports as a side wind of the proposal. That is not the purpose of the new clause.
    However, we cannot rest absolutely content with the law and practice as they stand. In the past, the law has allowed gentlemen such as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, whose hill-climbing endeavours fill less energetic Members with nothing but admiration, to reach those achievements broadly unimpeded, although with one or two unpleasant experiences such as that with which the hon. Gentleman regaled the House. He and others are right to point to the threat of change from the arrival of people who are less than sensitive to the growing public interest in access.
    We cannot reconcile those interests by old-fashioned means and by old-fashioned proprietorial power, with sticks, dogs, guns and threatening notices that imply or threaten action against those who appear on the land.
    I suggest to the Under-Secretary of State that he has an opportunity to emphasise the desirability of reconciling those interests and of reaching agreement on how they should be reconciled. That cannot be done Scotland-wide. The interests of heavily populated areas close to Glasgow, where the countryside is much more penetrated by people on weekend or even evening outings, are different from the interests of the more sparsely populated areas, further from population centres.
    If codes of practice are the route to follow, they must be studied and negotiated for areas narrower than Scotland as a whole. However, the time has come to take a lead in this, perhaps with the Scottish Landowners Federation. The time has come to discuss their interests and the interests expressed by the Ramblers Association, organisations promoting tourism and others to seek to ensure that the coutryside in Scotland, which is part of our heritage and with which we are concerned in the Bill, remains attractive and as open as we would like it to be.
    Mr. Bill Walker: I represent a constituency with huge agricultural and shooting interests and with a large tourist-related economy. I shall be brief, but I feel that it is important that anyone debating the measures contained in this clause should fully understand that we can have the economy that we have in Perthshire and in the part of Angus that I represent, with a balance in the use of land, only if people understand that balance. There have been some interesting, thoughtful and helpful speeches on that.
    There are times when it is just not suitable for people to wander willy-nilly around parts of Perthshire and Angus.

    1279
    They are a danger to themselves and to everyone else, and one must recognise that. There are other times when people are welcome, as they are in their hundreds of thousands in my constituency. They are certainly welcome on the slopes of Glen Shee, which has become increasingly popular, and I am delighted that it has had a good season this winter.
    The jobs provided from all those different activities show that the balance is important. There would be no economy in my constituency if there were not a balance between the rural and tourist-related interests, which are the providers of jobs. When anyone says that they believe that they should have unlimited access to any part of my constituency, I tell them that that is unrealistic. I spend a lot of my time walking around the mountain areas of my constituency and, because they are so beautiful, I understand why they attract people.
    Mr. Dalyell: I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's views on the Mar Lodge estate issue, although I know that it is just outside his constituency.
    Mr. Walker: I know the Mar Lodge estate quite well. Like the hon. Member for Linlithgow, I think that it is much too valuable an asset not to be available to the public at large, if that can be arranged, and I believe that it can. The hon. Gentleman will also know that in that part of Scotland there has been little difficulty in getting access. I used to live at the end of Glen Clova and I used to walk regularly over the top of the hills. There were never any problems. In those days, it was not unusual to bump into members of the royal family. They did not know me, but I knew who they were, so I had the advantage over them.
    Let me make it clear that I was speaking largely to the interests of my own constituency and drawing the attention of the House to the importance of balancing rural interests with those of tourists and leisure and recreation activities. People who use the countryside extensively understand that balance. I find that the only people who give trouble are those who have an axe to grind for some reason or another. People who are interested in that balance and interested in the use of the countryside rarely have difficulty in being accommodating, either in their interests or their activities.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Galbraith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) for moving the amendment, and to all those hon. Members who have spoken and have covered the ground fairly well, making it easy for me to be brief.
    I cannot claim, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West can, to have run up and down Ben Nevis in the Ben Nevis hill race. I am not a masochist. Nor can I claim, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) can, to have climbed all the Munros. I am not a Munro bagger, with or without a beard, as Muriel Gray would have it.
    I can claim to have spent the largest part of my life in the Scottish mountains—or at least most of the weekends of my life. I started initially with the Renfrewshire hills and moved on to the Scottish mountains, the Alps and then to the Himalayas. I shall repeat what I said in Committee, which the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)
    1280
    obviously noted. Throughout that time in the mountains and on the many trips that I have made to climb their rock and ice faces, I have never had any difficulty with access.
    I do not have any experiences such as those that have been recounted by my hon. Friends. I have sometimes had to change my plans because of stalking or for other reasons, but that was always easily accommodated by a discussion with the keeper who would give me directions to go elsewhere. Perhaps I am fortunate, but that is my experience. That is due to the traditional nature of access to the Scottish mountains, from which we have all benefited.
    The traditional right of access is best summed up by Lord Thurso, one of the ogre figures mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). We do not often agree with the noble Lord, but I think that we should again quote what he has said about access to his land:
    "I'm perfectly content with the Scots law of trespass which is that you can walk across my land but you can't stop and use it …Everybody has a right of passage, but only the owner has a right of use. This approach suits me perfectly well. It works very well and always has done."
    I accept that that is the way that access has traditionally worked. In my case and for many other people, and even for my hon. Friends, it has worked very well, apart from a few exceptions.
    However, we must recognise that the position in the Scottish mountains is changing, for whatever reasons. It might be due to a change in landowners' use, although I am not necessarily sure that that is the case as there were always troublesome landlords in the past and some new ones may or may not be more troublesome. There is also the question of forestry land which has been sold to private owners, which will obviously affect access.
    Whatever the reasons for a change in attitude, there is no doubt that it has changed. It came home to me only at the weekend. As many hon. Members will know, for obvious reasons, I have been away from the mountains for about three years. I was in Glen Coe once again at the weekend, at the Kingshouse, from where one can gain access to the Black Mount estate. When I passed by there I noticed the increased hassle factor, as we would describe it on the mountains. A road leads up towards Ben Alder from just beside the Kingshouse. It had always had open access, but now there is a closed gate and a rather large sign pointing out that it is private land and listing all sorts of stipulations. None of the signs has any legal basis, but if one is unclear about whether one can gain access and about one's rights there is no doubt that notices saying "Don't trespass" and "Private land" are intimidating. The hassle factor is increasingly occurring on Scottish land. Unless it is dealt with now, it will cause further disturbance as more and more people seek access to the Scottish mountains.
    There is no doubt that more and more people are frequenting the mountains. In the early 1960s, if one went to the north side of Ben Nevis to do one of the climbs on an August bank holiday, one might have been the only person there. I remember one bank holiday when I was the only person on the face of Ben Nevis. I was climbing an observatory buttress.
    Now, although not in the Lake District proportions where one has to queue, more and more people are seeking access to the mountains in Scotland. There is a climb known as Point Five. Aficionados among us will know

    1281
    that that is a nice, high-standard, popular climb. It was climbed for the first time only in the 1960s, yet by the late 1960s to early 1970s, we had to start queuing at 3 o'clock in the morning to gain access to the mountain, almost as one does in the Alps.
    The Countryside Commission for Scotland recently asked System Three to carry out a poll on access to the countryside. It was found that 61 per cent. of the people sampled—almost two thirds of the respondents—claimed that they walked in the countryside of Scotland. Almost two thirds of the population claim to climb or walk in the countryside of Scotland. That is the extent of the problem.
    The recent Munro book by the Scottish Mountaineering Trust almost instantly sold 50,000 copies. We can extrapolate from that that between 10,000 and 15,000 trips are made to the mountains each year. Of the people who went into the mountains, 61 per cent. had difficulty knowing where they were going and what their rights of access were. Three quarters of the sample—almost 72 per cent.—agreed that people should have freer and better access to the mountains.
    The survey showed how public opinion regards the problem. The problem must be set against the ever-increasing number of difficulties. I do not have any personal anecdotes of difficulty with access, but many examples are coming into the public domain. We have all heard about the troubles of the Kintail mountain rescue team. It wanted to produce a booklet on walks in the Kintail region in order to raise funds. The local landowner threatened to prevent the team from gaining access to his land, even for mountain rescue purposes.
    In fairness to the Scottish Landowners Federation, it disowned the position taken by the landowner. It has always been reasonable and I commend it for that. It regards the traditional approach as the correct one. It wishes to negotiate access and achieve a balanced approach. It did not support its member in Kintail. The letters column of the West Highland Free Press contained a letter from one member who was threatened with prevention of access. That is a most excellent journal run by an extremely able individual, although I am not sure who he is. Sometimes I am not sure whether he knows who he is. The member said:
    "I have enjoyed hill walking for over 20 years and have always attempted to co-operate with the estates over stalking etc. Increasingly, however, I have had blanket refusals of access, even though there is no stalking in the immediate area."
    There is a nice wee footnote at the bottom which says:
    "Donations to Kintail Mountain Rescue Team funds should be sent to Sergeant Charles Gillies, Police Station, Kyle of Lochalsh."
    I read that out for the benefit of hon. Members.
    That is one of the incidents which have arisen. A more recent one took place on Saturday 13 April 1991 on the lands of Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
    Sir Hector Monro: Ah.
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member for Dumfries obviously knows Lord Pearson.
    Sir Hector Monro: No.
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman wishes to dissociate himself from Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I realise why. Lord Pearson was the famous individual of the sites of special scientific interest amendment in the Lords.
    Four hill walkers were on open hill on Lord Pearson's land, 3 km from Rannoch station, when they were told to get off by two men wearing military garb. The men said that it was a shooting area and gave no other explanation. They said that the owner of the land was Lord Pearson.
    Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that from time to time the military make use of that part of his Lordship's estate. It is possible that the men were in military garb, and properly entitled to be so.
    Mr. Galbraith: As far as I know, the area is not under the control of the Ministry of Defence, so, whether shooting was going on there or not, the men had no right to ask others to remove themselves from the area or to do so on behalf of Lord Pearson.
    I hope that the Minister will comment on another worrying development on access to the land. I hope that he will dissociate himself from it. Professor Sir Frederick Holliday, the chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, was reported in the Press and Journal on 22 January as saying that there should be
    "a system of tradeable permits for public access to the countryside, with prices set by the government or the landlords."
    That is a most worrying development. Access to the countryside would be restricted and controlled by permits which would be sold.
    Not unnaturally, the Ramblers Association was somewhat upset by that limitation of access to the land. It wrote to Professor Sir Frederick Holliday. He replied:
    "The report in the Press and Journal was only partly correct. I have long held the view that access to certain parts of the countryside will have to be restricted and paid for."
    That was said by the chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. That is a Government body. Does the Minister agree with that? Will he take this opportunity to dissociate himself and his Government from that statement?
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West for introducing the amendment. It deals with access to the countryside. I would like the traditional method to continue. I have had no problems with it in the past. However, there are increasing difficulties. We seek simply to provide a right of access to mountain areas—not to allow use or abuse of the mountain areas. We seek simply a right of access and clarification of the law. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the new clause.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with what the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said earlier. There is no common law of criminal trespass. The hon. Gentleman asked me for my legal opinion. He was also correct in saying that an interdict, which can be granted, can take effect only against a named person. Civil liability exists only for damage caused by trespass—for example, if someone took a dog into an area in calving or lambing season and upset the animals. Trampling of a cornfield could also be considered unreasonable.
    My hon. Friend the member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) correctly stated the position in law. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) also gave a clear definition of the position. I am glad that

    1283
    the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) spoke in the debate. We welcome hon. Members, who, although they represent other parts of Britain, greatly enjoy the countryside of Scotland. He said that the natural heritage of Scotland was unsurpassed and should be for all to enjoy. I am wholeheartedly in agreement with that.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) stressed the importance of a balance in the use of land. That is absolutely correct. In Scotland, we have traditionally enjoyed the freedom to roam, derived from a mutual respect and understanding between those who own and manage the land and those who wish to use the land for recreation. In the eyes of the majority of commentators, this relationship has worked well and it is one that we are determined to see continue. We do not believe that the simple solution proposed by the new clause is the right solution. It not only ignores the many complex issues that surround access but introduces its own particular difficulties. For example, I do not envy the person asked to adjudicate, under the terms of subsection (1) whether the restriction or denial of access was reasonable.
    Even if one gets over that hurdle, the new clause is unnecessary. Where Scottish Natural Heritage identifies a need for a particular track of land to be accessible, it will have a range of powers to negotiate means of securing that access. It will, under clause 12, be empowered to negotiate access agreements and, where appropriate, seek the Secretary of State's approval for an access order.
    8.30 pm
    Scottish National Heritage will also be able to negotiate management orders under section 49(a) of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967, as amended by schedule 10 With those powers, the SNH will be able to negotiate the means to protect the national heritage where necessary. Those powers are more flexible than the specific legislative provision in the new clause and would allow for a clearer focusing of priorities as to where access is necessary.
    I accept what has been said about more needing to be done. Indeed, it is for that reason that a thorough-going review is currently being carried out by the Countryside Commission for Scotland. The commission has been involved in opening up access among many waterways in Scotland. The Clyde Calders initiative is one near a centre of population, so a great many benefit from that, and that is a good use of public funds.
    In carrying out this review, we are also involving the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, but it would be premature to take any action before the review is completed. There will, of course, be full consultation and decisions should not be made before that has been carried out. We welcome the initiative and look forward to an early report. We feel that at this stage it would be inadvisable to cut across the detailed consideration of the review by introducing a new legislative provision of this type, bearing in mind that access agreements can, and we very much hope will, be forthcoming.
    The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about Mar Lodge. It is premature to make any decisions. Negotiations are under way concerning the purchase, and the means to finance the management, of the estate. Until they are concluded and the proposition is put to the Secretary of State, it would be unreasonable to expect the Government to make any commitment. The hon.
    1284
    Gentleman will see in Hansard precisely what I said this evening in response to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden.
    Mr. Dalyell rose——
    Mr. Galbraith rose——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the Minister giving way?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Dalyell.
    Mr. Dalyell: It may be premature, but I think that what we can sensibly ask for tonight is that, before any irrevocable move is made, there will be at meeting of Ministers to discuss matters. Once the sale starts, without compensation and all sorts of legal entanglements, it will be a juggernaut that cannot be stopped. I am asking a straight question of the Secretary of State and the Minister. Can we be certain that, before any procedure starts, there will be a meeting of Ministers at which the excellent and powerful leader in The Daily Telegraph will be taken into account? It says:
    "Now there is the chance to demonstrate how to conserve nature on a large scale, while achieving income from sporting interests and restricting access to those who are prepared to make the long walk in. All depends on Mr. Lang, the Scottish Secretary."
    Well, for his own house journal—no, I must not say that. If a distinguished newspaper such as The Daily Telegraph, a newspaper that I respect very much, in a clever article, says that, surely it is time to step back and think.
    Lord James Douglas Hamilton rose——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the Minister was giving way.
    Lord James Douglas Hamilton: I thought that I had finished, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will just say——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I asked the Minister if he was giving way and he indicated that he was.
    Lord James Douglas Hamilton: I was not aware that I had given way but, if that is your ruling, I can respond in one sentence by saying that I will keep in touch with the situation but I cannot go further than that at present.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us be quite clear. Is the Minister giving way or is he not?
    Lord James Douglas Hamilton: I think that I have finished now.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The Minister is not giving way. In that case, do I have another speaker? Mr. Galbraith.
    Mr. Wilson: I will take over where my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) left off. I think that my hon. Friend wanted to point out to the Minister that he had not replied to the important question about the letter from the chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Professor Sir Frederick Holliday. In it, the professor came up with the remarkable statement:
    "I have long held the view that access to certain parts of the countryside will have to be restricted and paid for."
    I hope that the Minister will come in at the end of my brief remarks in order to respond.
    Mr. Maclennan: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his brief remarks, will he agree that the attitude expressed by Professor Holliday must make some of us pause before putting into the hands of SNH the power to determine whether public access should exist that is provided for in this clause. Although we understand and welcome the desire to increase public access, many of us do not think that this is the way to do it.
    Mr. Wilson: The point is extremely well taken and I will come to it in a moment.
    I do not want to delay the House at all but there is a wider perspective to the access question. What worries me about the debate is this. Everything that has been said by the Opposition parties is correct. There is always concern for the use of walkers and climbers and all the other people who go into the countryside for leisure purposes. The deprivation of access to the Scottish countryside and to huge areas of the natural terrain of Scotland has a much longer history than that. It affects communities that once lived and worked there and are now denied access in that broader sense.
    What we are now down to in many areas is the margin of the debate. When there are people out with guns frightening off the odd individual that comes along, that is the last stage in the process. The major work of denying access was done by past generations, who got rid of the bulk of the people who lived and worked and had a right to be in that area.
    I am conscious of the argument that this is all due to a new breed of landlord, people who do not understand the Scottish countryside, and so on. In the days of the old breed of landlord, Jock was as good as his master and everyone lived happily in a sort of Caledonian Valhalla. It is rubbish. These problems have been created by the old breed of landlord, the people who removed the vast bulk of the people from the land in the first place.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred to the Glen Tilt case. There we had a fine Scottish figure of a man—the Duke of Athol of that time—driving people off the land. He told the Cambridge students, "It is not a public way. It is my private drive. You shan't come down. The deer are coming. The deer are coming."
    My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has been quoting from The Daily Telegraph editorials of 1991, but we can go back 100 years to the editorial in The Times based on that incident. The Times devoted a long leader to the incident in which it said:
    "The public have as perfect a right of way through the Vale of Glen Tilt as the Duke of Athol has to the possession of any acre of the property which constitutes his estate. The right in the one place, as the title in the other, is the mere creature of law."
    The leader concluded as follows:
    "The two Cambridge students would have an easier remedy against the Duke of Athol if they cared to bestir themselves in the business. Certainly it would be rendering the public a service to bring this hotheaded foolish man to his senses."
    I should be quite interested to know now whether the right of way in Glen Tilt—
    Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that Glen Tilt is also in my constituency and there is no problem today getting into Glen Tilt, and I regularly picnic there with my family. In fact, there is only one
    1286
    shepherd living there now. However, 20 or 30 men from Glen Tilt went to the Korean war. That gives some idea of the change that has taken place in that glen.
    Mr. Wilson: I am delighted to hear that. If it is so, it is only because, over the generations, the right of access has been asserted on a regular basis.
    The great causes celebres concerning access in the highlands and islands have not involved individual hill walkers. Consider the pet lamb case in Kintail, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) will know. It was absolutely crucial from the point of view of asserting the right of the people who lived there to put their stock on to estates. The pet lamb had wandered into a deer forest owned by a man called Winnis. He invoked the whole majesty of the law to deny the right to put even one lamb on the land. That case was not about individual access; it was about the right of a community to access to huge swathes of land that had been taken from it.
    This is not some new phenomenon. Consider the last land raids in the highlands and islands, which took place after the second world war. The Nazi collaborator Lord Brockett was the owner of a large estate. The men coming home from the war, who had fought against the side that the noble Lord had supported, were denied the right to establish themselves in smallholdings. He, too, invoked the majesty of the law to remove them. At present, issues of access concern individuals, who might be told by some latter-day charlatan, "Get off. This is my land." The reason the conflict has been removed is that the mass of the people have been removed. That is the historic background.
    I am interested in rights of access and in legislation on rights of access, but I am not concerned simply with the protection of hill walkers and mountaineers. All these people are perfectly worthy, but my concern is to assert the right of people to have access once again to all the land that can make a community more viable. The greatest obscenity in the highlands and islands is that tiny communities have to cling for their very existence to a peninsula or island, while the vast area behind them is denied to them as it is still held for deer, or for some other useless purpose for which it was taken a century or a century and a half ago. Until that historic wrong has been righted, the whole issue of access to land in Scotland, particularly in the highlands and islands, will not have been addressed. The issue should have been addressed, politically and legislatively, a long time ago. There is much unfinished business.
    I accept the remarks of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about the other side of this argument, about the danger of putting the power in the hands of conservation bodies or of defining too tightly the areas to which people should have access. If areas are defind too tightly, it may be inferred that areas that are not defined are not open to people. This is the argument against rights of way. The balance has to be maintained. This matter will be considered by a Labour Government. It is necessary to get the balance right and, where necessary, to enshrine rights.
    In this context, it is appropriate to quote Bill Murray, a respected mountaineer and writer on mountains. He said recently:
    "There is now too much uncertainty about the legal situation regarding public access to land."

    1287
    That is one side of the coin. The other is that we should not, for the sake of giving a liberal freedom, over-restrict by defining a liberal freedom. That is the balance we must get right.
    In conclusion——
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Hear, hear.
    Mr. Wilson: The Government Whip should not come in at this point to say, "Hear, hear."
    Mr. Clark: I said it.
    Mr. Wilson: Maybe the Minister should watch his tongue. We know something about his activities in the part of the world about which we are talking. If he wants to have the debate turned in that direction——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will oblige me by returning to the amendment.
    Mr. Wilson: If the Minister does not desist, he and his hon. Friends will be here for a very long time tonight. We shall be delighted to get into a debate about the stewardship of land in the highlands and islands and about his right to hold so much land there. If he wants to have a debate, let him come to the Dispatch Box. Many hon. Members would say that lie has no such right and that he is an impediment to the lives of, and a parasite upon, the people of the highlands and islands. [Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene? Can he speak only from his backside position? Does he want to enter into the debate?
    Sir Hector Monro: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you please ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the word "parasite"? Surely it is quite improper.
    8.45 pm
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would withdraw the word "parasite" so that we may get on with the debate in an orderly fashion.
    Mr. Wilson: I shall alter it to say that the whole breed of landlords, particularly absentee landowners in the highlands and islands, are parasites. I say so with absolute confidence. This is not peculiar to the Minister. He is one of that breed. Let me remind you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it was he, with his remarks from a sedentary position, who introduced this note into the debate. These issues matter to the people who live in the region. The Minister is an irrelevance at best, and a parasite at worst.
    Mr. Alan Clark: The hon. Gentleman should not make accusations of that kind. I do not give a damn whether this may be thought to be extraneous to the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I withdraw the word "damn". I do not care a fig for the niceties of this procedure. The hon. Gentleman has made accusations against me. He should justify those accusations. I suspect that he does not know anything about the way in which my family administers its land in Sutherland. We believe that we administer it as responsibly and decently as possible. The hon. Gentleman should flesh out his accusations. He need take only a minute and a half to do so. I should be glad to listen to any
    1288
    charge in support of his serious allegations. Some would say that such allegations against a parliamentary colleague are improper.
    Mr. Wilson rose——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am more interested, and the House is more interested, in hearing a debate about the amendment that is before us than in hearing a debate about personalities. I shall be grateful if hon. Members on both sides of the House would deal with the amendment.
    Mr. Wilson: I shall be very happy to get back to the subject under debate. May I say, for the record, that I was totally unaware of the hon. Gentleman's presence in the Chamber until he chose to intervene?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The record will stand.
    Mr. Wilson: The record will stand, as will my remarks.
    This is a debate about access to land in Scotland. It is about the need for legislation to assert the historic right to roam. It is about freedom of access to land and about the redevelopment of communities which have been excluded in recent times. These are proud clauses with a very long history, and I am very pleased to associate myself with them.
    Question put and negatived.

  Clause 3

    DUTY TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN MATTERS
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 44, leave out `, and' and insert';
    ( ) the interests of owners and occupiers of land, and'.
    Clause 3 identifies the wide range of interests that the SNH should take into account in carrying out its functions. We have been reflecting further on the wording of the paragraphs of this clause to ensure that they are both all-embracing and have sufficient clarity to enable the SNH to operate effectively. The needs of agriculture, fisheries and forestry and the needs of social and economic development in Scotland or any part of Scotland cover the majority of situations. We accepted an amendment tabled in another place to the effect that the SNH should take appropriate account of the interests of local communities.
    As was said in Committee, the definition of "communities" is not an easy one. We wish to ensure that the interests of owners and occupiers of land, who will be major partners with SNH in conserving and enhancing the natural heritage, are taken fully into account. Without taking the interests of owners and occupiers of land, as well as the interests of local communities, into account, the SNH will not be able to perform its statutory functions effectively.
    I emphasise that, while the amendment in no way means that SNH will be beholden to owners and occupiers of land, it will be expected, where appropriate, to take their interest into account, along with the other needs and interests set out in the clause, in carrying out its functions. It will be for SNH to judge in each case what the balance should be between the different needs and interests as set out in the clause. I hope that the House will also appreciate

    1289
    that SNH is expected to take only appropriate account of those various needs and interests. It cannot override its primary aims and purposes as set out in clause 1.
    Mr. Dalyell: How much consultation has taken place over this issue? I understand from Dave Morris, representing the ramblers, from Wildlife Link, from Michael Taylor and others, that there has been little consultation, and that, in any event, the consultation period was due to go on until the late summer. People are asking, in effect, "Are the Government not sufficiently interested in our views to wait until the consultation has taken place?" The Government may have their side of the story on that. If so, may we be told it? I ask because serious people who are not automatically hostile to the Government are aggrieved by what has occurred. Will the Minister clarify the position?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am not certain to what the hon. Gentleman is referring. There have been a number of consultation documents and we have tabled the amendment partly as a result of debates in the other place on the balance, duty and nature of the provision to ensure that it covers all necessary matters, without making it too specific, so that we shall not have to change the clause year by year. We think that we have the balance right and that it is appropriate for the amendment to be made.
    Mr. Maclennan: I welcome the amendment. It may open up the possibility of judicial review of action taken by the SNH, which is apparently in defiance of the interests of owners and occupiers of land. It may give them a locus standi in the courts. That may be a residual remedy if the SNH were to exercise its functions with little regard for some of the interests of the community, in the way in which the predecessor organisation did in the past. I believe that some people with interests in, for example, forestry and farming or in activities with some economic benefit to the community, had those interests interfered with by the predeessor organisation. They will now have access to the courts, and while that may never be necessary —I hope that disputes will be resolved amicably—the amendment could be valuable in that respect and should be supported.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 19

    DROUGHT ORDERS
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 13, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert
    'and where applications are made both by a board and by an authority in respect of the same locality, the Secretary of State may make separate drought orders in favour of the board and in favour of the authority.'.
    This amendment seeks to clarify that the Secretary of State may, if appropriate, grant orders both to a water authority and to a water development board in respect of a drought affecting one area. While it might be expected that the water authority could be in the lead in such cases, a board would require an order to allow it to meet any request from the authority for additional supplies. The problem might be that, in case of drought, the water authority would need extra supplies from the Central
    1290
    Scotland water development board, which had huge supplies, and both the water authority and the development board would need a drought order of their own to achieve that.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 27

    SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
    Amendments made: No 11, in page 19, line 45 after `4(2)', insert 'and (4) of this Act'.
    No. 12, in page 19, line 45, after '26', insert 'of'.
    No. 13, in page 19, line 46, after '11', insert `to this Act'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

  Schedule 2
    AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS CONFERRING NATURE CONSERVATION FUNCTIONS
    Amendment made: No. 14, in page 24, line 35, after '21)', insert ', in subsection (7)(a)' —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
  Schedule 8

    PROCEDURE FOR MAKING DROUGHT ORDERS
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 39, line 30, after 'circulating', insert `(i)'.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Government amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This series of amendments would add to the advertisement requirements for drought order applications the requirement for an advertisement in the area from which alternative supplies of water are proposed to be taken to meet deficiencies elsewhere. This is appropriate so that those who have an interest in the alternative sources may have an opportunity to raise any objections to the applications.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 16, in page 39, line 31, after `order', insert'; and
    (ii) within any locality from which, in the opinion of the applicant, an alternative supply is likely to be taken,'.
    No. 17, in page 40, line 29, after 'place', insert '(i)'.
    No. 18, in page 40, line 30, after 'order', insert '; and
    (ii) within the locality from which, in the opinion of the applicant, an alternative supply of water is likely to be taken,'. —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

  Schedule 10

    MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS
    Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 45, line 12, leave out 'quarter' and insert 'third'.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time the following amendments: No 4, in page 45, line 17, leave out 'quarter' and insert 'third'.
    No. 5, in page 45, line 22, leave out 'half' and insert `third'.
    Mr. Galbraith: An aspect that has characterised the Bill has been the amount of cross-party agreement and support for the measure and many of its provisions, and our debates—barring the odd incident such as that which occurred a few moments ago—have been held in good spirit with consideration of each others position. But the provision dealing with the variation and composition of river purification boards is a piece of nasty political spite and represents manoeuvring and gerrymandering by the Government.
    The Government intend to reduce the number of local authority representatives on the boards. We are dealing here not simply with an isolated incident but with a pattern that has developed while the Conservatives have been in power. They have gradually been removing the democratically elected representatives on boards, replacing them with their own sycophantic appointees and lackeys. That has been happening to health boards and many other institutions for which the Government have responsibility.
    This nasty trend is being continued with river purification hoards. The Government have sought, through amendments introduced in Committee, to reduce to a minimum the number of local authority representatives. It has been a case of death by a thousand cuts. We fear that, in due course, the Government will introduce regulations to reduce their numbers still further, until such bodies are stuffed full of Government appointees. those bodies becoming nothing short of rest homes for failed Tory candidates and failed former MPs. Is it nothing more than once again a nasty piece of political spite to try to achieve by subterfuge and devious methods what they cannot do by democratic means?
    9 pm
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As the Opposition know, we consulted widely before making the provision. The vast majority of those consulted agreed with us and not with the Opposition on the matter. The change which we intend to make in the proportions of members of river purification boards is linked to our plan also to reduce the size of boards, while nevertheless enabling a wider range of interests to be appointed by the Secretary of State. Clearly, if we have smaller boards but need more places for Secretary of State appointments, we would have to reduce the number of other appointments made. That would mean reducing the numbers appointed by regional and district councils.
    I emphasise that our proposals will still make certain that half of each board comprises local authority members. Their contribution is most certainly valued. The other half, although appointed by the Secretary of State, will represent not his interests but, as at present, those of the various groups to which they belong. Indeed, the views of industry, wildlife bodies, ecology interests, commercial fisheries, anglers and others should rightly be heard.
    The plans do not add up to centralisation of control; far from it. What they mean is that the river purification boards will be seen to be independent, as they should be, of both central and local government.
    I should also mention in relation to the boards that it is important not to erode their independence. Councils are not free to alter the amounts requisitioned by the river purification boards or to transfer those funds to other areas of local authority expenditure; nor are boards
    1292
    accountable to councils as such but ultimately to the Secretary of State. They set their own budgets and make their own decisions. They publish annual reports, and any member of the public is free to take up any matter with any board member directly.
    The essence of the matter is that the change has been introduced because the vast majority of responses to consultation supported it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: No. 19, in page 47, line 26, at end insert—
    `( ) a Natural Heritage Area designated under section 6 of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991;'.
    No. 20, in page 47, line 47, at beginning insert—
    '(1) The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 shall be amended as follows.'.
    No. 21, in page 47, line 47, leave out
    `of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984'.
    No. 22, in page 47, line 51, at end insert—
    '(3) In section 98(1) (control of stray and other animals on roads) for the word "countryside" there shall be substituted the word "land".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

  Schedule 11

    REPEALS
    Amendment made: No. 23, in page 49, line 29, column 3, at end insert—
    'In section 98, subsection (6).'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
    9.2 pm
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I am sure that the House is by now very familiar with the main purpose behind the Bill: to establish Scottish Natural Heritage by merging the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland. To that end, the Bill provides SNH with general aims and purposes, sets out its various functions and responsibilities and updates particular powers which it will inherit from its predecessor bodies under existing legislation. The House will know that we consider that the Bill offers SNH a positive and flexible framework within which to operate in pursuit of its goal of the improved management and conservation of our precious natural heritage throughout Scotland.
    Mr. Dalyell: Having listened patiently, does the Secretary of State agree that, when he talks of goals, the first goal that he and his colleagues will have to consider is the difficult question of the Mar Lodge estate? It is legitimate to ask the Secretary of State, who has heard the exchange, whether he accepts that he has a special responsibility in that matter.
    Mr. Lang: I heard the hon. Gentleman's interventions earlier on the matter. I think that it would be inappropriate for me to seek to add anything to what my hon. Friend has already said in reply. Apart from anything else, the matter is not covered by the Bill, which is what we are debating on Third Reading.
    There have, of course, been valuable and constructive debates on a number of points at each of the various stages of the Bill, and I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed to them. We have made a number of important changes to the Bill as a result. We have introduced clause 6, which provides for the opportunity

    1293
    for the establishment of natural heritage areas. We have removed the former clause 11, which would have required SNH to review all existing sites of special scientific interest, with subsequent appeals against continued designation. We have also amended the balancing duty of clause 3 to require SNH to take appropriate account of the conservation of archaeological and historical sites.
    We also made some rather technical but nevertheless significant changes to clause 4 to make sure that SNH's relationship to the Joint Nature Conservancy Council will be exactly the same as the NCCS's. A new clause, clause 12, was added to extend to SNH the provisions of part II of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. It will allow the new body, as well as planning authorities, to enter into access agreements or promote access orders designed to allow the public access to open country.
    Even more importantly, perhaps, the Bill has given us the chance to discuss the major issues facing Scotland's natural heritage. These include the national parks debate, the principles of the SSSI system, fish farming and forestry. We have also had informed discussions about the importance of a Gaelic name for SNH and, of course, the question of the possible reintroduction of wolves and wild boars.
    Hon. Members will also know that parts II and III make important provision for dealing with water resources with regard to irrigation and drought in Scotland. Further provisions on the management of water resources have been introduced during the passage of the Bill—for example, the raising of penalties for certain offences under the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968.
    I am confident, and have been throughout my involvement with the Bill, that it is a necessary and important step towards the better understanding and use of our natural heritage. With the dedication and commitment of its staff and the co-operation of all those concerned in land use and management,. I believe that SNH will be successful in its aims. I thank hon. Members for the efficient way in which they have dealt with consideration of the Bill, both in Committee and in the Chamber.
    I believe that the important amendments which we have made to the Bill in this House are crucial to the proper working of SNH, and I trust that all concerned, including those in another place, will see the wisdom and value of what we are doing by means of the Bill. I commend it to the House.
    9.7 pm
    Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his remarks about the work of the Committee. The Committee's and tonight's proceedings—with a brief blemish from the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), who has now mercifully departed—were amicable and constructive. We share the aim of improving a Bill to create an agency that will work effectively to achieve the ends for which it is being set up. I have enjoyed the Committee's work and tonight's proceedings and believe that we have a better Bill now than we had at the start. In that spirit, we shall send a message to Scottish Natural Heritage that it is the profound hope of Labour
    1294
    Members that, when it comes into operation, it will do its work well for all the people and the natural inheritance of Scotland which is entrusted to it and to all of us.
    I wish to press the Secretary of State once more on the question of Mar Lodge. Clearly, it is at the forefront of the debate in environmental terms. There seems to be wide support for the idea that it should be transferred to some form of public or community ownership. When we can unite an American billionaire, Prince Charles and every environmental organisation in the country, it would be a pity if the Secretary of State were to prove the impediment out of pure apathy. I do not suggest that, of the cast that I have mentioned, I am the most influential, but the Secretary of State would have the full support of the Labour party if he took steps to ensure that the aim of bringing Mar Lodge estate into public ownership was pursued. In deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I should have included the editorial writers of The Daily Telegraph in the list of personalities who support that aim.
    Will the Secretary of State make a positive statement on Mar Lodge? There seems to be unanimity in the view that it is very special. It should not return to the vagaries of the marketplace once again, because over the past decade——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. All right hon. and hon. Members present are considerable parliamentarians. They know that Third Reading is a difficult debate, because it concerns only what is now in the legislation. I have been tolerant of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who moved far from the amendments, but he cannot press that point now. I should be grateful if he would return to Third Reading.
    Mr. Wilson: I mentioned Mar Lodge in the context of Scottish Natural Heritage, which the Bill is creating and in the context of national parks. If Mar Lodge were brought into public ownership, it would immediately become a question——
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given my ruling. The hon. Gentleman will oblige the House and not abuse our procedures.
    Mr. Wilson: On the issue of national parks, it is no secret that the Opposition were sympathetic to the idea, and the Government have come forward with a compromise. It is still our view that the Government should have allowed maximum flexibility in each of the areas under pressure. In Committee we had a debate about Loch Lomond, where there is clearly a strong body of opinion that national park status is desirable. Equally, parts of Scotland have been mentioned in the context of the national parks, where there is a general view that what the Government propose to set up and achieve under the Bill may be adequate for their management.
    I hope that there will be the maximum possible flexibility within the terms of what has been created. I particularly hope, in deference to to the excellent case made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) for national park status for Loch Lomond, that resources will be provided to meet the needs of that district. Even if the name "national park" is not used, some of the advantages that would have flown from it being a national park should be available to that part of Scotland which, even now, is under so much pressure.

    1295
    On the issue of SSSIs, it is worth recalling, because it is now quite a long time ago, that we removed something from the Bill that the other place had introduced. We certainly regarded it—I think that the Government's decision to withdraw it would suggest that they shared our view—as a wrecking amendment, whereby the new agency would have to spend several of its first few years of existence trotting around every existing SSSI to re-designate it. That would have created a high hurdle in terms of an appeals procedure.
    The Minister and the hon. Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) showed that they sympathised with the idea of an appeals procedure, even where they accepted that the procedure suggested by the Lords was not workable. In Committee, everyone concluded that the proposal introduced in the Lords should be removed, on the understanding that there would be a far healthier process of consultation than some people have experienced under the existing set-up. I am sure that the message could not have gone out any more strongly to Scottish Natural Heritage that, although there is no appeals procedure, there must be maximum sensitivity to the needs and interests of the people who live in regions affected by the designation of SSSIs.
    I hope that the Minister will activate the valuable concession that he gave us over forestry, as it affects communities close to districts to be afforested—that a gazette or some other publication will list proposed forestry developments. That will prevent any mystery and ensure that no private forests appear from nowhere without the local community knowing about them. I hope that information will be circulated to organisations such as public libraries, community councils and local authorities. I was grateful for that assurance in Committee, and I hope that the Minister will communicate to me exactly how it will be implemented.
    We had a wide range of debates in Committee on the powers that we suggested should be given to the new agency. Those exploratory debates gave us an opportunity to raise the issues of environmental concern in Scotland—fish farming, the movement of shipping in the Minch, the possibility of an oil spillage, forestry and a range of environmental issues. We have concluded that process tonight with our debate on the nuclear possibilities at Dounreay. In every one of those cases, we are happy to take at face value the assurances of the Minister that there is no need to write into the legislation the duty to make representations to the Secretary of State on such matters, because the right to do so is assumed.
    I hope that Scottish Natural Heritage will be emboldened by the repeated statements of the Minister that it is expected to make representations on all those contentious issues. We want an environmental organisation with teeth and courage that is prepared to speak on issues, even if it treads on the toes of its political masters or mistresses, irrespective of the party from which they come. It is there to serve not political masters but Scotland's environmental interests. I hope that it will be encouraged by the Minister's clear message that it is expected to do so.
    In fairness, I ought to say that, if the Government had wanted to establish a compliant and silent agency, they would not have appointed so high profile a chairman as Magnus Magnusson. That is turning out to be a good appointment, and we wish him well.
    1296
    We have had a constructive and largely non-political debate. Anything to do with land use and land ownership in Scotland gives rise to debate. For all sorts of reasons, land use and land ownership matter deeply to a wide range of people. There are those who believe that they should not impinge upon the rights of private ownership. Some people would go to very great and arrogant lengths to defend those rights. There are others who will never accept the validity of those rights. Between those two positions, we have to work out a modus vivendi. The Bill lays the foundations for the creation of an agency that will be able to work well in the interests of Scotland and its natural heritage.
    In that spirit, I thank in particular the Minister for the courteous way in which he has conducted all the proceedings on the Bill. When it comes into being, we wish the new agency well. We shall work with it, and we hope that it will be a great success.
    9.15 pm
    Sir Hector Monro: I am delighted that the Bill has completed its proceedings in the House, subject to anything that may happen later. It is a Bill of great vision. I am excited about the future of Scotland's natural heritage. Having been connected with the drafting of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill in 1979 and with taking it through the House, with the help of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and others, and having served on the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland for nine years, I find it slightly paradoxical that I am no longer involved in any official capacity with our natural heritage and that I am very much on the touchline.
    The provisions of the Bill will improve and enhance Scotland's heritage. The very best of the Nature Conservancy Council, now in its own Scottish right, coupled with the expertise of the Countryside Commission and the two chairmen, running in harness this year and working closely together to set up Scottish Natural Heritage on 1 April 1992, can do nothing but good. The Secretary of State for Scotland has chosen a man of exceptional calibre to head it. The personnel and resources of the two committees are equally strong. Both organisations will have the back-up of an excellent permanent staff. I have great hope that what we are all so keen on in Scotland—the preservation of our natural heritage—will come about.
    The amendments that were debated both in Committee and on Report have demonstrated the great enthusiasm in all parts of the House for preserving Scotland's natural heritage. They have highlighted the fact that, in future, emphasis must be placed upon improving what is already a very good record. We tend to play down our scenery and landscape and our good record on nature conservation and the preservation of wildlife habitats. We are starting from a very sound base. I wish the Secretary of State, the two chairmen and, subsequently, Magnus Magnusson, every good fortune. I am sure that we can look forward to immeasurably improved facilities in Scotland, and I am confident that the Government will provide sufficient resources to ensure that our heritage is maintained and enhanced.
    9.19 pm
    Mr. Maclennan: The Bill did not attract universal acclamation from the environment lobby, and the Government have displayed some political courage in bringing it to the House against the critical view that the Scots should not look after their environment. That was an insulting view which, from the beginning, most Scots rejected.
    Most of the main environmental issues have been canvassed during the passage of the Bill, and the concerns that gave rise to a demand for a new Scottish agency were properly ventilated. The Secretary of State responded with some imagination, which I found encouraging, to the concerns in my constituency about the way in which the predecessor organisation had handled the issue of the flow country. The establishment of natural heritage areas under the provisions of clause 6 could provide a way to reconcile the various land interests.
    I did not have the good fortune to be a member of the Standing Committee, so I did not have the opportunity to deploy certain arguments. It is right to recognise that the expertise of Scottish Natural Heritage in scientific matters will be the best available, and that there would be no point in having an appeal system. However, as designation will result in the transformation of the status of the land, with consequences of great importance to those who own or occupy the land, and the community that uses it, there should be a requirement for the Secretary of State to confirm the new status. I regret that that is not included in the Bill, but this is not an occasion on which we should linger overlong on what is not included.
    My argument was somewhat misrepresented by the Minister at an earlier stage, when it was suggested that my hon. Friends and I wanted an appeal system. We wanted no such thing—we wanted to establish the right of the Secretary of State to intervene when designation could have adverse consequences. I think that that was a legitimate objective. If clause 6 is to be the way ahead, it is possible that conflict will not arise. That will depend on how Scottish Natural Heritage uses the power of designation of sites of special scientific interest. If it goes full steam ahead and designates large tracts of Scotland, rather than using the proposals in clause 6, I predict that there will be conflict.
    We should have a clear statement, not about consultation—we have already had that from Magnus Magnusson and his colleagues—but about the policy intention on widespread designation. The Secretary of State has admitted that that power was used in the absence of any other power, for purposes that the House did not envisage when the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was enacted. I think that that is the view of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who has a closer knowledge of, and involvement in, the matter than any other hon. Member. No one wants to see a continuation of past conflicts.
    Clause 6 provides for sites of special scientific interest that have already been designated in pursuance of the objectives that the clause would cover. I do not accept the view of some that for the next few years, the agency should reconsider all designations because that would be damaging to its role. However, there may be a case for it reconsidering designations in some sectors that would be better covered by the procedures set out in clause 6. It would be extremely sensible for the agency to place a
    1298
    moratorium on the designation of sites of special scientific interest in the flow countries, especially while it contemplates the use of powers that allow representations to be made about the economic impact of what is proposed and, ultimately, for the Secretary of State to decide what is the best way to proceed. I appeal to Magnus Magnusson to issue a clear statement that there will be a moratorium pending consideration of the powers that are set out in clause 6.
    In other respects, I welcome the Bill as a strengthening of the protection of our environment in Scotland. I believe that the interest of the Scottish people in seeing that environment improved and protected is one that everyone in the House who has participated in debates on the Bill has sought to reflect, and that that approach is reflected in the shape of the Bill as it has emerged following consideration on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. The Bill has been improved because the Government have responded to suggestions and listened to criticisms. We can take some pride and satisfaction in the fact that the House has agreed to the setting up of a new institution that will bring together the work of two former agencies. The redefining of the roles of those agencies will give a sharper cutting edge to the work that is so important to our country.
    9.28 pm
    Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to what can be described as the in-house matters of dealing with those who wish to appeal against decisions that will be made under clause 6. The clause does not provide for a particularly happy system. I spoke at some length on the issue in Committee, but I shall not do so this evening. If the matter is not taken up in the other place, I believe that we shall return to it in future.
    I shall be astonished if Scottish Natural Heritage does not behave in an understanding and sympathetic way. I am sure that it will engage in consultations that will be different from those that have taken place in the past. I hope that that will happen, but all my experience is that bureaucratic bodies, despite all the good wishes of Parliament, have a tendency to develop what I call god-like postures after they have been in existence for some time. With that fear in mind, I tabled an amendment, as did other hon. Members.
    I shall be surprised if the matter is not canvassed when the Bill is considered in another place. I am fairly sure that those in the other place will debate it. Whatever happens finally to the Bill, I believe that the system that is set out in clause 6 will constantly be considered.
    However, this is an important and substantial Bill for Scotland. It will change things in many ways and for the better. We all hope that we will care for, use properly, look after and make use of our natural heritage. By "we", I mean the Scots and all those who visit Scotland. We can certainly say that we have given our children and our children's children a basis on which they can look forward to enjoying the delights and beauty of beautiful Scotland.
    9.29 pm
    Mr. McFall: Some hon. Members have said that the Bill has received universal acclamation, but it certainly does not have it from me. The mountain areas of Scotland and

    1299
    consultation management have not been addressed, and in the years to come the problems will pile up, particularly in my area.
    Clause 2 deals with the functions of Scottish Natural Heritage. People in my area are crying out for legislative proposals so that the issues affecting the Loch Lomond area can be addressed. It is manifest that the present arrangements whereby local authorities come together are not working effectively and will not work in the long term. I plead with the Minister and with Magnus Magnusson the chairman-designate, to take into consideration, with the working party which the Minister kindly offered me, that legislative aspect and the crucial aspect of funding.
    The Bill does not address funding. As I said in Committee, we have national parks for England and Wales and Government funding of 80 per cent. In a current White Paper, the Department of the Environment calls the national parks of England and Wales the jewels in the crown. We do not have that. The comparison with England and Wales is bad enough, but in a European and international context we are the odd man out. We are very much the poor relation.
    The Minister has done nothing to enhance the environment of my area. The Scottish Council for National Parkas has recently been re-established. It mentions in a communication sent to us that natural heritage areas are intended to be substitutes for national parks, and I agree. That is based on the voluntary principle. But the voluntary principle has to date failed to take care of the environment. If the Minister comes to Loch Lomond with me this summer, he will see the effects and inadequacies of the voluntary principle, and the need for a solution for Loch Lomond. That is not on offer from the Government at the moment.
    The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that bureaucracies have a way of their own and become godlike. I fear that the NHA has been set in concrete and that there will be nothing good on offer for my area. That is the worry in my area.
    I said in Committee that there was a manifest agreement among community groups in my area about the desirability of national park status. Rural community councils like Callender, which is not in my constituency but in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), voted strongly to be included in the national park area. I have received no adverse comments on the issue of the national park status and I would like the Minister to tell us about any comments he has had from people on that subject.
    A letter dated 3 December 1990 from Magnus Magnusson, the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, to the Countryside Commission says:
    "The status of the designation and its protective powers should be commensurate with the relative importance of the areas in Europe or wider international term.."
    How can natural heritage areas come within the European or international context when they are not established along the lines of national parks, when they do not have independent planning or adequate funding? That is the first issue that Magnus Magnusson and his colleagues will have to address. In the same letter, Magnus Magnusson said:
    "The budget allocated to the area must be adequate for reasonable attainment of priorities determined for the overall management of the area."
    That is not happening.
    1300
    In my letter to the Minister on 5 April 1991—which I am sure he has received—I said that the constituent local authorities for Loch Lomond regional park are dismayed at the latest exercise with regard to a working party. I have reason to believe that we shall not get far with that. A communication from Dumbarton district council tells me that it has been informed that in correspondence with the Scottish Office the working party's remit is to consider how improvements may be achieved within the existing statutory and administrative framework; and that there is a current school of thought which believes that the working party would be at officer level only.
    One important aspect of any working party is that it should represent local interest and involve local authority and community representatives. It is local authority, community and voluntary representatives who know their own areas. It is no use leaving it to those at officer level. There must be input from the local community or the problems of the area will not be considered in their entirety.
    Natural heritage areas are inadequate for Loch Lomond, as are the voluntary principle, the lack of funding and the lack of planning powers. I tell the Minister that tonight and I will tell him that for years to come. There is a huge body of Scottish environmental opinion behind me, because the need for enhancement and conservation for a strategy for land management for the mountain areas of Scotland is important. The Bill does not deal with those issues. I welcome it as a little step forward, but it has had almost fatal flaws from the beginning. Even at this stage, I ask the Minister to reconsider the Bill when it returns from another place and to listen to the people in Scotland because I am speaking for many of them. I ask the Minister to respond to local feelings and, when the Bill returns to the House, to give us some of the tools with which properly to manage our land and our heritage.
    9.36 pm
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: There was an enormous contrast between the speech of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and that of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who believes the Bill to be perfect in every way. It is not perfect, but it has been improved since it arrived in the House by, for example, the fateful disappearance of the notorious clause 11.
    However, there are still massive gaps in the Bill, for example, on the dumping of nuclear and toxic waste and on the concept or clear definition of sustainability. I hope that the Minister's promise about community involvement will be fulfilled in practice. I notice that there is a major gap in the Bill on the question of land use in Scotland. I hope that the House will deal with such topics in the future.
    The Bill is at least a step towards a co-ordinated view of the Scottish environment and has at least attempted to create an integrated approach to Scottish environmental needs. If Mr. Magnusson's promises are fulfilled, I hope that we shall see a decentralised approach in which, as far as possible, there will be a decentralisation of decision taking and contact with local communities.
    I am disappointed that, although there has been an improvement in the Bill, that improvement is partial and under-powered compared to the Scottish environmental protection agency that I should like to see in an ideal and independent Scotland. At least the Bill is a small step in the

    1301
    right direction. I should like to wish Magnus Magnusson and the staff of the Scottish Natural Heritage well in their work. Their task will not be easy, but it will be of massive importance to the future of Scotland.
    9.38 pm
    Mr. Kennedy: I do not propose to interrupt the running order, and I shall be brief.
    Mr. Galbraith: Good.
    Mr. Kennedy: It is typical of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) to shatter the all-party consensus which was emerging in the closing stages. I want to make a contribution now, as I was not a member of the Committee. As Wester Ross featured heavily in the discussions of national parks, I should like to say a couple of words, almost in contrast to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall).
    I shall begin with an opening principle. The beauty of the legislation—if it works—is that stated by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). It has within it a degree of flexibility which, if it is to succeed and to perform well in the years ahead, means that it can come up with a variety of different solutions based on the realities of different communities and different parts of Scotland. That must be a strength.
    The weakness of the argument for the level of community responsiveness and the different working blueprint for different areas is that if one is not careful one ends up with anarchy. No one has angled seriously for that for our natural heritage and conservation. I want to go back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). We must recognise that the argument of the hon. Member for Dumbarton for a national park, independent planning and proper resourcing may be the blueprint for Loch Lomond, given its proximity to the conurbation of west central Scotland and to Glasgow in particular, but it would not fit easily or acceptably in the context of Wester Ross, which is a rather different environment.
    Mr. McFall: In Committee, I tabled various new clauses with specific reference to Loch Lomond. I made the point then that different solutions are required for different areas. I said that the sensitivities of people in the area had to be upheld. I was speaking about my own area.
    Mr. Kennedy: I was aware of that point, and that is why I am only too pleased to be able to speak in the hon. Gentleman's support. He obviously speaks with more local working knowledge of Loch Lomond than I can and he makes a powerful case. However, the same case may not apply to other areas, whether the Cairngorms or Wester Ross.
    My next point is for the Minister, although it might now be made more appropriately to Magnus Magnusson. Highland regional council is very much encouraged by Mr. Magnusson's approach and by his attitude to the post. He has visited various parts of the Highland region, and he has had some contact with the regional authority and with people at local level. He is sensitive to the anxieties involved.
    In the whole saga of sites of special scientific interest, as other hon. Members know only too well, there has been
    1302
    anxiety about an imposed national park in part of the highlands. The tremendous anxiety that has followed from that is that people from outside the area will call the shots. It is feared that there may even be no shots to be called because an iron curtain will be drawn around the area and no development in the local interest will be allowed. That is a genuine anxiety, which Mr. Magnusson appreciates. The Bill sets out a framework that will allow him sufficient flexibility, subject to the guidance of the Scottish Office, to produce an environmental policy that can square that difficult circle—to protect and promote the indigenous natural beauty while not stifling it. The aim should be to enable future generations to make a livelihood from the area as the present generation can.
    One of the most encouraging features of the constituency postbag—I am sure that hon. Members of all parties find the same—is the tremendous increase in the number of schoolchildren who now write to Members of Parliament. Hon. Members who have served in the House for decades longer than I have have also registered that. I find that, apart from the broad global issues such as the third world, schoolchildren increasingly write to Members of Parliament about environmental issues.
    In the highland context, I hope that that demonstrates an awareness of the importance of the natural environment. It also shows that those who are being born, brought up and educated within that environment have a sensible sensitivity to the need to enhance it and at the same time to the need to be able to promote development in the area which will be for their future well-being as regards job opportunities. That means that one does not want to turn the highlands into a natural history museum with the presumption that people will not be able to live and make a livelihood there, but wants to ensure that the livelihood conforms as much as possible to the natural environment.
    Given all the slings and arrows of fortune that have on occasion been fired against highlanders, they have done a pretty good job of being responsible about the environment while exploiting it, in the proper sense of the word, for their future well-being.
    I hope that the Minister, the Scottish Office and Magnus Magnusson will be extremely careful in any moves that they might make to designate natural heritage areas. We do not want to end up with the sort of national park blueprint that might well suit Loch Lomond but would not be the right solution to achieve a balance between conservation and development in Wester Ross and other parts of the highlands.
    9.46 pm
    Mr. Dalyell: An 11-year-old wrote to me inquiring:
    "How come a person in Mr. Magnus Magnusson's position could possibly be in favour of whaling. Answer that."
    I am still contemplating the reply, because I am not sure that there is one.
    Mr. Wilson: Pass.
    Mr. Dalyell: Pass. During the recess, I heard you say, Mr. Speaker, on "The Week in Westminster" that the best Members of Parliament were the most unreasonable.
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, but I said "not too unreasonable".
    Mr. Dalyell: I am being reasonably unreasonable, when I say that I think that Third Reading is certainly a time for

    1303
    politenesses, but also a time to talk to the House of Lords if one wants to. because they will have to consider the Bill further.
    As regards politeness, the Minister has certainly been a model of courtesy and decency in Committee, and I must couple that with the courtesy that I have received from his office and from other officials of the Scottish Office on the many occasions that I have had dealings with them. I have no doubts of the seriousness of purpose of both the Minister and his officials. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) who was Chairman of the Committee.
    I am deeply discontented by what we have done. There are geological flaws in the Bill. During the recess, I reflected carefully on exactly what we have been up to. As I see it, the position is this. The Government have enacted legislation to create an independent Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland. To be fair, there is merit in placing in the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland a clear responsibility for the conservation of Scotland's wildlife and for ensuring that nature conservation has a full place in the debate about land use in Scotland.
    However the cost of that change has been high in disruption of the scientific conservation effort, in the alienation of much informed opinion on conservation and in the loss of morale among concerned and involved staff.
    Perhaps the first geological fault is that landscape and wildlife conservation simply are not compatible bedmates: they do not go together. The Government's proposals for mergers postulate that landscape and wildlife conservation are natural partners for merger. We need to ask whether that proposition is appropriate for functions of different origins, approaches and ethics. Those differences are important.
    The roots of landscape conservation lie in planning for the built environment and concern to conserve the designed and man-made landscape structure of much of our countryside. That is an aesthetic approach. Nature conservation has its origins in study of natural history and its practice is underpinned by scientific survey and assessment. That is an ecological approach. Each has a different ethos, and different training, skills and legislation. Those fundamentals simply cannot be set aside in a shifting around of our administrative arrangements for delivery of conservation advice.
    There is no right or wrong way in which to arrange these matters. Other countries do things differently. But it is facile to set aside the experience and structures which have evolved over a long period without any debate about whether they are right. We all know the genesis of the Bill. It was thought up by the former Environment Secretary and dispatched to the House of Commons.
    A case could be made for a close alliance between landscape conservation and protection systems for historic landscapes and the built heritage. Here might lie an alternative alliance of interest in the way in which man has fashioned and continues to fashion the appearance of our land.
    The Minister might ask his advisers on the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland for its views on that proposition. It has concluded that a convincing case for the linking of landscape and nature conservation functions has not been made. Far less do the proposals address the mechanics of integration. A merger, in the full sense of that word, is not realistic. The best that can be done is to staple functions together.
    1304
    In my opinion, for the most part we have created elaborate window dressing. Scottish Natural Heritage is not either more powerful or more effective than its predecessor.
    Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. We may not be creating a body which is any more powerful, but at least we are creating a body in which the two interests that he rightly described as rather different can be reconciled. Is not that a way of producing a coherent approach to the land?
    Mr. Dalyell: I am not sure about that. My candid response to the hon. Gentleman is that I have to recognise that he had an unfortunate experience in his constituency with nature conservancy in the flow country. A good deal of tactlessness was involved, and Sir William Wilkinson and his colleagues regretted what happened. For reasons of time, I would rather not be drawn into discussing that interesting and important point. In all honesty, I could not tell the hon. Gentleman that he is wrong. That is not the position that I wish to take.
    In the Government's earlier consultative paper about merger, "The Way Ahead", little attention was paid to the commission's recreation function. This is dismaying, because recreation is at the centre in the commission's business and it commands a significant portion of the grant that the commission disburses to its client groups in the public and private sectors. The lack of attention to recreation is alarming on several grounds.
    First, for too long we have under-invested in recreation in the countryside and extra new resources are required to manage the impacts of the public use of land and to promote higher quality facilities, all of which underpin the recreation and tourism industries. This is one of the essential arguments in the commission's mountain areas report, as the Minister will concede.
    Secondly, the commission promotes its recreation functions through investment and working with others, operating almost as a development agency, and funds for this approach will be less secure after merger, given the wide prospectus of new conservation initiatives proposed for the new agency.
    Thirdly, the Government's consultation paper identifies recreation as a potential threat to conservation. Indeed, recreation is seen as a problem, not an opportunity—a perception that is likely to lead to recreation becoming subordinate to conservation, if carried forward.
    I hope even at this stage that the Lords will reflect on these points.
    Enjoyment by the public extends across the whole of our heritage, be it scenery, wildlife, the built and historic, or cultural matters. The assessment and care of heritage involve many organisations concerned with land use, planning and management. The Commission's functions for enjoyment and care of fine scenery are well balanced, because scenery is the prime attraction for most visitors to the countryside and is central to tourism. The countryside is also the resource and the backdrop for many sporting activities.
    A time when the tempo of interest in leisure use of the countryside is on the increase is not the time to be playing down recreation. Nor is the time to be placing this function in a new agency where it will inevitably be in a more subordinate role because of the dominance of staff and legislation concerned with nature conservation. Any

    1305
    underplaying of recreation will be regarded as controversial by recreation interests and will be likely to lead to new controversy and conflict.
    Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman is making a very important speech and certainly many of us would have wished that we could have heard some of it earlier. That is not a criticism; it is just a comment.
    On the very point of recreation bodies that have an interest in the use of a our Scottish land, does the hon. Gentleman join me in deploring the absence of proper appeals procedure, which is the point I tried to make in Committee, he will remember?
    Mr. Dalyell: I was, as my hon. Friends know, very tempted when the hon. Gentleman approached me to support him on appeals. I did not do so. I took a lot of trouble about it. I asked around, and a number of those with whom I was in close contact were against the appeals procedure precisely because they thought that it might be abused. It did not help his case that Lord Pearson and others in the Lords had conducted this ambush. This is my personal opinion—I cannot speak for my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and they may take a different view—but had it not been for what happened in the Lords, the hon. Gentleman would have got his amendment through. But great resentment was caused by what happened in the Lords on this issue.
    Mr. Walker: What about the Committee?
    Mr. Dalyell: I think that the Minister will agree that, with the exception of himself, I probably occupied more of the Committee's time than anybody.
    During the recess, I reflected on this matter with colleagues, who have been very helpful, with a view to making a submission to the House of Lords to think again. I make no bones about what I should like to see happening. I should like to see a general election in June, so that we could go back to the drawing board on this whole matter. In fact, I should like to see the Bill fall.
    We have to reflect on the whole question of sustainable development and whether it can be delivered. By far the most interesting element of the new proposals is the emphasis on sustainable development. The Government's desire to move in this direction is to be welcomed, but the realism of laying this task on the new agency needs examination.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
    Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Mr. Dalyell: First, there is the question whether the new agency is centrally enough placed to handle this major challenge. The central conservation issues of today pivot on the consumption—particularly by the developed nations—of increasing amounts of the world's natural resources, and on all the consequent effects on pollution, population increase, health, hunger and the social cohesion of increasingly urbanised societies.
    This is a heady agenda, on which a local agency with a limited remit might make progress. It can be argued that
    1306
    the scale of these issues places them at governmental or transnational level, although there is an important challenge here for a body to act in a missionary role. But this will be a provocative task, if only in defining, in a practical way, what sustainable development means. This will not necessarily lead to the kind of harmony that the Government seek in the debate about conservation and development.
    The concept of sustainable development is, on the one hand, simple and, because of this, attractive. But it is also difficult to define and difficult to apply to the kind of marginal land that makes up much of upland Scotland. Let me give some examples.
    We cannot easily assess whether present approaches to the management of rural land are sustainable, because of the long time scale involved in understanding the effects of present practice, and because of the complexity of the systems—for example, the debate on whether conifer afforestation of poor, acidic upland soils leads to enhanced acidification. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) knows exactly what I am getting at, as it is highly pertinent to the kind of area that he represents.
    In the assessment of gains and losses in the use of land, we cannot easily measure, or give monetary value to, the intangible benefits or values that we attach to, say, well-being and pride in our heritage, or to the enjoyment of recreation in fine countryside. It is unlikely that there is any methodology to do this with precision.
    At this stage I want to pay tribute to a man I admire very much. I refer to George Lawson, a former Member of Parliament for Motherwell, and a Scottish Whip. He gave a great deal of his time to the question of land use, and published a report. I do not say that I have read the entire report, but during the recess I went back to it. I thought extremely highly of the work that George Lawson did.
    It is likely that we have already passed the limits of sustainable use in the way in which we exploit land of the lowest productivity—say, in the afforestation of the very poorest land, or in the carrying capacity of some upland habitats for recreation.
    So, while the sustainable development remit is attractive, it is not an easy route forward for any agency whose remit does not extend into a wide arena, and vigorous pursuit if this theme is likely to sharpen the conservation-development debate, not ease it.
    The Government have made it clear that the proposed new agency must temper its functions with economic developments in rural areas. That is not quite in accord with the definition of sustainable development in which human activities should be in balance with the capacity of the natural resources being used. The dilemma here is that the Government's approach to balancing duties places undue burdens on the lightweight and lowly funded conservation bodies as against the heavily resourced mechanisms for the support of the development.
    Yet evidence is lacking that conservation is a major constraint on development in Scotland. No such accusation can be made against the way in which the conservation of landscape has been delivered. For wildlife conservation, there has been a small number of high-profile cases of conflict, but that should not obscure the fact that most SSSI consultations, most management agreements and most other consultation arrangements for conservation are working smoothly. Any snags in the system should be eased through improvements in its administration rather than in its wholesale reorganisation.

    1307
    My ferocious defence of the NCC staff against accusations in the debate in the other place by people who should have known better was partly due to the fact that the NCC staff as a whole, with certain exceptions—the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to some unfortunate exceptions—had been very successful. It should be on the record that the NCC staff as a whole were deeply hurt by what was said in the debate in the other place. I say that having attended the estuary and other NCC presentations given by Sir William Wilkinson and Tim Hornsby.
    Mr. McFall: I suggest to my hon. Friend that the people who have been betrayed are the members of the Countryside Commission, with their mountain areas report. My hon. Friend is making important points about development and conservation. In the Loch Lomond area, there is £120 million-worth of development, but we do not have the necessary statutory laws for conservation and enhancement. The result is that, on the see-saw, the balance is very much on the side of development. Interest in conservation and the enhancement of the environment is negligible compared with the pressure for development.
    Mr. Dalyell: I do not exaggerate when I say that, of the 30 to 40 mostly knowledgeable people I have met who read the Official Report of the debates that took place in Committee, and in particular who read the remarks of my hon. Friend, most said, in effect, "John McFall is absolutely right, and you people in Parliament had better understand that." I refer not only to Frank Bracewell, the planning officer of Central regional council, but many others who strongly agree with the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend, who is the constituency Member involved.
    I leave out the rest of the argument. My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) may be right in what he said about his area, and we do not quarrel with that, but some of us in the Central region desperately want a natural park. The whole tenor of the Government's proposals is to undermine the role of nature conservation and to give encouragement to the prejudiced view that the nature conservation movement must be brought to heel. That is nothing less than a major surrender of values. Adding to the commission's functions may be seen by some as one way of shifting the balance against nature conservation, but it is no way to create a workable merger. The early signs are that the merger is not working happily. The planning stage and the rest of what is going on are riddled with difficulties.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths>: We all acknowledge my hon. Friend's expertise in the matter, but is it not the case that one of the tragedies of the Government's approach is that the vested interests—landowners, and worse, those people who have only a financial interest in lands in Scotland, who may not be based in Scotland and who may not have any concern for the conservation of land in Scotland—seem to be listened to in the corridors of power rather than the hill walkers, the bird watchers and the other conservation groups who for over a century have had the real interest of Scotland at heart? Does my hon. Friend agree that, by his approach, the Minister is prejudicing the interests of people who enjoy, relish and have a great commitment to land and
    1308
    conservation in Scotland in favour of the interests of those who have only a financial interest? That is the nub of the difference between us and the Minister.
    Mr. Dalyell: I shall not stretch Mr. Speaker's patience by wandering to the question of Mar Lodge. The earlier discussion of Mar lodge completely encapsulated the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) had made. That is why we will talk about Mar Lodge on other occasions, but I undertook not to stray back to that.
    There are organisational imbalances to address in the merger. Those imbalances might be catalogued. There is a major imbalance in staff numbers, with the NCCS at the time of merger being at least six times larger. The organisation will be starting life essentially in the old offices of the NCCS, but with a new nameplate, so there will be an image issue which will run against the interests of the Countryside Commission for Scotland. The NCCS has complex and well focused legislation on designation, control licensing, land management, and so on, and those functions will still have to be delivered, while the commission's functions under statute are relatively open, and will be overshadowed by the need to achieve these key wildlife tasks. There is a very vigorous voluntary sector lobby on behalf of nature conservation, which will be pushing hard for no relaxation in the way in which nature conservation is delivered. Far from being a true merger of equals, the prospect is that the CCS functions will become overshadowed in the new arrangement.
    We have a complex system for administering and overseeing land use matters. Some people think that there should be an all-embracing land use department, but there are good arguments against whole scale amalgamation of functions. Principally, the key sectoral interests should be seen to be separate and visible, without the concealment of debate that would exist in an all-purpose land-use department where controversy was balanced internally. The all-purpose approach would be bureaucratic and less efficient.
    Maintaining two Government agencies would allow those functions that may be subordinated to have their place and to be visible—as in the case of recreation—to the large constituency with an interest in it. Objectives would be more focused: indeed, divergence of views on matters like conservation is to be encouraged, as fostering debate and providing the widest spectrum of views to Government. The risk of subordinating key functions is the key argument in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" against an equivalent merger in England, and one has to ask why that argument does not apply in Scotland.
    The new agency, SNH, already promises to be a small bureaucracy, with complex systems of political control and oversight. The Minister may interrupt if he thinks that I am being unfair, but there are those dangers.
    Less dramatic but more cost effective, more efficient and saving of confusion and morale would be to address any need for change through administrative action. To do that, the Government should endorse the present structures as the basis for change, and encourage administrative fine-tuning of existing mechanisms where snagging points occur, such as the need for a route of appeal when promoting new designated areas.
    They should provide some of the extra resources required for the merger with the relatively underfunded

    1309
    Countryside Commission for Scotland and should direct that its two agencies collaborate closely on those topics where joint working makes good sense. They should promote and strengthen the commission's work in the countryside around towns where it has already made an impact and, with major dereliction now tackled by the Scottish Development Agency, direct the commission to a new role in leading smaller scale landscape improvement work in collaboration with the local enterprise companies to create a richer and more accessible landscape close to where most Scots live.
    The Government should also encourage the commission to continue to develop a stronger design-based approach in its work, particulary to promote higher standards of built development in the countryside. They should release more funding to the commission to strengthen its work to promote recreation and facilitate harmony between visitors and those who own and work the land.
    Finally, the Government should encourage stronger working between the conservation agencies and those agencies and Departments responsible for primary land uses. They should begin a debate about sustainable use as a collaborative venture in that way rather than through a single agency approach as proposed.
    Underfunding of the Countryside Commission in recent years has left it in a weaker position than the Nature Conservancy Council because the commission's mode of working through others has led to it spend little of its resources on building up its own staff and internal activities. Although small in size, the commission has operated efficiently and prudently and chosen partnership as its main working theme. The extent of duplication of effort between the commission and the NCC is limited, and that could be eased by more collaboration.
    There is a role for an agency to link caring for the countryside and its use for recreation. That is not always an appreciated role because it involves bridge-building and compromise as well as avoidance of confrontation. Recently, however, the commission has been leading lively debates on issues like caring better for mountain areas, and has been reviewing arrangements for access to the countryside.
    Given a modest increase in staff and funding, the commission could play a more vigorous role and develop a distinctive approach to enjoyment and conservation of Scotland's scenery, which is the crucial resource underpinning tourism and outdoor recreation.
    There has been little general debate about the technical merits of the proposed merger of the CCS and the NCC in Scotland. In part, some people may see the merger as simply a good way to simplify public administration. Some may see it as providing a new face to conservation, while others undoubtedly see the merger as a means of blunting what is perceived to be a sharp edge to conservation. But there must be a serious review of fundamentals and practicability.
    I hope that the House of Lords will reconsider the Bill thoroughly, as it is entitled to do. Having read the Official Report of the Standing Committee, I hope that, saved by the gong in the form of a general election, the Labour party will put forward different proposals from the
    1310
    ill-thought-out, ill-conceived and exceedingly expensive Conservative party proposals, which will cause a great deal of hassle.
    Mr. Galbraith: I shall put everyone's mind at rest by reassuring them that I have no intention of following that tour de force, but shall simply make a few closing remarks.
    I have spent the last part of my life in the mountains, and I have a love affair with the mountains and the countryside—in other words, Scottish Natural Heritage, which is what the Bill is about. Therefore, I was pleased to be part of the process of taking the Bill through its stages, along with the courteous Under-Secretary of State.
    The merger between the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council is a natural one. On that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). There are conflicting functions within the organisations, but both establishments are concerned with the good use, management and preservation of the countryside. The conflicts are best dealt with when taken together in a committee rather than being set apart, which often generates false conflicts.
    My first contact with the Nature Conservancy Council was during my visits to the Isle of Rhum, which I have already mentioned. The council has always been a delight to me and others, and looks after that island very well; access to it is free and easy, and I have never had any problems. Its management of that island is an excellent example of just what the Nature Conservancy Council can do. Therefore, all in the House can trust in an organisation constituted, in part, by the Nature Conservancy Council to provide good management and ensure the preservation of the countryside in the mountain regions of Scotland. Therefore, I wish the new organisation well. It has the full-hearted support of Opposition Members.
    10.22 pm
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that the Bill enjoyed a good Committee stage, and that Magnus Magnusson will be a dedicated, conscientious and determined chairman of the new organisation and willl make a complete success of it.
    I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has participated as he started this theme with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. As he said, the Bill provides great hope and possibilities.
    The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has a particular interest in environmental matters. I have been unable to convince him on the justification of merging the two organisations, but I think it is fair to say that the House as a whole welcomes that proposal—most Scottish Members of Parliament do. I certainly agreed with what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said on that issue. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow well knows, we amended the Bill with regard to the built heritage.
    I believe that we have created a stronger environmental agency in practice that will make more use of existing mechanisms. To the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) I say that the working party will be established before long. As a first step, we have commissioned review papers from the relevant interested parties on the issues facing the management of the region and what should be done.

    1311
    To my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) I say that the new organisation will have to operate with much more sensitivity in relation to future non-statutory appeals.
    The protection and conservation of landscape and wildlife are closely linked and cannot be separated from access and enjoyment of the countryside. We believe that an integrated approach by one agency will provide a more effective means of stimulating the sustainable use of Scotland's natural heritage. The new agency will maintain and extend the work of both organisations, building on their existing strengths and staff expertise. We expect Scottish Natural Heritage to bring about changes in attitude towards conservation and the enjoyment of Scotland's natural heritage. With its network of offices throughout Scotland and its regional structure, it will be well placed to play a responsive and sensitive role.
    The hon. Member for Linlithgow raised a number of issues, including recreation. I shall be happy to respond to him in detail later. I think that that is probably the best way to proceed because he raised a large number of issues relating to structure.
    The agency will be a much stronger environmental organisation and will be greatly in Scotland's interests. I thank hon. Members for participating in our debates on the Bill.
    Mr. Dalyell: I do not expect any answers tonight, but I would ask for a letter to reflect the careful consideration that will be given to the matter.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will most certainly receive the answers, but I again stress that this will be a much stronger environmental agency for Scotland.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  PETITION

    Traffic Management Scheme (Great Harwood)
    10.24 pm
    Mr. Ken Hargreaves>: I wish to present a petition to the House on behalf of the residents of Great Harwood. The petition expresses concern at the introduction of a traffic management scheme in the Park road and St. Hubert's road areas of Great Harwood, which residents feel is not only inconvenient but may result in an increase in the number of accidents. They feel that there is great danger to children and old people.
    The residents feel aggrieved because they consider that they were not properly consulted and that their views were not taken into account by local councillors and Hyndburn borough council before thousands of pounds were wasted on a scheme that will increase the danger, spoil the environment and cause inconvenience to residents and loss of trade to businesses. They say:
    We object to the traffic ramps in St. Hubert's road, Park road and the surrounding area. There is no parking space for residents and there is no indication whether pedestrians or motorists have right of way.
    The petition continues:
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do urge the Secretary of State for Transport to review the traffic management scheme in St. Hubert's road and Park road and the surrounding area in Great Harwood, taking into account the views of local residents, and to bring forward improved proposals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Orpington Hospital
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
    10.25 pm
    Mr. Ivor Stanbrook>: Orpington hospital has its origins in a military hospital built with prefabricated buildings by the Canadian army for its troops during the first world war. Over the years, it has grown so that now it has, in addition to many of the original buildings, modern residential staff accommodation, a social centre and a substantial modern block, completed in 1982 at a cost of £9 milion and known as the Canada wing. It includes twin operating theatres and 264 of the hospital's 354 beds. The Canada wing is the most modern fabric of the entire Bromley health district, with all facilities for acute patient care. The entire hospital stands on a site of 38·8 acres, of which 12 are green fields. There is ample room for expansion. The whole site lies just off the A21, a main artery from London to Kent and the Channel ports, and only two miles from the M25.
    The existing official plan for the hospital's future, as approved by the Government some years ago, is that it should be further developed into a modern district general hospital, providing all acute services and a full-time, 24-hour accident and emergency service, to serve the needs of the southern half of the London borough of Bromley and adjacent areas in Kent. The southern half is the growing half of the borough. The northern half is intended to be served by the expansion of Bromley hospital, a cottage-hospital style building presently standing on a site of only nine acres in urban Bromley.
    The area served by the local health authority is coterminous with the London borough of Bromley. Besides Orpington and Bromley hospitals, it includes hospital buildings in Farnborough, Beckenham and Cane Hill. The object of the officially approved plan was to rationalise hospital services in the health authority area by concentrating acute services on the two main sites.
    So far, so good. The Canada wing represented phase 2 of the development plan for Orpington hospital. My constituents and I were looking forward to the completion of the third phase, projected for next year, when it was anticipated that all the old hutted accommodation would be replaced and the rest of the services appropriate to a modern general hospital would be added. Successive Ministers in this House have assured me that Orpington hospital will retain its place in the plan.
    However, we reckoned without the bureaucrats, administrative and medical, who have now screwed up that prospect and left us in a situation where the hospital is reduced to a shadow of what it could and should be: its status for the purpose of professional training removed, its provision for general surgery and intensive care withdrawn, its accident and emergency service, even on the scale of a minor injuries unit, abolished, its professional staff leaving and the morale of those remaining at its lowest.
    The community health council has unanimously passed a vote of censure on the health authority. The general manager of the health authority, like his predecessor, has left to go further up the hierarchy, and the chairman has left office in somewhat mysterious circumstances. Both posts are now vacant. How the authority got into that mess is instructive. In 1987, the planners got it into their
    1314
    heads that the site of the existing Bromley hospital—nine acres—was too small to allow it to expand into a district general hospital to serve the northern half of the borough of Bromley.
    They therefore proposed a deal—fashionable in those Thatcherite days—whereby the private sector could help to pay for the cost of a mammoth new hospital for all the acute services in the borough to replace both Bromley and Orpington hospitals. The new building, housing 820 beds and with parking space for 1,000 cars, would cost £100 million, which the planners of both the health authority and the borough council expected to raise by selling to private developers the surplus land at the other hospitals, which would be reduced to providing back-up services.
    The idea would mean the death of Orpington hospital as my constituents know it. The prospect of the loss of that marvellous hospital on their doorsteps and journeying six to eight miles into Bromley is anathema to us all. Unfortunately, those in the north of the borough who formerly relied on Bromley hospital found the idea attractive, and they provide a majority on the council and on the health authority. The medical professionals also liked the idea, for they thought that it would mean greater opportunities for higher professional standards. The site proposed, which is owned by the borough council, is 21 acres of open space in the centre of the borough, where the traffic is often congested.
    The idea seemed unstoppable when I raised the matter in the House on 30 October 1989. The then Under-Secretary of State for Health—my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman)—agreed that his predecessors had given me assurances about the future of Orpington hospital. He was sceptical about the chances of £100 million being raised for the scheme, but he did not want to intervene then. However, there was a hitch. The site for that massive piece of concrete jungle was in the green belt. It appears to be incredible that that fact was overlooked by the planners, but it was.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment called in the planning application. His inspector reported, inter alia, in paragraph 55 of his report:
    "I have come to the conclusion that whereas there is an undoubted need for new hospital provision in Bromley, the circumstances are not so very special as to overcome the strong presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. There are to my mind other possible forms of development elsewhere which could achieve most of the objectives being pursued by the Health Authority."
    He also reported in paragraph 22:
    "My conclusion on the evidence available is that the best prospect of locating the proposed new hospital elsewhere would be to combine a small development at the existing Bromley hospital site with a large development at Orpington".
    So planning consent for the super-hospital was rightly refused. Green fields are especially precious in urban areas such as central Bromley.
    Unwisely, the person who wrote to Bromley council to convey the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment stated that the refusal was because the site was in the green belt and that there would be no objection if the green belt excluded it. As a result, the health authority chose not to take the sensible advice of the inspector and get on with making Orpington the major hospital in the district. It chose instead to persuade Bromley council to agree to an alteration in the boundary

    1315
    of the green belt so as to exclude the site. This rather disreputable manoeuvre is now under way. I hope that local conservationists will be up in arms about it.
    The poor quality of management that was revealed by the error has been the cause of many of the health authority's decisions that have affected Orpington hospital. There is undoubtedly a reluctance on the part of the authority, which draws most of its members from the north of the borough, to give Orpington hospital a fair deal in respect of staff and other resources. I cannot count the number of times that I have frustrated efforts to change the official development plan to the detriment of Orpington by initiating Adjournment debates.
    In the financial year just ended, Bromley health authority was well over its budget. Drastic cuts, masquerading as rationalisation plans, were made to save money. Where did the cuts largely fall? You have guessed it, Mr. Deputy Speaker—they fell largely on Orpington hospital. They leave it without any general surgery, intensive care units or a casualty service of any sort. 'There is not even a minor injuries unit. There are fewer wards and fewer beds. The Canada wing is in danger of becoming a white elephant. In these circumstances, a ghastly tragedy could occur at any time for want of on-site surgery, anaesthetists and inter-hospital transport. It should be remembered that the nearby M25 is the scene of many major accidents involving casualties on a large scale. We need surgery services at Orpington hospital.
    It is ironic that the money that is sought to be saved by the cuts—£1·5 million in a budget of £82 million per annum—amounts to the same sum as that which is thrown away on surveyors and other expenses for the abortive super-hospital. As if to prove that it is indifferent to the waste of public funds, the regional health authority, South East Thames, whose general manager was general manager at Bromley when the bureaucratic scheme was launched, has recently given another £1·5 million to pay for continuing design fees and other expenses.
    I have heard from one designer who is involved that the entire project is being scaled down because of escalating costs and falling land values. A 500-bed hospital is now being contemplated. Even if the hospital is built, the new Bromley hospital cannot be ready before the year 2000. What is to happen meanwhile? Orpington hospital has been truncated. The existing Bromley hospital is bursting at the seams. Queen Mary's hospital, which is just over the border in the area covered by Bexley health district, cannot cope.
    Was there ever such a muddle? It is no wonder that, in January, the community health council passed unanimously a vote of no confidence in the health authority. It was alarmed at the authority's failure to consult and at the waste of management time and resources being spent on the new hospital before planning consent had been obtained. It said that the £1·5 million could have been better spent on existing services. The professional medical staff are extremely worried by what might happen in the present hiatus. They approved of the new hospital on the understanding that it would be under way before any rationalisation of existing services took place. We could be heading for the worst possible outcome—no new Bromley hospital because of insufficient funds and land, and no expansion of Orpington hospital, because the land available has been sold to private developers.
    The people responsible for this muddle should have been sacked rather than promoted, and members of the
    1316
    health authority who condoned the inefficiency and faulty judgment involved and failed to correct it should be censured. It is a pity that nowadays the members of a health authority are not drawn from the ranks of the elected councils in the districts concerned, where they could at least be called to account.
    My hon. Friend the Minister for Health told me a day or two ago that she has appointed a new chairman for the Bromley health authority, a Mr. Alan Cumming. She seems to have plucked him out of the air. I was not informed or consulted about his appointment. However good he is, he will not have the authority, let alone the experience, to do what is required to stop this nonsense. The Minister herself should intervene and tell the authority that it should stick to the existing plan and in any event get on with building up Orpington as a district general hospital without further delay.
    10.40 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has, for many years, been a doughty fighter for Orpington hospital. In preparing for the debate, I looked over the speeches that he made. Both my immediate predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), and his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), were called to account by my hon. Friend for the way in which the health service has been planning the hospital facilities for his constituents in Orpington, and quite properly so. On both those occasions, and again this evening, he expressed vigorously and clearly the views that I am sure are widely held in his constituency, and did so in a way that leaves us with no option—nor should we have an option —but to take them seriously.
    Before I deal with the substance of what my hon. Friend has had to say about the circumstances in which the NHS finds itself in Orpington I shall set it in the context of the way in which the NHS has to be managed. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the NHS is a vast organisation that cannot be run on the basis that every significant decision within it is made by one of four Ministers sat in Richmond house. It is, I believe, the largest organisation in the world in terms of the number of people that is employs, with two exceptions—the Red Army and the Indian railway, both of which made the mistake of over-centralising to an extent that we are determined to avoid in the management of the NHS.
    For that reason, we have set up and recently reinforced a management system within the health service that delegates responsibility to district health authorities and, within health authorities, to the management teams within the hospitals, in order to ensure that the people who are responsible for using taxpayers' money to provide a health care system in each locality feel that they are responsible for the way in which the cash is used in the particular unit in which they work. That commitment to delegation, and then to accountability, which is the other side of the same coin, is something that we in the Department hold as a key objective in the evolution of our health service policy.
    My hon. Friend, in talking about the impact of that on Bromley district health authority, regretted the fact that the passing of councillors from the health authority meant that, as he saw it, there was no local accountability to the local authority. I do not apologise for that, because,

    1317
    although we have a commitment to delegate, the NHS is ultimately accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, through him, to the House. That is why my hon. Friend is entirely right, despite that commitment to delegation within the management system of the health service, to call Ministers to account in the House for the way in which taxpayers' money is used within the health service and the solutions that are arrived at by that delegated system of management.
    There is a nice balance to be struck within the management of the health service. Ministers stress the importance of delegating decisions so as to ensure that resources are used effectively in each locality. Despite the fact that we emphasise the importance of that delegation, we do not duck our accountability for the decisions that the bureaucracy ultimately reaches. It is right and proper that the issues that are of obvious and continuing concern to my hon. Friend's constituents should detain the House this evening and that he should bring them to our attention.
    The way in which my hon. Friend presented his constituents' concerns highlights the fact that there are two issues affecting the provision of health care in his constituency. Those issues can perhaps be run together, but they are nevertheless separate. The first issue is whether it is right to centralise acute care on a single site, in this case, the Elmfield site to which my hon. Friend devoted a considerable part of his speech.
    My hon. Friend suggested that there was an official plan that called for the continued provision of acute care on two sites within the health district. I think that he will accept—although he may disagree with it—that for some time, it has been the established preference of the health service management in Bromley and within South East Thames to centralise acute care in Bromley on a single site. To describe the policy of providing acute care on two sites as the official policy of the health service management is no longer accurate.
    The reasons why health service managers in Bromley have sought, or wish, to centralise acute care on a single hospital site in my hon. Friend's constituency, or serving his constituency, are not dissimilar from those in other parts of the country. They are familiar arguments. Advances in modern medicine provide us with a great opportunity, which we must seize and use properly, to provide an improving quality of acute care while, at the same time, employing fewer acute beds. There is a long-term decline—not merely in this country, but throughout the developed world—in the demand for acute beds and acute hospital space in the provision of an advanced health service. That argument, coupled with the increased dependence of acute care on high technology, has resulted in a pressure to centralise acute care into high-tech centres of excellence, not only in my hon. Friend's constituency but elsewhere.
    That is one side of the argument, but my hon. Friend was right to stress the other side, which is to ensure that as acute care is centralised into centres of excellence, it is not allowed to become too divorced from the communities that it is supposed to serve. He was also right to stress the importance of considerations of local access, clinical viability and the development of centres of excellence.
    1318
    That nexus of substantive issues is important and cannot be ducked, for it should concern anyone who is interested in the development of an efficient, modern system of health care.
    The second set of issues that my hon. Friend mentioned involve planning issues related to the green belt. Quite reasonably, he quoted from the report of the inspector, who appeared to support the proposition that if acute care is to be centralised in Bromley, it should be centralised on the site of the Orpington hospital in my hon. Friend's constituency. As a distinguished lawyer, my hon. Friend will know the danger of relying on judges' obiter dicta. The question that the inspector was asked was not, "Where should the hospital be?" but, "Should the hospital be built at Elmfield?" Although my hon. Friend is entitled to pray in aid the inspector, I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the passage that he quoted from the inspector's report was of the nature of an obiter dicta. I am not sure what the singular of obiter dicta is. It was an obiter dictum, presumably.
    It is not a factor on which we should put too much weight. Our planning system does not allow inspectors to tell us where we should build things; it asks inspectors whether a particular proposal—in this case a proposal to build the hospital at Elmfield—should be allowed. It must be right that the local authority, as the planning authority, and the health authority that wishes to build the hospital should retain the power of initiative in deciding planning questions. The inspector can dispose, but he should not be able to propose.
    As my hon. Friend said, the London borough of Bromley, will vote on a proposal to change the nature of the green belt in the borough on I May, so it would be wrong for me to pre-empt what the council may say about a proposed change in the arrangements. It would also be wrong to pre-empt anything that may happen as a result of the change in the limits of the green belt.
    However, it is fair to say that a decision on a major investment, such as has been envisaged by the health authority at Elmfield, would ultimately come to Ministers. Although this evening we can have a discussion that may illuminate some of the issues, I would not wish—it would be quite wrong to do so—to pre-empt the decision that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would make if a revised Elmfield proposal, which it was realistic to expect could be built because the planning law had been changed, came to him. There are a number of conditions in that sentence, all of which would have to be satisfied before a Minister could be asked to approve that proposal.
    My hon. Friend has raised a substantive set of issues around the question of whether there should be a single-site acute care provision in Bromley. There are many hurdles still to be gone over before Ministers could be asked to make a specific decision. My hon. Friend's debate has served to remind us of his continuing interest in the outcome of that decision and of the strength of his feelings and those of his constituents about the outcome of that decision, when it is made.
    The second issue is the temporary closures announced by the health authority in January this year. It has always been part of the management model of the health service that we consult before we make substantial changes, but that the health authorities reserve the right to make changes without consultation when financial pressures require urgent action. That was precisely the position in which the health authority found itself in January.

    1319
    However, if a health authority makes such a temporary, short-term decision under financial pressure, it remains under an obligation to consult before the decisions are made final. That is why the health authority has issued the consultation document on the proposals and why the consultation is currently going ahead on the proposals that were implemented by the health authority in January.
    My hon. Friend will recognise that the health authority believes that, as a result of the changes, it is still offering the same basic level of service measured by activity or output measures, but on a different pattern around the district which, I can understand, is less popular with my hon. Friend's constituents than the pattern that previously prevailed. In considering whether the changes should be made permanent, it is legitimate to consider not only the fact that there is a £l million revenue saving for the health authority as a result, but the question of access for my hon. Friend's constituents to the health care that is provided.
    As my hon. Friend will know, if the community health council chooses to sustain its opposition, which it has expressed clearly in its letter to my right hon. Friend the
    1320
    Secretary of State on 24 January, and to put forward an alternative proposal for the management of health care in Bromley which can still deliver the underlying objective for each health service manager, which is to live within the budget, the temporary closures could come to Ministers for them to make a decision. Once again, it would be wrong for me this evening to pre-empt any decision that my right hon. Friend may make as the result of such an appeal by the community health council.
    My hon. Friend has taken the opportunity this evening to draw the attention of the House to difficult issues in his constituency. Both the long-term question of the centralisation of care and the short-term question of the changes implemented in January could ultimately come to my right hon. Friend for decision. I assure my hon. Friend that his arguments to the House this evening would be taken seriously into account in any decision that my right hon. Friend made in those circumstances.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Solihull Urban District Plan
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue guidelines on the release of land concerning the type of houses identified to meet demand in the urban district plan for Solihull

  Mr. Yeo
  Solihull's deposited unitary development plan includes a policy on the type of dwellings to be allowed on housing sites with the aim of providing a mix of types of dwellings to cater for different needs.

  The Secretary of State's strategic guidance for the West Midlands (PPG10) does not include guidelines on the release of land for different types of houses. He will, however, consider the need for advice on this subject in the forthcoming West Midlands regional guidance.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the number of houses identified to meet demand and over the next 20 years in the urban district plan for Solihull.

  Mr. Yeo
  The housing figure of 7,500 included in the Solihull unitary development plan is that recommended in the West Midlands strategic guidance published in February 1988. The Secretary of State does not propose to review that figure, as the guidance provides a policy package for the whole period 1988–2001 and to change any element of it could be prejudicial to the success of the package. Regional guidance for the West Midlands region, which will incorporate a review of strategic guidance, will be produced over the next two to three years, and this will provide an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the guidance policies and make any necessary changes.

  Compulsory Purchase Compensation
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the cost of extending the 10 per cent. addition to compulsory purchase compensation to the compulsory purchase of agricultural land.

  Mr. Yeo
  Figures relating exclusively to the compulsory acquisition of agricultural land are not collected centrally.

  Starter Homes
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what encouragement he has given to an increase in the number of starter homes.

  Mr. Yeo
  For the most part it is for the building industry to offer homes at a price people can afford. We have asked planning authorities to deal promptly with planning applications and streamlined appeal procedures. We encourage local authorities to make land available for all forms of low-cost home ownership, one aspect of which 490
  is our initiative to secure the release of sites for local needs in rural areas. Through the Housing Corporation we have invested nearly £400 million since 1983 in shared ownership schemes, which has brought home ownership within the reach of over 20,000 first-time buyers.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what definition his Department uses for a public good when determining non-financial benefits under the proposed countryside stewardship scheme; and whether it includes the conservation of wildlife and habitats.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is intended that under the countryside stewardship scheme payments will be made to land managers and farmers to protect and enhance key landscapes and habitats which are valued by the public; and to improve public enjoyment of them through the sensitive provision of access. Benefits to wildlife will be derived from the protection and enhancement of the habitats on which it is dependent.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what organisations he has consulted over the implementation of the countryside stewardship scheme.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Countryside Commission has been developing countryside stewardship in conjunction with my Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Nature Conservancy Council, now English Nature, and English Heritage. Discussion has taken place with a large number of organisations including the British Council for Archaeology, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Country Landowners Association, the Farming and Wildlife Trust, the National Farmers Union, the national park authorities, the National Sheep Association, the National Trust, the Open Spaces Society, the Ramblers Association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Tenant Farmers Association and the World Wide Fund for Nature UK. There has been substantial correspondence with many others.

  Severn Estuary
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has regarding the formal designation as a special protection area under the 1979 EC Wild Birds Directive of the inter-tidal areas on the English bank of the Severn estuary so far proposed for designation by the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Nature Conservancy Council's proposal for the designation of the Severn estuary as a special protection area is under consideration.

  Benzene
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are taken to monitor the levels of benzene in drinking water in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible only for drinking water quality in England. I am, however, answering these questions with the agreement of the Secretary of State for
  491
  Wales. Drinking water quality in Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the respective Secretaries of State.

  I am not aware of benzene being found during 1990 in public water supplies in England and Wales.

  Benzene is not likely to be found in drinking water except as the result of pollution. If a water company suspected that benzene or other hydrocarbon was present in its supplies it would be required to monitor in accordance with regulation 14 of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 and as advised in the publication "Guidance on Safeguarding the Quality of Public Water Supplies" issued by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office.

  Right to Repair Scheme
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the right to repair scheme.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 31 October 1990 to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley),Official Report, column 535. The number of claims under the right to repair scheme continues to be low.

  Housing Stock
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will produce a table giving, for each of the local authorities that have undertaken large-scale voluntary transfer of their housing stock to other bodies,(a) at the time of the transfer, the local authority's outstanding loan debt on its housing stock, (b) the actual price paid for the transfer, (c) the estimate of right to buy receipts included in the valuation price, (d) the amount of the purchase price used by the local authority to repay debt incurred for local housing purposes, (e) the amount of the receipts so far re-invested in housing improvement or development either (i) with the body purchasing the stock, or (ii) registered housing associations not involved with the purchase, or (iii) other outside bodies, or (iv) by the local authority itself, (f) where such re-investment is with a registered housing association, the amount reclaimed by the local authority from the housing corporation as housing association grant and (g) an estimate of the total number of new dwellings built or planned as a result of the re-investment so far undertaken.

  Sir George Young
  The table gives the information requested except for(d), (e), (f) and (g). On (d), local authorities must set aside either 75 per cent, of the receipts from large-scale voluntary transfers or whatever is required to cover the debt on the transferred housing up to 100 per cent, of the receipts, whichever is the greater. The exact amounts of the receipts which were used to repay the debts on other housing expenditure are not available centrally. On (f), housing association grant for local authority sponsored schemes is claimed by housing associations, not by local authorities. Although the grant is used to repay development loans from local authorities, neither the Housing Corporation nor the Department is in a position to know whether the loans have been funded from voluntary transfer receipts or from other sources. On (e) and (g), local authorities are required to inform the
  492
  Department of their expenditure, but the proceeds of large-scale voluntary transfers reinvested in local housing are not separately identified.

  £ million

  Local Authority

  Loan Debt on Housing Stock

  Price paid for Transfer (gross)

  RTB Receipts included in Valuation

  Chiltern

  20·738

  32·90

  16·32

  Sevenoaks

  25·768

  65·50

  31·58

  Newbury

  43·000

  47·00

  22·29

  Swale

  37·054

  55·15

  13·10

  Broadland

  18·042

  25·08

  10·34

  North Bedfordshire

  45·228

  63·50

  8·93

  Medina

  17·300

  27·85

  3·93

  Rochester

  53·200

  76·96

  22·19

  South Wight

  16·200

  22·84

  3·83

  Mid Sussex

  24·914

  44·19

  20·45

  East Dorset

  11·200

  21·63

  3·01

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  22·300

  54·40

  14·16

  Ryedale

  13·520

  28·29

  5·54

  South Bucks

  16·300

  35·27

  6·50

  Christchurch

  7·200

  14·10

  0·30

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on 12 December 1990,Official Report, c. 442. Information relating to financial years 1979–80 to 1984–85, inclusive, is not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost. The provisional outturn for 1990–91 is £7·9 million and the provisional budget for 1991–92 is £6–6 million; the latter figure excludes PSAs, the Building Research Establishment Agency and the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre where budgets have not yet been finalised.

  Plankton
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his response to the conference in Plymouth, on the role of plankton in climate change, at which he was represented.

  Mr. Baldry
  The symposium on the biological consequences of global warming, held at the polytechnic of the south west, Plymouth, was a scientific meeting at which Government Departments were not represented. The role of plankton in the global carbon cycle is among the topics to be further reviewed by the intergovernmental panel on climate change, for which the United Kingdom continues to lead the scientific assessment under the chairmanship of Dr. John Houghton, chief executive of the Meteorological Office.

  Biodiversity Convention
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his response to the policy conclusions of the recent biodiversity convention, at which he was represented.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department was represented, along with officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration, at a meeting of legal and technical experts on biological diversity convened in March by the United Nations Environment Programme. This was largely concerned with deciding the necessary procedures to enable negotiation of a global convention to begin at the next meeting which will be held in Madrid from 24 June to 3 July.

  Halon
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to identify the extent of and need for halon use within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Under the amendments to the Montreal protocol that were agreed in London last June, the production of halons is to be phased out by 2,000, subject to limited exemptions for essential uses. The parties to the protocol are to agree an initial list of essential uses next year. Halons cause serious damage to the ozone layer, but they are at present widely used for firefighting. In order to establish a clear picture of halon use within the UK my Department has decided to commission a detailed study by C. S. Todd and Associates. This will seek to identify those uses for which substitutes are already available, what can be done to help this substitution, and those uses which appear likely to be essential at present.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue general guidance to local authorities on procedural and other aspects of the new local authority air pollution control system established under part I of the Environment Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have issued today a set of five guidance notes which are intended to serve as a manual for local authorities on the operation of the new local authority air pollution controls under the Environmental Protection Act, which came into force on 1 April. I also commend the notes to operators of processes which are affected by the controls and to others with an interest in how the new system will work.

  The notes are "Introduction to Part I of the Act," "Authorisations," "Applications and registers," "Interpretation of terms used in process guidance notes," and "Appeals."

  A set of the notes has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the results of research into the effects of competitive tendering for local authority services.
  494
  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today published the full report of the first year's research into the impact of competitive tendering under the Local Government Act 1988 which has been carried out for us by the Institute of Local Government Studies. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The research confirms that competitive tendering has brought about improvements in the efficiency with which services are provided, combined with a renewed emphasis on the quality of service. In particular, it shows in the authorities studied that an average saving of 6 per cent. in the annual value of contracts subject to competitive tendering has been achieved, with savings often accompanied by improvements in service standards; that productivity improvements through manual staff reductions of the order of 17 per cent. to 26 per cent. have been secured in services subject to keenest competition; and that many local authorities are considering the methods and standards of service provision in a much more systematic way.

  The research is continuing for a further two years to permit a thoroughgoing analysis of contract performance and developments in local authorities over time.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Family Conciliation Services
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Attorney-General what provision his Department will be making for funding of family conciliation services in 1991–92.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on 18 April 1991 at column 221.

  Arbitration Figures
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received about the Lord Chancellor's proposals to raise arbitration figures to £1,000 and to include claims for personal injuries in this figure; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I have received no such representations.

  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has, however, received numerous representations both prior to and since the publication of the report of the review body on civil justice (Cm 394), which recommended that the arbitration limit be increased to£1,000. The existing limit of £500 was set in 1981 and the new limit, which will have effect from July 1991, restores the financial level below which cases are automatically referred to arbitration to a realistic level, enabling the small claims procedure to continue to provide an efficient and accessible means of redress for small litigants.

  The civil justice review body also found that the cost of legal representation in small personal injury cases was often disproportionate to the amount in issue, and recommended that they be dealt with under the small claims arbitration procedure. The Lord Chancellor has received representation on this issue from the Law Society, the Trades Union Congress and the National Consumer Council. The Lord Chancellor is currently considering the way forward in the light of the civil justice review's recommendation and the representations that have been made.

  Court Proceedings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General what likelihood of success the Director of Public Prosecutions requires before proceeding(a) against a police officer and (b) against a member of the public.

  The Attorney-General
  When deciding whether or not to prosecute, the code for Crown prosecutors issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions in accordance with section 10 of the Prosecution of Offence Act 1985 stipulates two general criteria for the institution of criminal proceedings. They are, first, that there must be admissible, substantial and reliable evidence to offer a realistic prospect of conviction; and, secondly, that the public interest requires a prosecution.

  No distinction is drawn between cases involving police officers and members of the public.

  Building Work
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will list the number and location of all new buildings or extensions commissioned by the Lord Chancellor's Department in each of the past five years which(a) had contracts worth between £3 million and £5 million and (b) had contracts worth more than £5 million.

  The Attorney-General
  The following tables show the number and location of all new buildings or extensions where construction contracts were let by the Lord Chancellor's Department, and construction commenced, from 1986 to 1990 inclusive, which had contracts each worth(a) between £3 million and £5 million and (b) more than £5 million.

  Between £3 million and £5 million

  1986

  Grimsby

  1Combined

  Guildford

  Crown

  1987

  Doncaster

  Crown

  Over £5 million

  1986

  Coventry

  Combined

  Derby

  Combined

  Truro

  Combined

  Wood Green

  Crown

  1987

  Newcastle, Quayside

  Combined

  RCJ (12 additional courts)

  High Court

  Wolverhampton

  Combined

  1988

  Harrow

  Crown

  Hull

  Combined

  Luton

  Crown

  Manchester

  (Crown Sq)

  Combined

  Northampton

  Combined

  Stoke

  Combined

  Teesside

  Combined

  1989

  Bradford

  Combined

  Chester

  Crown

  Newport (Gwent)

  Crown

  Stafford

  Combined

  Warrington

  Combined

  Woolwich

  Crown

  496

  Between £3 million and £5 million

  1990

  Borough

  Crown

  Bristol

  Crown

  Carlisle

  Combined

  St. Albans

  Crown

  1Combined Crown and County Court.

  Between £3 million and £5 million

  1990

  Borough

  Crown

  Bristol

  Crown

  1Combined Crown and County Court.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Attorney-General in relation to immigration appeals in Scotland, during the years 1988, 1989 and 1990 how long, on average, was the lapse between the appeal being lodged and the hearing taking place; and what percentage of cases were successful.

  The Attorney-General
  The immigration appellate authorities do not record details of the average time taken for appeals to come before an adjudicator from the time the appeal is lodged. However, it is estimated that for the period 1988 to 1990, the average time taken for appeals to come before an adjudicator in Scotland from the date the parties indicated readiness to proceed to a hearing was six to eight months.

  The IAA do not record details of the percentage of successful cases at individual hearing centres.

THE ARTS

  Building Work
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will list the number and location of all new buildings or extensions commissioned by his Department in each of the past five years which(a) had contracts worth between £3 million and £5 million and (b) had contracts worth more than £5 million.

  Mr. Tim Renton
  During the past five years, the Office of Arts and Libraries has commissioned only one building project, the completion phase of the new British library building at St. Pancras. The anticipated contract value of this project in cash terms is £150 million.

ENERGY

  Home Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the network installers appointed by the Energy Action Grants Agency to administer the home energy efficiency scheme; and if he will indicate the area covered by each network installer.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have today placed copies of a list of network installers registered under the home energy efficiency scheme in the Library of the House.

  I understand that, in the case of Scottish area 14, which covers the highlands, Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland, full coverage has yet to be reached. The Energy Action Grants Agency has had discussions with the registered network installer for that area and will be making proposasls to my Department shortly on how the benefits of the scheme can best be brought to the whole area.

  Trawsfynydd Power Station
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the reasons for the shut-down of Trawsfynydd nuclear power station; how long it was out of commission; what was the cost to the nation's power supply; and what was the cost of repair.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The two reactors at Trawsfynydd nuclear power station were shut down by Nuclear Electric plc (NE) at the beginning of February to make adjustments to operate them at a lower coolant gas pressure. This decision was taken in the light of the latest data on the irradiated properties of the steel used in the pressure vessel. Operation at reduced pressure is intended to maintain the very high margins of safety required by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate.

  The NII was kept fully informed of NE's decision and supported the action taken by NE. The reactors will not be restarted without the agreement of the NII.

  The commercial flexibilities open to NE and the regional electricity companies mean that this is unlikely to have any effect on the cost of electricity supplies to the RECs, or on the fossil fuel levy.

  The cost to NE of adjustments to its reactors is an operational matter for the company.

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what facilities he is making available to staff in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department has arrangements which enable staff to contribute by deduction from pay to charities of their choice. It has no plans to provide further facilities for the appeal mentioned by the hon. Member.

  Spent Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when plutonium material extracted from spent nuclear fuel in the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield will start to be returned to European customers; whether the plutonium materials will be transported to European destinations by land or sea; which British seaports or airports will be used; and if he will make a statement about current intentions with regard to the transport of plutonium to overseas customers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  British Nuclear Fuels plc expects to return plutonium extracted from spent fuel in its thermal oxide reprocessing plant to its customers in Europe from the mid-1990s onwards. Plutonium arising from reprocessing in this country is returned to its country of origin or to any other destination only subject to application of safeguards and on receipt of assurances covering peaceful use, physical protection and controls on re-transfer. Its transport must be made in compliance with stringent national and international regulations. I understand that the options for returning the plutonium referred to by the hon. Member are still under consideration.

  Domestic Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the percentage of domestic electricity consumption which is used in lighting, space heating, refrigeration, water heating, washing machines and driers and cooking, respectively.

  Mr. Wakeham
  An estimated breakdown of domestic electricity consumption by end use for 1986–87 for England and Wales only is given in the table:

  End use Percentage

  Lighting

  8·9

  Space heating

  22·2

  Water heating

  14·2

  Cooking

  9·3

  Kettles

  5·3

  Washing machines

  4·2

  Tumble driers

  2·2

  Refrigerators and freezers

  18·9

  Television

  5·7

  Other1

  10·1

  Total

  100·0

  1Other includes irons, dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, hi fi and small electrical appliances.

  Source: Electricity Association.

  Data for later years are not yet available.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total of fees paid to underwriters and sub-underwriters involved in the flotation of National Power and PowerGen.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Primary underwriters were not appointed for this flotation. A total of £14.9 million was paid to United Kingdom sub-underwriters and a further £6 million was paid out in commission to overseas underwriters.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the areas of responsibility of(a) his Department,(b) the Office of Electricity Supply and (c) the Non-Fossil Fuel Purchasing Agency Ltd. in respect of determining the mechanism by which prices are paid to renewable electricity generators under the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The division of functions under the legislation is set out in my Department's "Renewables Energy Bulletin No. 4", a copy of which I placed in the Library of the House in December. As that explains, responsibility for making arrangements to comply with an order setting a non-fossil fuel obligation lies with the regional electricity companies on which the obligation is placed and for which the Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency Ltd. acts. However, in view of the role of the Director General of Electricity Supply in examining the arrangements made, the NFPA developed its pricing mechanism in close consultation with the Office of Electricity Regulation.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the number of tenders received by the
  499
  Non-Fossil Fuel Purchasing Agency Ltd. for inclusion within the 1991 renewable tranche for each of (a) wind power, (b) hydro, (c) landfill gas, (d) municipal waste incineration, (e) general industrial waste incineration and (f) others; and what is the total capacity tendered in megawatts for each category.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency Ltd. has adopted a competitive tendering procedure for selecting the projects to be contracted under the proposed 1991 Renewables Order. I am unable to publish any details of the bids submitted to the NFPA, since to do so might prejudice this procedure.

  £'000

  Television advertising

  Newspaper advertising

  Radio advertising

  Other promotional material

  1990–911

  0

  559

  0

  1,074

  1989–90

  0

  892

  0

  1,000

  1988–89

  0

  2,378

  4

  1,313

  1987–88

  0

  1,513

  0

  959

  1986–87

  16,300

  11,830

  1,219

  1,125

  1985–86

  2,212

  1,589

  0

  2—

  1984–85

  1,302

  1,572

  27

  2—

  1983–84

  682

  1,770

  50

  2—

  1982–83

  292

  955

  0

  2—

  1981–82

  2,550

  530

  0

  2—

  1980–81

  1,500

  1,590

  0

  2—

  1979–80

  20

  1,280

  0

  2—

  1 Latest forecast; expenditure on the privatisation of the electricity supply industry will be notified to Parliament in the usual way when the figures have been finalised.

  2 Expenditure on other promotional material prior to 1986–87 is not available on a comparable basis.

  Detailed decisions on expenditure by media in 1991–92 have not yet been taken.

  Building Work
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will list the number and location of all new buildings or extensions commissioned by his Department in each of the past five years which(a) had contracts worth between £3 million and £5 million and (b) had contracts worth more than £5 million.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Department of Energy has commissioned no new buildings or extensions in the last five years. Expenditure on the Department's new headquarters building over the period 1987–88 to 1989–90 was borne on the Property Services Agency's vote.

  Office of Gas Supply
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the annual cost of the Office of Gas Supply and each regional consultative committee since their inception.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This is a matter for the Director General of Gas Supply and the chairman of the Gas Consumers Council. I also refer the hon. Member to the supply estimates, the Government's expenditure plans within the energy sector and the annual report of the Director General of Gas Supply which were presented to Parliament earlier this year.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all the people he has appointed to serve at the Office of Gas Supply and each regional consultative committee giving the age, address and profession of each such person.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Director General of Gas Supply alone is appointed by me. Mr. McKinnon is an accountant by profession.

  Office of Electricity Regulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all the people he has appointed to serve at the Office of Electricity Regulation and to each regional consultation committee, giving the age, address and profession of each such person.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 26 February at columns 448–49.

  Energy Research and Development
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what benefits have accrued to the United Kingdom from participation in the European Communities' energy research and development programme 1990 to 1994, to date.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Within the European Communities' third framework programme for research and development, 1990–94, there are three proposed specific research programmes on energy. These are the non-nuclear energies programme (budget 157 million ecus), the nuclear fission safety programme (budget 37 million ecus) and the controlled nuclear fusion programme (budget 458 million ecus).

  No benefits have accrued to the United Kingdom from these proposed programmes as they have not yet been adopted by the Council of Ministers.

  Office of Energy Regulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the cost to date of the Office of Electricity Regulation and each regional consultative committee, broken down annually.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Although this is a matter for the Office of Electricity Regulation, the hon. Member should first look at the paper entitled "Government's Plans Within the Energy Sector 1991–92 to 1993–94", which was presented to the House in February.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, following the recent support expressed for small nuclear power plants by Crown Prince Tupouto' A of Tonga, he will make it his policy to contact the Government of Tonga to assess what export opportunities exist for the United Kingdom nuclear industry to the South Pacific nation.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is Government policy to support British companies in pursuing suitable export opportunities. The staff of the high commission in Tonga keep a close watch on opportunities for United Kingdom businesses. Where appropriate, they will notify exporters of such opportunities. The high commission has noted the Prince's remarks on nuclear power, which were carried in a local magazine, and we await further developments with interest.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list in the Official Report all nuclear incidents in civil nuclear facilities reported to him by (a) the nuclear installations inspectorate and (b) the nuclear operators over the past five years; and what has been the average time lapse between the occurence of a reportable incident and its reportage to his Department over the same period.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my predecessor, the hon. Memer for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), concerning the revised criteria for the reporting of nuclear incidents at civil nuclear installations, in which he stated:"All such reports are published quarterly by the Health and Safety Executive",
  and that for all occurrences including more minor occurrences which are not formally reportable under the criteria
  "nuclear operators will publish details … in weekly or fortnightly site newsletters'.—[Official Report, 30 April 1987; Vol. 115, c. 203–4.]
  Copies of these reports and individual site newsletters have since this time been made available to the Library of the House.

  Following this statement, operators were instructed that all incidents covered by the formal reporting criteria should be reported as soon as practicable, but anyway within 24 hours to this and other interested Departments and the relevant regulatory bodies. I am not aware of any incident which was defined as reportable where the operator has failed to meet this requirement.

  International Energy Agencies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the secretary of State for Energy if he will set out (i) the criteria adopted in the choice of United Kingdom representatives and (ii) the names of all 502
  such representatives appointed over the past 10 years to (a) the International Energy Agency in Paris and (b) the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The United Kingdom is usually represented at the governing board of the International Energy Agency (IEA) by the head of the Department of Energy's international unit and at the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by the head of the Department's atomic energy division.

  The UK is represented in the full range of IEA and IAEA committees and working groups by those with expertise in the relevant areas, including those from UK permanent missions to these organisations. To identify all officials involved over the past 10 years would involve disporportionate cost.

  The Department's Permanent Under-Secretary is currently chairman of the governing board of the IEA at official level, having been elected to that post by member countries' governing board representatives.

  Symposium on Electricity and the Environment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representation the United Kingdom will have at the Helsinki symposium on electricity and the environment to be held in Finland on 13 to 17 May; what criteria were adopted to make the choice of representatives; and with whom his Department plans to liaise on distributing details of its outcome.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The symposium will cover technical, economic, environmental and regulatory aspects of electricity supply. The Department of Energy will be represented by two officials, at grade 5 level, from the energy technology and economics and statistics divisions; a deputy chief inspector from Her Majesty's pollution inspectorate will also attend. The responsibility for distributing details of the outcome of the symposium will lie with the sponsors.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps have been taken since the Chernobyl nuclear accident to review and improve the civil emergency plans and regulations, as they concern civil radiation emergencies.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Following the Chernobyl nuclear accident, the lessons of the accident for the United Kingdom were carefully considered by a Government working group. As part of this review the Department of Energy carried out extensive consultations with emergency services and authorities which would be involved in dealing with a nuclear accident in the United Kingdom. These consultations showed that in addition to the emergency plans which nuclear operators are required to maintain, other contingency plans were available which, as the then Prime Minister stated;"would permit an effective response to be made to any nuclear accident, including those with more widespread effects than the specific site and off-site plans are designed to cater for."—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 144, c.391.]

  In addition, following that review, my Department set up a nuclear emergency planning liaison group which meets twice each year with the aim of agreeing improvements in emergency planning arrangements and procedures among interested organisations at national and

  503
  local level. There have also been improvements in the information available about emergency arrangements with the publication in May 1990 of the Health and Safety Executive's booklet "Arrangements for Responding to Nuclear Emergencies" and the preparation by nuclear operators and local authorities of booklets describing emergency plans and telling the public in the area of nuclear sites what action they should take if a nuclear emergency is declared. In addition, arrangements for the regular exercising of emergency plans have been improved.

  More recently the report of Michael Barnes QC into the application for planning consent for the construction of a PWR at Hinkley Point contained a number of recommendations designed to strengthen emergency arrangements around the Hinkley Point site and at national level. These recommendations were endorsed by my right hon. Friend in his decision letter and are being taken forward by my Department, the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate and other bodies concerned.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the effect the increase in the United Kingdom's trade-weighted relative unit values since the second half of 1983 has had on the balance of trade in manufacturing.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish a table showing for each year since 1961 the percentage increase in the volume of output and the volume of imports of consumer goods other than food and fuel together with the International Monetary Fund or other index of competitiveness.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have been asked to reply.
  504
  Information from which percentage changes in import volumes and import price competitiveness may be derived can be found in tables C14 and F3 of the monthly review of external trade statistics and its annual supplement, available from the Library of the House, or on the Central Statistical Office database which may be accessed through the Library. The information is not available for years prior to 1971. Information about percentage changes in the volume of output of consumer goods as defined could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Businesses (London)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses(a) opened up and (b) went into receivership in each of the last five years in (i) the London borough of Southwark, (ii) south London and (iii) Greater London.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information is not readily available in the form requested. The following table gives estimates of the number of companies whose registered offices are in the areas shown.

  London borough of Southwark

  South London

  Greater London

  Companies incorporated in financial year 1990–91

  650

  5,360

  41,000

  Active companies on register at 31 March 1991

  6,600

  53,500

  330,000

  Of which:

  in receivership

  87

  259

  2,647

  It should be noted that the location of companies in receivership may depend on the location of the offices which carry out receivership duties, and that some companies have been in receivership for a number of years.

  South London consists of the London boroughs of Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, Greenwich, Kingston upon Thames, Lambeth, Lewisham, Merton, Southwark, Sutton and Wandsworth.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Biology
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it a requirement of the biology national curriculum that it includes full and accurate information about the female reproductive organs.

  Mr. Eggar
  The programmes of study for science in the national curriculum set out what is to be taught to pupils from age five to 16. For children aged seven to 11, the programmes of study state that"they should be introduced to the functions of the major organ systems and to basic ideas about the processes of breathing, circulation, growth and reproduction."
  For pupils aged 11 to 14, the requirement is that
  "they should study life processes, food and feeding, respiration, movement, behaviour, growth and reproduction, particularly as they relate to human beings."

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Eggar
  The expenditure figures for advertising and other promotional materials by this Department for the financial years 1979–80 to 1990–91 are provided in the table. The 1991–92 estimated budget is £5·38 million. Final decisions on media have not been taken

  £000

  Year

  TV

  Radio

  Newspaper

  Other

  1979–80

  —

  —

  91·6

  12·2

  1980–81

  —

  —

  8·9

  58·3

  1981–82

  —

  —

  86·9

  49·9

  1982–83

  —

  —

  6·0

  33·7

  1983–84

  —

  —

  9·

  74·9

  1984–85

  —

  —

  18·5

  150·6

  1985–86

  —

  —

  14·8

  184·1

  1986–87

  align="right"—

  align="right"—

  532·0

  533·0

  1987–88

  —

  —

  280·0

  1,459·0

  1988–89

  —

  40·0

  475·0

  1,156·0

  1989–90

  —

  11·8

  238·0

  1,150·0

  1990–91

  1,100–0

  97–0

  1,407·0

  1,916·0

  Building Work
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will list the number of location of all new buildings or extensions commissioned by his Department in each of the past five years which(a) had contracts worth between £3 million and £5 million arid (b) contracts worth more than £5 million.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department of Education and Science has not commissioned any buildings in either category. The Department is, however, paying for the fitting out of Sanctuary Buildings which is leased to Property Holdings for use as the Department's headquarters. The cost of the fitting-out works exceeds £5 million. The work is due for completion later this year.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report all (i) in-service training and (ii) first offer courses on environmental protection and management currently offered by British universities, polytechnics or colleges of higher and further education, of which his Department is currently aware; and whether he has any plans to extend support for environmental education.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department does not at present maintain a list of the environmental courses currently available in higher and further education. The priority to be given to such courses is for individual institutions to determine, in the light of demand and within the resources available to them. The Government are, however, proposing to establish an expert committee to make recommendations on the future development of environmental provision within further and higher education.

  Shakespeare
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what initiatives he intends to take to encourage the teaching of the works of Shakespeare in schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  The national curriculum for English specifically requires schools to introduce all pupils aged 11 to 16 to some of the works of Shakespeare. This will extend the opportunities for pupils to study and appreciate Shakespeare's plays.

  Children in Hospital
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to educate children who are in hospital in London, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  It is for local education authorities to make provision for the education of children in hospital.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Building Work
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list the number and location of all new buildings or extensions commissioned by the Overseas Development Administration in each of the past five years which(a) had contracts worth between £3 million and £5 million and (b) had contracts worth more than £5 million.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My Department has commissioned buildings as follows:

  £3 million to £5 million

  Over £5 million

  Numbers

  Numbers

  1986–87

  Nil

  Nil

  1987–88

  Nil

  Nil

  1988–89

  Nil

  Nil

  1989–90

  11

  Nil

  1990–91

  Nil

  21

  1At Chatham.

  2At London.

  Kurds
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by date, aircraft type and tonnage each planeload of supplies from Government and non-government sources which are known to his Department to have been sent from the United Kingdom as aid to the Kurds.

  Agency

  Date

  Aircraft

  Tonnage

  Destination

  ODA

  5 April

  2 x Boeing 707

  180

  Ankara, Turkey

  ODA

  7 April

  2 x C.130

  21

  Incerlik, Turkey

  ODA

  8 April

  2 x C.130

  24

  Incerlik, Turkey

  ODA

  8 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  135

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  ODA

  9 April

  1 x Tristar

  18

  Incerlik, Turkey

  ODA

  9 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  135

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  ODA

  11 April

  1 x Tristar

  20

  Incerlik, Turkey

  ODA

  12 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  27

  Incerlik, Turkey

  ODA

  13 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  25

  Incerlik, Turkey

  ODA

  14 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  26

  Incerlik, Turkey

  ODA

  15 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  27

  Incerlik, Turkey

  ODA

  16 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  22

  Incerlik, Turkey

  ODA

  17 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  39

  Incerlik, Turkey

  ODA

  18 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  135

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  ODA

  19 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  38

  Incerlik, Turkey

  ODA

  19 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  135

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  ODA

  20 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  36

  Incerlik, Turkey

  ODA

  21 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  34

  Incerlik, Turkey

  ODA

  22 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  37

  Incerlik, Turkey

  ODA

  23 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  135

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  ODA

  24 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  135

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  Various NGOs

  12 April

  1 x Boeing 757

  23

  Incerlik, Turkey

  OXFAM

  10 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  40

  Dyarbakir, Turkey

  OXFAM

  15 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  5

  Dyarbakir, Turkey

  OXFAM

  22 April

  1 x Belfast

  16

  Dyarbakir, Turkey

  BRCS

  5 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  36

  Ankara, Turkey

  BRCS

  5 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  37

  Ankara, Turkey

  BRCS

  10 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  39

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  BRCS

  12 Apr

  1 x Boeing 707

  36

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  BRCS

  17 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  35

  Tehran, Iran

  BRCS

  18 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  34

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  BRCS

  19 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  33

  Orumiyeh, Iran

  BRCS

  20 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  40

  Tabriz, Iran

  SCF

  5 April

  Not known

  1

  Turkey

  SCF

  6 April

  Not known

  28

  Turkey

  SCF

  9 April

  Not known

  30

  Turkey

  SCF

  15 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  37

  Turkey

  SCF

  16 April

  1 x Boeing 707

  37

  Iran

  SCF

  20 April

  1 x DC8–55FQ

  31

  Iran

  1 Denotes estimate.

  Development Organisations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any decisions were taken at the 17th Annual General Assembly of European non-governmental development organisations in Brussels, 9–11 April, that affect the present funding of United Kingdom non-governmental development organisations by his Department.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No decisions were taken at the 17th annual general assembly of European non-governmental development organisations in Brussels, 9–11 April, which affect the present funding of United Kingdom nongovernmental development organisations by my Department. The level of funding, which has increased substantially over the last few years, is constantly under review.
  508
  Mrs. Chalker
  As of 24 April, an estimated total of 684 metric tones of relief supplies have been sent from the United Kingdom by the Overseas Development Administration, and an estimated total of 540 metric tones have been sent by non-government sources. The details of which the Department is aware are as follows:

  Global Environment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters in regard to financial support for protecting the global environment will be discussed at the meeting of G7 Finance Ministers in Washington on 28 April.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A number of important issues will be discussed at the G7 Finance Ministers meeting in Washington, but it is not possible to forecast how discussions will develop. Environment will be discussed at the development committee meeting on 29–30 April and there will be a meeting of the global environment facility on 1 and 2 May. The United Kingdom has pledged approximately £40 milion to the core facility plus £8 million for the programme to phase out CFCs.

EMPLOYMENT

  Bradford TEC
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria were set for Bradford TEC for training needs in 1991–92; what targets have been set; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The training needs identified by Bradford and District TEC are based on a thorough assessment of the local labour market. Their plans include challenging targets which have been agreed with my Department covering a range of training and enterprise activities. Bradford and District TEC has developed a number of interesting initiatives, including Jobsmatch 1000. The aim of the initiative is to help 1,000 unemployed people in inner city areas to obtain a job within two years.

  Employment, South Derbyshire
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in South Derbyshire were employed in (i) 1980, (ii) 1985 and (iii) latest figures; and what is the rate of change of employment in South Derbyshire and the national average over the same period.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available information for South Derbyshire is from censuses of employment held in 1981, 1984, 1987 and 1989. Data for the constituency and comparable figures for Great Britain are given in the table. The figures relate only to employees in employment; they exclude the self-employed and members of HM Forces.

  Employees in employment (thousands)

  South Derbyshire

  Great Britain

  September of each year

  1981

  19·1

  21,314·1

  1984

  18·8

  20,845·9

  1987

  19·6

  21,271·0

  1989

  20·5

  22,234·5

  Change 1981 to 1989

  Number

  +1·5

  +920·3

  Per cent

  +7·7

  +4·3

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1991–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Jackson
  Expenditure on advertising and promotional material by the Department of Employment from 1979–80 to 1985–86 was as follows:

  £

  1979–80

  70,000

  1980–81

  320,000

  1981–82

  400,000

  1982–83

  360,000

  1983–84

  500,000

  1984–85

  320,000

  1985–86

  1,220,000

  510
  Figures for television, radio and newspaper advertising and other promotional material are not available separately.

  The figures for 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 are as follows:

  Television

  Press/Radio

  Other promotional

  1986–87

  9·3

  3·0

  4·1

  1987–88

  3·3

  0·8

  2·8

  1988–89

  2·1

  2·3

  1·3

  1989–90

  0·9

  0·9

  1·2

  1990–91

  n/a

  0·5

  2·1

  The Department's overall advertising budget for 1991–92 is £17·4 million. Detailed discussions on expenditure by media category have not yet been taken.

  All the above figures refer only to Department of Employment expenditure. They do not cover expenditure by the former Training Agency, Training Commission and Manpower Services Commission. Figures for these are being provided to the hon. Member in reply to a separate question.

  Building Work
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will list the number and location of all new buildings or extensions commissioned by his Department in each of the past five years which(a) had contracts worth between £3 million and £5 million and (b) had contracts worth more than £5 million.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department has commissioned the following new buildings and extensions:

  in 1986, a new building in Broad lane, Sheffield for the
  Health and Safety Executive at a cost of £8 million;

  in 1991, a new building at East lane, Runcorn at a cost of £12 million to accommodate headquarters posts relocating from London;

  in 1989, an extension to Brixton unemployment benefit office, Halmaker Lodge, south-west London, costing £3·7 million.

  Southport (Tourist Industry)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new help he will give to the tourist industry in Southport.

  Mr. Forth
  The English tourist board, which is grant-aided by my Department, will allocate a subvention of £403,300 to the North West tourist board, which covers Southport, during the 1991–92 financial year. This subvention may be supplemented during the year by additional sums from central funds held by the ETB.

  Southport will benefit from the various marketing and development initiatives undertaken by the North West tourist board, including the board's new coastal corridor initiative.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will visit Southport to look at the local tourist industry.

  Mr. Forth
  My noble Friend Viscount Ullswater, who has ministerial responsibility for tourism matters, recently met a delegation of representatives of resorts in the North West, including Southport. He also hopes to include Southport in his forthcoming extensive programme of regional visits.

  Injuries at Work
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the total numbers of injuries as a result of work activities reported to enforcement authorities falling within the east midlands region in the latest year for which Health and Safety Comission statistics are available in the categories(a) total fatal injuries to all persons, (b) total non-major injuries to all persons, (c) total over three-day injuries to all persons and (d) total all reported injuries to all persons.

  Mr. Forth
  The latest available information, provisional figures for the financial year beginning 1 April 1989, is provided in the table.

  Numbers of reported occupational injuries1 in the East Midlands region, 1989–90 (provisional)

  Numbers

  Fatal

  45

  Non-fatal major2

  3,106

  Over three day3

  13,762

  Total reported

  16,913

  1Injuries to employees, self-employed persons and non-employed persons injured in a working environment, reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR), to all enforcement authorities excluding the HSE's railway inspectorate.

  2As defined under RIDDOR.

  3Injuries causing incapacity for work for more than three days.

  Employment Service (Annual Performance Agreement)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Employment Service annual performance agreement for 1991–92 will be published.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have today placed copies of the Employment Service 1991–92 annual performance agreement in the Libraries of the House.

  New Businesses, Yorkshire
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new businesses have started in Yorkshire in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 23 April 1991]: The available information for the counties of North, South and West Yorkshire, based on VAT data, is given in the table:

  VAT registrations and deregistrations in North, South and West Yorkshire

  000s

  Registrations

  Deregistrations

  Net change

  1980

  9·1

  9·0

  0·1

  1981

  9·5

  7·6

  1·9

  1982

  10·5

  9·1

  1·4

  1983

  11·5

  91

  11·4

  1984

  11·0

  9·5

  1·5

  1985

  11·0

  10·8

  0·2

  1986

  11·4

  10·9

  0·4

  1987

  12·2

  10·6

  1·6

  1988

  14·1

  10·8

  3·3

  1989

  15·9

  11·3

  4·7

  Training Agency (Privatisation)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by 512
  the Training Agency/Manpower Services Commission in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 24 April 1991]: There were no fees paid to organisations in furtherance of privatisation by the Training Agency or Manpower Services Commission in the financial period from 1979–80 to 1987–88 inclusive.

  Fees to the value of £525,000 were incurred in 1988–89, to the value of £613,000 in 1989–90, and £622,000 in 1990–91. These figures are inclusive of expenses plus VAT.

  There is no current privatisation being undertaken, although an outstanding invoice for £30,000 will be paid in the current financial year.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make facilities available to staff in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are no such plans to make special arrangements for this appeal. The Treasury has in the past publicised to staff the arrangements for payroll giving for charity, and I shall be drawing staff's attention to these general arrangements again in due course.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the fall in the profitability of exports of manufactures since 1 January 1990 as a return on sales; and whether he will publish a table comparing the reduction in profitability with the increase in export unit values, the increase in producer input and output prices and the increase in consumer prices.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information on the profit margins of manufactured exports is not available. Information on the relative profitability of manufactured exports and domestic sales, and on producers' input and output prices, is available on the CSO database, which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing(a) the value of March output of the manufacturing sector, less food, drink and tobacco, calculated on the basis of note 1 of the notes to editors in CSO press notice CSO (91)51, dated 16 April, on producer prices, (b) the ratio of the input to the output, (c) the proportion of the input assumed to be imported and (d) the price index for the imported and the home-produced import components; and if he will provide corresponding figures for 1970, 1979 and 1985.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is either not available or not readily so for the periods given. Some information relating to parts(a) and (b) is available for 1984, the year on which the weights for the producer price indices are currently based. The value of sales of the manufacturing sector, less food, drink and tobacco, on a

  513
  net sector basis was about £60 billion. The value of inputs on a net sector basis to the manufacturing sector less food, drink and tobacco (excluding some imported semi-manufactured goods not covered by the incides) was around two fifths of the net output value.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing the actual figures, at the respective dates, which underlie the chart in CSO press notice CSO (91) 51 dated 16 April 1991, on producer prices together with the corresponding figures from January 1970 together with the IMF index of relative export unit values and the relative DTI export unit value for the United Kingdom relative to that of West Germany; and whether he will publish a corresponding table for manufacturing, less food, drink and tobacco.

  Mr. Mellor
  The. figures underlying the chart in CSO press notice CSO (91) 51 are shown in annex B to that press notice for 1988 onwards. Comparable data are only available back to January 1974 and are published in the CSO database accessible through the House of Commons Library.

  The DTI index of relative export values of manufactures is published in "Economic Trends", available in the House of Commons Library. The IMF indices of relative export values for the United Kingdom and Germany are given in the following table. (The definition of manufacturing used by the IMF excludes food, drink and tobacco).

  Relative1export unit value index

  (1985=100)

  United Kingdom

  Federal Republic of Germany

  United Kingdom relative to FRG

  1970

  90·8

  113·1

  80·3

  1971

  91·8

  115·7

  79·3

  1972

  93·3

  116·0

  80·4

  1973

  86·0

  125·6

  68·5

  1974

  85·5

  121·8

  70·2

  1975

  86·9

  119·7

  72·6

  1976

  83·8

  120·0

  69·8

  1977

  88·8

  121·9

  72·8

  1978

  95·0

  125·2

  75·9

  1979

  100·2

  122·3

  81·9

  1980

  112·1

  116·3

  96·4

  1981

  110·0

  104·6

  105·2

  1982

  103·4

  106·0

  96·7

  1983

  100·6

  107·0

  94·0

  1984

  98·3

  99·5

  98·8

  1985

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  1986

  97·7

  110·9

  88·1

  1987

  101·5

  116·0

  87·5

  1988

  110·0

  112·4

  97·9

  1989

  104·0

  111·6

  93·2

  1990

  107·6

  115·8

  92·9

  1The UVI of each country divided by a weighted average of the 1980 UVI's of 16 major competitors.

  Inland Revenue Offices, Nottingham
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates have been received for the heating of the proposed new Inland Revenue offices in Nottingham by electricity; and what estimate has been made for heating them from the combined heat and power system operated by British Coal, Nottinghamshire county council and Nottinghamshire city council.
  514
  Mr. Maude
  The estimates obtained for the heating of the proposed new Inland Revenue offices in Nottingham by electricity showed installation costs of £1·056 million and annual fuel and maintenance costs of about £97,000. The estimates for heating the offices by the combined heat and power system were £2·16 million for the installation and about £41,000 for annual fuel and maintenance costs.

  Building Work
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will list the number and location of all new buildings or extensions commissioned by the Treasury, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise in each of the past five years which(a) had contracts worth between £3 million and £5 million and (b) had contracts worth more than £5 million.

  Mr. Maude
  My Departments have commissioned buildings:

  £million

  Year

  Department

  £3–£5

  Over £5

  No. location

  No. location

  1986–87

  C&E

  1 Belfast

  1 Newry

  1987–88

  C&E

  2 London

  1988–89

  IR

  1 Kew

  1989–90

  IR

  1 Nottingham

  1990–91

  C&E

  1 Manchester

  1 Liverpool

  IR

  1 Glenrothes

  IR

  1 Plymouth

  IR

  1 Nottingham

  IR

  1 Bolton

  IR

  1 Belfast

  IR

  1 Birkenhead

  IR

  1 Falkirk

  1 St Austell

  1 Barnsley

  1 Wrexham

  The Treasury has not let any major contracts for building or extension work in the last five years.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total annual income of local government in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Germany is raised through local taxation.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: Comparative figures for the income received by local government are published in "OECD National Accounts 1976–88" (volume II). The balance of taxation will be affected by, among other things, the different constitutional position of local authorities, and different allocation of functions to local government, in the different countries.

HEALTH

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to recommend to health authorities a system of booked admissions to hospitals to replace waiting lists for operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has long recommended that health authorities use booked
  515
  admissions wherever possible. Currently, 17 per cent. of patients waiting for admission have a firm date booked for their treatment. The South Western regional health authority is developing a region-wide admissions booking system. The Department and health regions are following progress with great interest with a view to wider application in the NHS.

  Project 2000
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any additional schools of nursing have been approved to implement Project 2000 nurse training.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I announced on 9 January that £71 million was to be made available for Project 2000 in 1991–92. I am now pleased to be able to announce that agreement has been given today to the implementation of Project 2000 in 14 colleges of nursing during 1991–92, subject to the necessary educational approval being obtained from the English national board and the resolution of any outstanding financial and manpower issues.

  This will mean that, by the end of the current financial year, over half the colleges of nursing in England will have been approved for Project 2000.

  The Project 2000 implementation group has approved the following schemes for a 1991–92 start:

  1.Northern RHA—Darlington, Durham, West Durham

  2.Yorkshire RHA—York and Scarborough

  3.Trent RHA—Leicestershire

  4.East Anglia RHA—Cambridge

  5.NW Thames RHA—Barnet

  6.SE Thames RHA—Dartford, Gravesend, Bexley and Greenwich

  7.SW Thames RHA—Kingston and Epsom

  8.Wessex RHA—East and West Dorset, Salisbury

  9.Oxford RHA—Aylesbury Vale and Wycombe

  10.South Western RHA—Gloucestershirc

  11.Mersey RHA—St Helens and Knowsley, Warrington, Halton

  In addition, the following three schemes have already received advance approval for a 1991–92 start:

  12.NE Thames RHA—City and Hackney

  13.West Midlands RHA—Shropshire, Mid Staffordshire

  14.North Western RHA-Stockport, Glossop and Tameside

  Financial allocations for the new schemes will be notified as soon as possible, following discussions with the authorities concerned. I shall then consider, in the light of further advice from the implementation group, how any balance of the money provided for Project 2000 should be allocated. I shall make a further announcement as soon as possible.

  Project 2000 represents an important development in nurse education in this country. It gives more weight to the process of learning and less to the sharing of the work load in hospital wards, although the training remains practical and patient-orientated.

  Electoral Statistics (1991)
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when local government and parliamentary electoral statistics for 1991 will be available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Local government electorate statistics are being published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in Monitor EL 91/1 today, a week before the local elections. These data are now being reassembled by parliamentary constituency. Statistics in the latter form 516
  will be placed in the Library by 10 May, prior to publication in "Electoral Statistics, 1991" (Series EL no. 18) during the summer.

  Building Work
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list the number and location of all new buildings or extensions commissioned by his Department in each of the last five years which(a) had contracts worth between £3 million and £5 million and (b) had contracts worth more than £5 million.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department does not directly commission new buildings or extensions. It occupies buildings on the common user estate provided and administered by the Department of Environment.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information for the years 1979–80 to 1987–88 is not available in the form requested.

  The Department's budget for communications and publicity includes provision for nurse recruitment, blood donor recruitment and drug misuse compaigns.

  £ million

  Expediture for 1988–89 is as follows:

  Television

  1·662

  Radio

  0·205

  Newspaper

  1·196

  Other Material

  7·736

  Expenditure for 1989–90 is as follows:

  Television

  3·549

  Radio

  0·127

  Newspaper

  2·739

  Other Material

  10·828

  Estimated Expenditure for 1990–91 is as follows:

  Television

  1·900

  Radio

  0·005

  Newspaper

  2·258

  Other Material

  13·148

  The budget for communications and publicity for 1991–92 is £24·5 million.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representation his hon. Friend the Minister of Health has received from the Act Now Group concerning Government policy of non-implementation of sections of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a letter from this group expressing concern at our decision not to implement sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Act at the present time. Act Now also wrote to officials in the the Department following the announcement that we did not at present intend to proceed with the implementation of section 7.

  Opticians
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many opticians are currently registered in England; and what was the figure in March 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Figures on the numbers of opticians in contract with family health services authorities in England are collected by calendar year. The number of opticians in contract with English FHSAs at 31 December 1989 was 6,299 of which 5,515 were ophthalmic opticians and 784 were ophthalmic medical practitioners. The figures for 31 December 1990 should be available in the summer.

  Optical Appliances
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people qualified for financial assistance towards the cost of optical appliances in each year since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Figures are not available prior to 1986–87, when the NHS spectacle voucher scheme was introduced. The table gives details of the numbers of spectacle vouchers redeemed in England and Wales from 1986–87.

  Financial Years

  Vouchers redeemed

  (millions)

  1986–87

  2·471

  1987–88

  2·704

  1988–89

  2·417

  1989–90

  2·422

  Vasectomy and Sterilisation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of provision of vasectomy and sterilisation operations he requires of individual health authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health authorities were advised in guidance contained in the 1974 memorandum of guidance on family planning (HSC(IS)32), which is still current, that male and female sterilisation operations should be available under the national health service both for family planning and medical reasons, a copy of which is available in the Library. The priority given to these operations generally is a matter for health authorities to determine in the light of clinical judgment and local needs and circumstances.

  Spectacle Frames
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance is available to individuals suffering from metal allergies who need to purchase specially produced non-metallic spectacle frames.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  People who are eligible for help with the cost of spectacles receive a spectacle voucher which they can use to purchase spectacles which have either metallic or non-metallic frames. Non-metallic frames tend to be cheaper than the metallic variety.

PRIME MINISTER

  President de Klerk
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with President de Klerk of South Africa.

  The Prime Minister
  I was glad to have had the opportunity to meet President de Klerk during his visit to the United Kingdom this week. We had a useful talk on a wide range of issues.

  I should add that I also had useful talks with Mr.Nelson Mandela at our meeting yesterday.

  Economic and Social Committee (United Kingdom Membership)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will list the 24 United Kingdom members of the European Community Economic and Social Committee, indicating their dates of appointment, their occupations and their party political affiliations if known.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom members of the Economic and Social Committee who were appointed in September 1990 for a term of four years are as follows. Members are recommended to Council for appointment on the basis of their individual qualifications not political affiliations.

  Neville Beale Esq—Independent Consultant. Former senior executive of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies.

  Michael Bell Esq—Chairman, International Business Communications PLC.

  John Little Esq—Former Chairman and Chief Executive, Anderson Strathclyde. Former Chairman, Scottish Confederation of British Industries.

  Kenneth Gardner Esq MA FRSC—Consultant in food law technology and food technology.

  Dr Felix Kafka—Production and Technical Managements (Health and Safety and Environment), ICI Europa Ltd.

  Michael Mobbs Esq—Chairman and Managing Director,M L Aviation.

  Dr Ann Robinson—Head of Policy Unit Institute of Directors.

  John Whitworth Esq—Chairman, Merchant Navy Officers' Pension Fund. Former Director of the International Shipping Federation.

  Campbell Christie Esq—General Secretary, Scottish Trades Union Congress.

  Peter Dawson Esq OBE—General Secretary Professional Association of Teachers.

  Tom Jenkins Esq—Assistant Secretary, Trades Union Congress, International Department.

  John Lyons Esq CBE—General Secretary, Engineers' and Managers' Association.

  Miss Ada Maddocks OBE—National Organising Officer (Health Staffs), National Association of Local Government Officers.

  William Morris Esq—Deputy General Secretary, Transport and General Workers' Union.

  Roy Sanderson Esq OBE—National Secretary, Electrical and Engineering Staff Association (Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union).

  Alexander Smith Esq—General Secretary, National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers.

  Wilfred Aspinall Esq—Executive Director, Managerial, Professional and Staff Liaison Group.

  Mrs Jocelyn Barrow OBE—Deputy Chairman, Broadcasting Standards Council.

  Professor William Black—Economic Adviser, Department of Economic Development, Northern Ireland. Former Professor of Economics, Queen's University, Belfast.

  Mrs Angela Guillaume—(British) Chairman, European Union of Women.
  519
  Robert Moreland Esq—Former MEP. Member of the Council for Business Graduates Association. ManagementConsultant. Chairman of Regional Development Section.

  Ms Sue Slipman—Director, National Council for One Parent Families.

  Michael Strauss Esq—Former Co-ordinating Director for Policy, National Farmers' Union.

  Andrew Tyrie Esq—Fellow, Nuffield College, Oxford.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to reply to the letter dated 27 March from the hon. Member for Monklands West, concerning the Government's policy of non-implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  The Prime Minister
  I replied to the hon. Member on 22 April 1991.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister what representation he has received from the Act Now Group concerning the Government policy of non-implementation of sections of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986; and how he has responded.

  The Prime Minister
  The Act Now Group and I have corresponded.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps are taken to ensure parity of treatment for haemophiliacs in Scotland and Wales so far as factor 8 is concerned.

  The Prime Minister
  The prescribing of factor 8 in the treatment of haemophiliacs is a matter for the individual clinicians concerned. Both Scottish and Welsh patients have equal access to the treatment deemed appropriate.

  Building Works
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will list the number and location of all new buildings or extensions commissioned by the Cabinet Office in each of the past five years which(a) had contracts worth between £3 million and £5 million and (b) had contracts worth more than £5 million.

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Office has not commissioned any new buildings or extensions in the last five years which had contracts worth more than £3 million.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the issue of South Africa signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was discussed in his meeting with President De Klerk of South Africa in London on 27 April.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the compensation received by the United Kingdom from(a) the Soviet Union and (b) any other relevant international authority to cover the financial losses incurred by United Kingdom farmers and tourist trade businesses in Scotland, Cumbria, Northern Ireland and North Wales as a result of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in the Soviet Union.
  520
  The Prime Minister
  No compensation has been paid to the United Kingdom for damage suffered following the Chernobyl accident. The Soviet Union is not a party to the international conventions on third party liability for nuclear damage.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will propose the creation of safe havens for Shias in southern Iraq.

  The Prime Minister
  We are concerned for the welfare of all Iraqis. We understand that the International Red Cross and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees are ready to take over responsibility for refugees in those parts of southern Iraq presently occupied by coalition forces. The United Nations Iraq/Kuwait observer mission is being deployed to the border. Our contribution of some £20 million to the UN Secretary-General's and other international appeals is for the humanitarian need of all Iraqis. We are in touch with both the Kuwaiti and Saudi Governments about access for Iraqi refugees to their countries.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 25 April.

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

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by the Prime Minister's Office in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 April 1991]: No expenditure has been incurred by the Prime Minister's office on fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation since 1979–80, and none is planned for 1991–92.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Total expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on advertising and other promotional material for the years 1979–80 to 1989–90, latest estimates for 1990–91 and budget provisions for 1991–92 are:
  521

  FCO

  FCO

  (Diplomatic wing)

  (ODA wing)

  1979–80

  100,266

  214,739

  1980–81

  116,532

  145,697

  1981–82

  162,998

  207,964

  1982–83

  229,711

  135,506

  1983–84

  205,247

  252,691

  1984–85

  149,932

  234,050

  1985–86

  160,535

  271,084

  1986–87

  335,754

  228,347

  1987–88

  195,000

  351,000

  1988–89

  289,184

  689,631

  1989–90

  395,842

  1,066,447

  1990–91

  926,610

  902,000

  1991–92

  540,204

  1,031,000

  A disaggregation of these figures to identify the medium used cannot be produced without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Building Work
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list the number and location of all new buildings or extensions commissioned by his Department in each of the last five years which(a) had contracts worth between £3 million and £5 million and (b) had contracts worth more than £5 million.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department has commissioned buildings:

  £3–5 million

  Year of Commencement

  Location

  1985–86

  Amman

  1985–86

  Warsaw

  1986–87

  Vienna

  1989–90

  Wellington

  1989–90

  Seoul

  1989–90

  Prague

  Over £5 million

  1986–87

  Kuala Lumpur

  1987–88

  Helsinki

  1989–90

  Dhaka

  Hanslope Park,

  1990–91

  Bucks

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he intends to take to protect Shias in southern Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are concerned for the welfare of all Iraqis. We understand that the ICRC and the UNHCR are ready to take over responsibility for refugees in those parts of southern Iraq presently occupied by coalition forces. The UN Iraq/Kuwait observer mission is being deployed to the border. Our contribution of some £20 million to the UN Secretary-General's and other international appeals is for the humanitarian needs of all Iraqis. We are in touch with both the Kuwaiti and Saudi Governments about access for Iraqi refugees to their countries.

  South Africa
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the objectives of British foreign policy in South Africa; and what progress Her Majesty's Government are making towards those objectives.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The objectives of British foreign policy in South Africa are to encourage the creation of a democratic, non-racial, society through negotiations leading to peaceful change. Significant progress towards fulfilling this objective is being achieved.

TRANSPORT

  M6
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the extent to which the recent roadworks at the M6 Farleton interchange and on the connecting Kendal link road were carried out without avoidable disruption to traffic flows.

  Mr. Chope
  A number of different maintenance activities were identified as essential at the interchange. An assessment showed that adopting a road closure option which lasted three weeks and enabled all the works to be completed, was preferable to a series of road closures, lane closures and contraflows over nine months. The traffic management arrangements adopted were considered the most appropriate for the safe and efficient progress of the works with the least disruption to road users. The proposals were extensively publicised.

  M62
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of the wire rope safety fence technology in use on the central reservation of the M62 in West Yorkshire.

  Mr. Chope
  A two-rope design of wire rope safety fence has been safely and successfully deployed on 10 km of the M62 since 1971. During the last 18 months, some of this fence has been replaced with an enhanced four-rope design of wire rope safety fence which has been developed by industry.

  Prior to the Department adopting this new enhanced design of fence in December 1988, a full assessment was undertaken. This indicated a satisfactory vehicle impact performance together with likely competitive costings for initial installation and future repair and maintenance.

  I will write to the hon. Member giving fuller details of the development and use of wire rope safety fencing in the United Kingdom.

  Exhaust Emissions
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received representations concerning the number of cars likely to fail the revised MOT due to unacceptable exhaust emissions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The majority of representations offered strong support for the check. At present, some 40 per cent. of cars fail annual MOT tests, and this percentage will
  523
  probably increase following the introduction of the emissions check. But the number of cars which actually fail will depend upon how many motorists have their engine tuning checked before the MOT test.

  North Devon Link Road
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will approve the siting of a sign reading Exmoor market town at the South Molton exit to the North Devon link road (A361).

  Mr. Chope
  No, although signs indicating the availability of local services in South Molton are shortly to be erected on the link road. Signs need to be restricted to giving essential information quickly and succinctly and descriptive terms or area wide designations are not therefore appropriate.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide information about blood alcohol content distributions for fatally injured drivers by sex for the last five years.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:

  Blood alcohol level in mg per 100ml of blood for fatally injured drivers and riders by sex: GB: 1985–89

  Percentage in each band

  Blood Alcohol

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Males

  0–10

  63

  65

  64

  67

  70

  11–50

  7

  7

  10

  7

  8

  51–80

  3

  3

  3

  3

  2

  Total below limit

  73

  75

  76

  78

  80

  81–100

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  101–200

  14

  14

  12

  12

  11

  201+

  11

  9

  9

  9

  7

  Total above limit

  27

  25

  24

  22

  20

  Females

  0–10

  80

  82

  86

  85

  87

  11–50

  7

  5

  6

  9

  6

  51–80

  2

  2

  0

  1

  1

  Total below limit

  89

  89

  92

  95

  94

  81–100

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  101–200

  6

  5

  6

  3

  3

  201+

  3

  6

  2

  2

  3

  Total above limit

  11

  11

  8

  5

  6

  Notes:

  1.These figures are based on police and coroners' returns to the Department and are incomplete covering only about two out of every three driver or rider casualties.

  2.Only drivers and riders aged 16 or over who die within 12 hours of their accident are included.

  3.Results for 1989 are provisional.

  Drunken Drivers (Refraining)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that only Department of Transport approved driving instructors will be allowed to undertake the retraining of convicted drunken drivers.

  Mr. Chope
  There are no proposals to change the existing requirement that driving instruction, for which 524
  payment is made, can only be given by a person who is registered or licensed to do so. Our proposals for an experiment in the use of rehabilitation courses for drink-drivers are set out in the Road Traffic Bill. Courses will have to be approved by the Secretary of State. Their main aim is to educate offenders about the effects of drinking and driving. Provision will not be restricted to driving instructors as courses will not normally involve driving lessons.

  Organ Donor Cards
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether an organ donor card could be included with current driving licences; and whether there is any EC directive on the subject.

  Mr. Chope
  Organ donor cards are issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, Swansea, with full and provisional driving licences. There is no EC directive on organ donor cards.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State of Transport what plans he has to introduce legislation to control the actions of private wheel clamping companies.

  Mr. Chope
  None at present, but I am keeping the situation under review.

  M65
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when contracts for the construction of the Blackburn to M6/M6 1 section of the M65 will be let; when work will start; and when it is due to be completed; (2) if he will make a statement as to any outstanding legal or public expenditure processes which will have to be completed before contracts for the Blackburn to M6/M61 section of the M65 are let.

  Mr. Chope
  The route of the new motorway is fixed. Proposals for the consequential alterations to other highways and means of access were published last month. We expect to publish the Order for compulsory purchase of land this summer. A period will be allowed for objections and comment. A public inquiry will be necessary if there are objections.

  Subject to the successful outcome of any inquiry and the availability of funds work could start in Spring 1993. The new road will take three years to build.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The spending by my Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year and the estimated spending in 1990–91 are as follows:
  525

  Television

  Radio

  Newspaper

  Other

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  1979–80

  4,141

  62

  105

  1,532

  1980–81

  3,502

  336

  129

  1,737

  1981–82

  3,615

  6

  410

  1,457

  1982–83

  2,319

  98

  816

  1,415

  1983–84

  4,655

  22

  334

  1,488

  1984–85

  1,723

  207

  476

  2,873

  1985–86

  70

  858

  834

  4,026

  1986–87

  72

  520

  738

  4,489

  1987–88

  2,310

  50

  140

  3,010

  1988–89

  1,867

  110

  365

  3,367

  1989–90

  1,930

  233

  982

  3,289

  1990–91

  3,122

  145

  833

  3,962

  Detailed decisions have not yet been taken on expenditure by media for 1991–92, but the overall figure is expected to be approximately.£10 million.

  Building Work
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list the number and location of all new buildings or extensions commissioned by his Department in each of the past five years which(a) had contracts worth between £3 million and £5 million and (b) had contracts worth more than £5 million.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None since 1989–90. Before that, the Property Services Agency was responsible for expenditure on major new buildings.

  Glasgow-Paris (Channel Tunnel Link)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to when direct passenger trains will start to run, through the channel tunnel, between Glasgow and Paris.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 24 April to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) at column 450.

  Clifton Bypass
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce his decision on the A453 Clifton bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  As soon as possible.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he received the detailed study on the A453 Clifton bypass, Nottingham.

  Mr. Chope
  I received a supplementary report from the landscape advisory committee on 22 April. The committee has reinspected all the route options for the A453 Clifton improvement, and I am urgently considering its report in the light of other views expressed during public consultation.

  A13 (Water Main)
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the incidents which took place on the A13 involving the fracturing of a water main on Thursday, 18 April and of a gas mains pipe on Friday, 19 April by the contractor employed by his Department; what investigations were made regarding the competence of this company before they were given the 526
  contract; and what compensation will be made to the London borough of Tower Hamlets for the emergency work carried out to rectify the problem.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department is undertaking a review of the incidents that took place. The contractor is a public company which has been used by the Department on numerous trunk road and motorway schemes over many years. The normal practice on schemes of this nature is for information to be obtained from statutory undertakers on the location of their services, which is passed on to the contractors who have a responsibility for checking locations once on site.

  Apportionment of financial responsibility must await the outcome of the review.

  Accidents (Motorways)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of accidents at motorway repair and maintenance sites since 1986 have been attributed to(a) drivers' vision being impaired by badly sited or excessively bright temporary lighting, (b) excessive speed or (c) inadequate driving warning.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is not available. The Department has awarded a research contract into safety of major motorway roadworks sites, which will include an examination of ways of reducing accidents.

  Vehicle Testing Stations
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are taken by his Department to monitor the performance of individual vehicle testing stations.

  Mr. Chope
  MOT testing stations are authorised only if the examiner is of good repute and provides the required level of premises and equipment. All testers must attend a course run by the vehicle inspectorate and pass a test of competence. Performance of testing stations is monitored by regular inspections by the vehicle inspectorate, at least once a year and more frequently if sub-standard performance is suspected. Motorists have a right of appeal against the refusal of a testing station to issue a test certificate. The vehicle inspectorate also makes incognito visits to testing stations; follows up complaints about stations; and checks vehicles at the roadside. Sub-standard performance can and does result in withdrawal of authorisation to test.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if individual vehicle testing stations are permitted to sell vehicles that they themselves have tested.
  527
  Mr. Chope
  Yes.

  Docklands Light Railway (Collision)
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the collision of two trains on the docklands light railway on 22 April and its implications for the safety of the public.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate has reported that there was a sideways collision between two trains which converged at a junction on the northern approach to West India Quay station at approximately 7.20 am. A train arriving from Stratford struck the leading coach of a train from Tower Gateway. The latter train was under manual control due to a trackside equipment failure at Westferry station.

  This was a low-speed collision, and I was glad to learn that no serious injuries were sustained.

  Docklands light railway is urgently investigating the accident. Until the cause is established, and any necessary remedial action taken, additional controls have been implemented to strengthen the existing procedure for emergency manual operation.

  I have asked the railway inspectorate to keep me informed of developments.

  Signalling Failure (Aberdeen)
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the report by British Rail dated 25 March into a signalling failure at Aberdeen railway station.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The report is part of BR's internal inquiry into the derailment of a train at Aberdeen station on 5 February. HM railway inspectorate was notified of the accident and will consider the results of BR's inquiry. Meanwhile, BR has taken action to avoid a recurrence.

  Exter-Plymouth Roads
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his current intention on the appointment of consultants to undertake an assessment of the future road needs between Exeter and Plymouth, including the possibility of a new route; when an announcement can be expected; and what have been the reasons for changes in his policy on this matter.

  Area under restriction

  Glenshane, Co Londonderry

  Belraugh, Co Londonderry

  Glenwherry, Co Antrim

  Total

  Acres

  10,497

  1,305

  8,620

  20,422

  Hectares

  4,251

  528

  3,491

  8,270

  Estimated number of breeding sheep

  13,400

  1,250

  7,000

  21,650

  Number of farms

  79

  11

  31

  121

  Clenbuterol
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been found guilty of possession of clenbuterol; how many prosecutions are pending; how much clenbuterol has been seized this year; and if he will make a statement about measures to prohibit the movement of clenbuterol across the border from the Republic of Ireland.
  528
  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 24 April 1991]: We will be inviting bids from consultants later this year for the study of the needs of the A38 from Exeter to Plymouth. This will be linked with studies into the planning and environmental issues pertaining to the proposal for a privately financed second Tamar crossing, which will also commence shortly.

  Motorway Tolls
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has commissioned or organised into the comparison of traffic flows between a freely available motorway and a toll road; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 24 April 1991]: To assist in modelling the traffic that would use a tolled Birmingham northern relief road, last year the Department undertook a study jointly with the bidders to assess the value which road users in the area placed on saving time.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health and Social Services Councils
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names and addresses of the members of the four new health and social services councils excepting those nominated by district councils.

  Mr. Hanley
  The names of the chairmen of the health and social services councils are as follows:

  Mrs. Patricia Stout, Eastern

  Mr. Robert Pinkerton, Northern

  Mrs. Fionnuala Cook, Southern

  Mr Francis Hughes, Western

  Nominations for membership of the councils have been invited from district councils, voluntary and community groups and other interested groups and individuals. It is hoped to announce the names of the members shortly.

  Chernobyl
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the area in acres and hectares, the number of sheep, and the number of farms currently under restriction, including the county or counties involved, as a result of the radioactive contamination following the Chernobyl accident.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Mr. Hanley
  Two persons have been successfully prosecuted for the illegal administration of clenbuterol to cattle and three further prosecutions are pending. Thirteen kilos of the substance in powder form have been seized this year. The importation of unlicensed products such as clenbuterol into the United Kingdom is illegal. Inspectors of the Department of Health and Social Services work closely with HM Customs and Excise and the RUC in
  529
  seizing illicit supplies and arranging for the subsequent prosecution of offenders. It should be noted that any animal presented for slaughter with traceable and unjustified levels of clenbuterol will be condemned and destroyed.

DEFENCE

  Royal Naval Supplies Depot
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he proposes to expand the royal naval supplies depot at Eaglescliffe, Stockton.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have no plans at present to expand the royal naval stores depot at Eaglescliffe.

  Tornados (Loss)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tornados were lost during the Gulf war due to(a) enemy ground fire and (b) crashing into the ground from flying so low.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Seven Tornado GRIs were lost during the Gulf conflict. One of these crashed shortly after take-off due to a mechanical problem. The circumstances in which the other six were lost are still under investigation.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what ways armed forces personnel are used to help arms manufacturers sell their goods abroad or at arms fairs; what is the cost to the Exchequer; whether manufacturers or sellers make any contribution towards these costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Armed forces personnel provide assistance to the United Kingdom defence industry in a wide variety of ways, the costs of which, in general, fall either to the relevant companies or to the purchasing nations.

  Kurdish Refugees
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest estimate of the number of Kurdish refugees killed by falling relief supplies; and what steps have been taken to improve the accuracy of supply drops.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not aware of any deaths caused by Royal Air Force relief operations. RAF aircrew take the greatest care to avoid accidents, and operating procedures are kept under constant review.

  Iraq (Use of Weapons)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what ground-based anti-aircraft weapons systems were used by the Iraqis against RAF Tornados during the Gulf war; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Before the conflict, Iraq was believed to have possessed the following air-defence systems:

  surface to air missiles: SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-7, SA-8, SA-9, SA-13, SA-14, ROLAND;
  530
  air defence guns: 22mm ZSU-23–4, 37mm M-1939, 57mm (including ZSU-57–2), 85mm, 100mm, 130mm.

  All aspects of the Gulf conflict are currently under investigation; it is not possible to say which systems were used against RAF Tornados.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment as to(a) the capability of the JP233 bomb to immobilise Iraqi airfields permanently during the Gulf War and (b) how effectively the Iraqis were able to repair airfields attacked by JP233 bombs.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  RAF Tornado GRIs equipped with the JP233 low-level attack weapon system were used to disrupt and harass Iraqi air operations rather than to close Iraqi airfields. Detailed analysis of equipment and munition effectiveness during the Gulf conflict is still being undertaken.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what time of the day was the friendly fire incident in late February in the Gulf in which five British service men lost their lives.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The incident in which US A-10 aircraft inadvertently attacked two Warrior armoured infantry vehicles, killing nine British servicemen occurred shortly after 1500 local time (1200 GMT) on 26 February 1991.

  Chemical Agents (Defence Manual)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been(a) the production cost and (b) the distribution, of his Department's publication "Medical Manual of Defence Against Chemical Agents".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The initial order in 1987 for 3,432 copies of the "Medical Manual of Defence Against Chemical Agents", which was printed by HMSO, incurred a production cost in the order of £8,400 at 1991 prices. The initial distribution was 2,256 Army, 180 RAF and 220 Royal Navy, with 776 kept in the maintenance stock. About 1,000 further copies were ordered from HMSO at the beginning of Operation Granby, and these were issued as required to the services.

  Missing Documents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on missing documents connected with the barracks at Aldershot, which were stolen from inside a vehicle stolen from a street in Chatham, Kent on 3 December 1990; what were the documents' security classification; and whether either(a) the documents or (b) the vehicle have yet been recovered.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A car belonging to a drainage contractor was stolen from outside his home in Chatham, Kent in early December 1990. It contained some unclassified maps and plans which the contractor needed to carry out his contract. As at 19 April neither the documents nor the car had been recovered.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other

  Television advertising

  Radio advertising

  Newspaper advertising

  Other promotional material

  Total

  1979–80

  2·280

  0·040

  5·750

  0·137

  8·207

  1980–81

  0·540

  0·168

  6·100

  0·851

  7·659

  1981–82

  0·010

  0·042

  4·200

  1·037

  5·289

  1982–83

  0·010

  0·071

  3·900

  1·032

  5·013

  1983–84

  Nil

  0·072

  5·300

  1·904

  7·276

  1984–85

  0·488

  0·023

  6·863

  1·501

  8·875

  1985–86

  1·820

  0·019

  6·822

  1·032

  9·693

  1986–87

  0·727

  0·224

  8·071

  1·167

  10·189

  1987–88

  0·553

  0·026

  7·682

  2·523

  10·784

  1988–89

  2·859

  0·182

  9·559

  4·444

  17·044

  1989–90

  1—4·432

  1—

  13·359

  6·214

  24·005

  1990–91

  2·883

  0·219

  9·212

  8·623

  20·937

  1991–922

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1Figures for both television and radio advertising.

  2Budgets not yet finalised.

  Notes:

  1.All figures are expressed in £(pounds) million.

  2.In the time available it has not been possible to provide a break down of the 1989–90 television and radio advertising figure.

  3.Figures for 1990–91 are estimates

  I will write to the hon. Member once the 1991–92 figures are available.

  Building Work
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will list the number and location of all new buildings or extensions commissioned by his Department in each of the past five years which(a) had contracts worth between £3 million and £5 million and (b) had contracts worth more than £5 million.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I regret that the information cannot be provided in the form requested without disproportionate effort. I refer the hon. Member to the details given in the long-term projects tables, published as part of the supply estimates, class I, for the Ministry of Defence for the years in question.

  Tanks
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the suitability of American manufactured tanks as a replacement for Chieftain tanks.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department is making a full assessment of the suitability of the US M1A2 Abrams tank as equipment for our future main battle tank fleet.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to deploy British armed forces to protect the population of southern Iraq.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom has contributed a 20-strong contingent to the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait observation mission, which will operate in the demilitarised zone along the Iraq-Kuwait border. There are no other plans to deploy British forces into southern Iraq.
  532
  promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Uncorroborated Confessions
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to bring forward proposals to prevent convictions based on uncorroborated confessions in police custody; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The use of uncorroborated confession evidence is within the remit of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, as I announced to the House on 14 March. We shall consider what changes may be needed in the light of the commission's findings.

  Right of Silence
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to amend the rules relating to the right of silence of suspects interviewed in police stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The right of silence will be among the matters to be considered by the Royal Commission and we should await its findings.

  Community Service Orders
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress with community service orders.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  National standards on the supervision of community service orders were introduced two years ago, on 1 April 1989, and were designed to achieve tighter and more consistent management of this work by probation services. My Department will very shortly publish an analysis of the first year's operation of the standards.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new measures he will propose to enhance the effectiveness of crime prevention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government are constantly seeking to enhance the effectiveness of crime prevention in the interests of community safety. The report of an independent working group appointed by the Home Secretary to study the partnership approach to crime prevention is due in early summer. In the light of the group's findings the Government will consider whether further measures are necessary to ensure the effective organisation of crime prevention and to assess the impact of particular initiatives. In addition the Government will be evaluating the success of the national Crime Prevention Week which ended on 20 April.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the Sunday trading legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has recently received about Sunday trading.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay).

  Domestic Violence Units
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will report on progress in establishing domestic violence units.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At least five forces have established dedicated units. A number of others are currently considering them as part of their response to the Home Office circular on domestic violence issued to the police last summer.

  Detective Superintendent Alan Watson
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of the West Midlands as to whether Detective Superintendent Alan Watson is still on duty.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No, it would not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to do so.

  Crime
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new proposals he has to reduce the levels of crime.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We shall continue to develop and pursue vigorously our policies to combat crime and protect the public. These include additional people and money for the police and a growing programme of crime prevention measures. The provisions of the Criminal 534
  Justice Bill will enhance the courts' powers to deal effectively with offenders. Effective crime prevention is not just a responsibility of the Government, the police and the courts; it needs the support of the entire community.

  Lollipop People
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what vacancies exist for lollipop people(a) in Ealing and (b) in the remaining London boroughs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that in Ealing, taken as the Metropolitan police divisions of Ealing and Southall, there are 20 vacancies for school crossing patrols. In the Metropolitan police district as a whole, vacancies exist for 245 school crossing patrols.

  Prisons (Arts Courses)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any courses in the arts are offered to prisoners.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Yes. Visual arts and crafts, literature, music, film and video and drama and dance activities are all carried out in prisons. The Home Office has also funded with the Arts Council of Great Britain a recent research project into arts activities in prison. I shall be placing in the Library copies of this report and an accompanying directory of arts activities in prisons.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will update his response to the sixth report of the Home Affairs Committee of Session 1981–82, on miscarriages of justice.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier to the hon. Members for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott).

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce regular screening of prisoners for drug misuse.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  As my hon. Friend knows, all new receptions are seen and interviewed by health care staff and asked whether they have ever taken drugs. Indications of the use of drugs by injection are looked for at that time. Steps have been taken to try to reduce the supply of illicit drugs into establishments and the need for further measures is kept under review.

  Deportation
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of middle east countries issued with notices of intention to deport on national security grounds(a) in November or December 1990 and (b) in January 1991 (i) were removed following the signing of a deportation order (ii) had deportation orders made against them and (iii) left the United Kingdom voluntarily.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The answer is as follows:
  535

  Number

  (a) (i)

  None

  (ii)

  2

  (iii)

  13

  (b) (i)

  None

  (ii)

  5

  (iii)

  56

  1 Including the two who left under their own arrangements after service of the deportation order.

  Police Costs
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the annual cost of(a) police operations and (b) court time in England and Wales incurred while policing, investigating and prosecuting alleged offences by gay men under the Sexual Offences Act 1967.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information about the number and annual costs of such police operations and related court time is not kept centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Building Work
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will list the number and location of all new buildings or extensions commissioned by his Department in each of the past five years which(a) had contracts worth between £3 million and £5 million and (b) had contracts worth more than £5 million.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Information about the number and location of new buildings or extensions commissioned by my Department in each of the last five years is not held centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, details of capital projects of the values specified are included in the summaries of capital project expenditure in the supply estimates: Class IX, vote 2—table 1 (Prisons) and vote 3—table 1 (Administration, Immigration and Police Support Services).

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Figures for expenditure on newspaper and television advertising from 1979–80 to 1983–84 were given in an answer to a question from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 25 May 1984 at column 587 and those for 1984–85 were given in answer to another question from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on 19 December 1985 at column 275.

  Figures for radio advertising and other promotional literature for the years from 1979–80 to 1984–85 were given in answer to questions from the hon. Member on 19 November 1986 at columns 202–04.The hon. Member was
  536
  also given in those replies figures for expenditure on newspaper, television and radio advertising and other promotional literature for 1985–86.

  Figures for the years 1986–87 to 1990–91 (provisional) for total advertising expenditure—all media—and production and distribution of other promotional material were given in answer to a question from the hon. Member on 12 March 1990 at columns 23–24.

  Apart from the final year, 1990–91, it would not be possible to provide more detailed information for those years except at disproportionate cost.

  Expenditure figures for the years 1990–91 and 1991–92 are as follows:

  1990–911 000's

  1991–922 000's

  Television advertising

  2,024

  3,500

  Radio advertising

  109

  300

  Newspaper advertising

  3,595

  1,800

  Production and distribution of other promotional material (including poster advertising)

  6,750

  8,085

  1 Provisional.

  2 Estimate.

  Household Insurance
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities have taken advantage of the block insurance scheme to enable residents in high crime areas to obtain insurance; what steps his Department is taking to encourage more local authorities to establish block insurance schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I understand that more than 100 local authorities take advantage of block insurance schemes to offer their tenants insurance cover, although the schemes are not necessarily related to the prevalance of crime in the area.

  The standing conference on crime prevention working group on the costs of crime, which reported in December 1988, touched on the value of block insurance and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State subsequently brought the report to the attention of the Association of British Insurers. My officials have also been in touch with the Housing Corporation and the Insurance Service for Housing Associations. It is for local authorities to decide whether to establish schemes for their tenants.

  Working Visas
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of(a) New Zealand, (b) Australia and (c) Canada were admitted to the United Kingdom on two-year working visas in each year from 1979 to 1990; and how many in each year were extended to three years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 8 April 1991]: Reliable figures of working holidaymaker admissions are available only from I May 1990. The numbers admitted between 1 May and 31 December 1990 are given in the following table. Under the immigration rules, the maximum stay permitted for working holidaymakers is two years.
  537

  Admissions as working holidaymakers for selected nationalities 1 May—31 December 1990

  No. of persons

  Nationality

  Total admitted

  of which: granted leave to enter for two years

  New Zealand

  6,440

  4,930

  Australia

  11,600

  8,690

  Canada

  1,800

  1,130

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Accommodation
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council why and when The Times received exceptional space in the Press Gallery of the House.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The authorities of the House have not been able to find out precisely when a room was allocated to The Times, but records going back as far as 1894 refer to this.

  The hon. Member will be aware that The Times newspaper has a very long traditional connection with the reporting of the House and this may well have led to the allocation by our predecessors of a special room for use by its reporters.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make facilities available to staff' in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  If the hon. Member sends me details of the appeal, I shall ensure that they are circulated within my office.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make facilities available to staff in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Welsh Office publicity spend

  £'000

  Year

  Radio advertising

  Television advertising

  Press advertising

  Other publicity

  Total

  1979–80

  Nil

  —

  61

  —

  24

  85

  1980–81

  Nil

  —

  62

  —

  22

  84

  1981–82

  Nil

  —

  100

  —

  44

  144

  1982–83

  Nil

  —

  99

  —

  28

  127

  1983–84

  Nil

  —

  108

  —

  34

  142

  1984–85

  Nil

  —

  66

  —

  100

  166

  1985–86

  Nil

  Nil

  —

  31

  92

  123

  1986–87

  Nil

  27

  —

  49

  331

  407

  1987–88

  Nil

  39

  —

  191

  615

  845

  1988–89

  Nil

  64

  —

  112

  1,105

  1,281

  538
  Mr. MacGregor
  If details of the appeal are sent to my office, I will ensure that they are properly circulated.

WALES

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what facilities he has made available to staff in his Department to contribute to the appeal that has been launched for people with the name of John to help raise £5 million for the St. John Ambulance Brigade.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Staff in my Department can contribute to appeals through the normal range of facilities, including the payroll giving scheme.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many haemophiliacs there are in each of the area health authorities in Wales;

  (2) how many haemophiliacs in each of the area health authorities in Wales will receive the most pure form of factor 8; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on the number of haemophiliacs in each of the district health authorities in Wales is not held centrally. Central funds have been provided for the purchase of high purity factor VIII to treat patients under the care of the haemophilia reference centre at the university hospital of Wales. Its prescribing is a matter for the clinicians concerned and I am unable to provide information on the number of patients treated.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A breakdown of annual expenditure by the Welsh Office on advertising and other publicity from 1979–80 to 1990–91 is set out in the following table.
  539

  Year

  Radio advertising

  Television advertising

  Press advertising

  Other publicity

  Total

  1989–90

  Nil

  57

  —

  354

  1,758

  2,169

  1990–911

  Nil

  17

  —

  251

  1,161

  1,429

  1 Estimated.

  Building Work
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list the number and location of all new buildings or extensions commissioned by his Department in each of the past five years which(a) had contracts worth between £3 million and £5 million and (b) had contracts worth more than £5 million.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information on new buildings/extensions commissioned in respect of the national health service in Wales is as follows:

  All over £5 million

  Locations

  Numbers

  1986–87

  Prince Philip Hospital, Llanelli

  3

  Llandough Hospital, Obstetric Unit, South Glamorgan

  Royal Gwent Hospital, Scheme 6, Gwent

  1987–88

  Morriston Hospital, Scheme 3, Swansea

  1

  1988–89

  Prince Charles Hospital, Phase 2, Merthyr Tydfil

  2

  Singleton Hospital, West Ward Block, Swansea

  Hospital buildings are vested in the Secretary of State, but operational responsibility for them lies with the district health authority.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent initiatives have been taken by his Department to raise the level of public, industry and commercial awareness of energy efficiency and conservation in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Energy Efficiency Office (Wales) has a continuing programme of visits and events for the promotion of the efficient use of energy for the benefit of industry, commerce, the public sector and domestic consumers.

  This is in line with the strategic framework published by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), in May 1989, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Speed Signs (M4)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales at what time the 30 mph and 60 mph speed limits were switched on on the illuminated maximum speed indicators on the westbound carriageway of the M4 motorway between junction 48 and the Pont Abraham services on the evening of Friday 19 April; at what time they were switched off; and what was the nature of the problem which necessitated the activation of the speed limits.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  South Wales police are responsible for the operation of the matrix signalling system in the area involved.
  540
  Their records show that the system was activated once on Friday 19 April at 21.02 hours due to a vehicle (car) fire on the hard shoulder of the westbound carriageway. The fire service extinguished the fire, and the police switched off the matrix system at 21.33 hours.

  It is police policy in such situations to activate 60 mph signs in advance of the incident and 30 mph signs closer to the scene.

  Chernobyl
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the area in acres and hectares, the number of sheep, and the number of farms currently under restriction, including the county or counties involved, as a result of the radioactive contamination following the Chernobyl accident.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In Wales restrictions affect approximately 207,500 acres (approximately 84,000 hectares); 292,000 sheep (maximum post-lambing figure); and 410 holdings. The restrictions involve parts of the counties of Clwyd, Powys and Gwynedd.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total amount of grants from the Exchequer that have been paid to farmers in Wales to deal with the consequences of the Chernobyl accident.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As at 29 March 1991, compensation payments totalling £5,130,404 had been authorised for sheep producers in Wales affected by the Chernobyl incident.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) Television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 197–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Miss Widdecombe
  For information from 1979–80 to 1989–90, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 12 March 1990 at cols 71–72.

  The total estimated outturn for publicity in 1990–91 is £12·843 million. Of this, £5·025 million has been committed for the purpose of advertising.

  £ million

  Television

  3·38

  Press

  1·517

  Other material

  (This includes information and promotion)

  7·946

  The estimate for the 1991–92 national social security advertising and publicity budget is £12·992 million. Detailed decisions on media have not yet been made.
  541
  The estimate for the 1991–92 publicity budgets for the Benefits Agency is £8·724 million and £1·254 million for the Contributions Agency. Detailed decisions on media have not yet been made.

  Building Work
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will list the number and location of all new buildings or extensions commissioned by his Department in each of the past five years which(a) had contracts worth between £3 million and £5 million and (b) has contracts worth more than £5 million.

  Mr. Jack
  The Property Services Agency of the Department of the Environment has managed and executed new buildings and extensions on behalf of this Department in the period in question.

  This Department commissioned buildings at the following locations within the following project values.

  Year

  £3–£5 million

  Over £5 million

  1986–871

  Nil

  Nil

  1987–881

  Nil

  Nil

  Livingston, North

  Fylde (2 buildings),

  Ashton in

  1988–89

  Washington

  Makerfield

  1989–90

  Nil

  Belfast, London

  North Fylde. Leeds,

  Preston. Newton

  1990–91

  North Fylde

  Abbott

  1Before 1 April 1988 this Department had no responsibility for funding major new buildings on the Government's civil estate. This was the responsibility of the Property Services Agency.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what rules govern eligibility for unemployment benefit for those with part-time employment; and what form of recourse is available to claimants who have been refused unemployment benefit due to part-time employment.

  Caseload (including backdated awards) as at end of month

  Number of family credit awards current at end of month'

  Employees

  Self-employed

  Total

  April 1989

  251,897

  235,820

  43,160

  278,980

  May 1989

  235,751

  255,420

  44,620

  300,040

  June 1989

  263,480

  263,200

  45,520

  308,720

  July 1989

  275,414

  268,140

  45,080

  313,220

  August 1989

  281,734

  269,340

  44,680

  314,020

  September 1989

  288,631

  273,880

  44,960

  318,840

  October 1989

  278,122

  269,840

  44,120

  313,960

  November 1989

  274,194

  260,020

  43,940

  303,960

  December 1989

  263,135

  255,440

  43,140

  298,580

  January 1990

  265,548

  255,300

  44,100

  299,400

  February 1990

  278,392

  261,960

  44,860

  306,820

  March 1990

  281,559

  263,360

  45,920

  309,280

  April 1990

  280,898

  267,240

  46,760

  314,000

  May 1990

  268,933

  267,940

  47,260

  315,200

  June 1990

  275,250

  272,360

  47,480

  319,840

  July 1990

  279,856

  277,620

  48,200

  325,820

  August 1990

  281,414

  —

  —

  2324,000

  September 1990

  282,019

  —

  —

  2326,000

  October 1990

  280,744

  —

  —

  2326,000

  November 1990

  293,343

  —

  —

  2324,000

  December 1990

  284,429

  —

  —

  3—

  542
  Mr. Jack
  A person working part-time must satisfy the contribution conditions for receipt of unemployment benefit and be available for work on the days for which he claims. He must also actively seek work and show that any restrictions he places on his availability do not prevent him from having reasonable prospects of employment. Benefit is not payable for any day on which he earns over £2, or for any week in which he has done his full normal week's work or earned at least £52.

  A person refused unemployment benefit may appeal to the local social security appeal tribunal. He may also be entitled to family credit or income support.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) of 11 March,Official Report, column 415 on the percentage of income support claimants repaying social fund loans, if he will give the figures for the East Midlands region, by local authority.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of income support and the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the public information office.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many family credit awards were current; and what was the caseload including backdated awards at the end of each month since April 1989, for employees and self-employed people, respectively.

  Mr. Jack
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 March 1991, cols. 417–18]: I regret that the figures given for the caseload for the months of August to December 1989 were incorrect. The correct information is as follows:
  543

  Caseload (including backdated awards) as at end of month

  Number of family credit awards current at end of month1

  Employees

  Self-employed

  Total

  January 1991

  281,250

  —

  —

  3—

  February 1991

  288,924

  —

  —

  3—

  1 A breakdown between employees and self-employed is not available.

  2 Provisional totals: no breakdowns between employers and employed at this stage.

  3 Meaningful figures not yet available because of claims not yet decided.

  Local Government Finance
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many poll tax payers will lose their rebate entitlement as a result of the proposed reduction in the poll tax(a) nationally and (b) in Gateshead.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 28 March 1991]: It is estimated that, as a result of the general reduction of community charges by £140, the number of people qualifying for community charge benefit will be about 1·4 million less than if the previous higher charges had remained in place. This estimate takes account of the abolition, from 1 April 1991, of the minimum benefit rule for community charge benefit.

  Information about Gateshead is not available

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1986–87–88 Family Expenditure Surveys at 1991–92 prices and benefit levels.

SCOTLAND

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of launching Highlands and Islands Enterprise and its associated local enterprise companies.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  This is an operational matter for Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairman to write direct to the hon. Member.

  Legal System
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when Glasgow sheriff court opens and closes each day.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Glasgow sheriff court opens to the public at 9.15 am on weekdays and closes when all courtroom business has been completed or when the offices close at 3.45 pm, whichever is the later. Court business can also be conducted outwith these times where necessary.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average hours use per day on judicial business of Glasgow sheriff court.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the quarter ending 31 December 1990, the average court sitting day, excluding lunch breaks, was 3·8 hours. In addition, sheriffs undertook judicial business in chambers.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sheriffs, including sheriff principals there are in each sheriffdom; and how many there were five years ago.
  544
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The complement for each sheriffdom is set out in the table:

  1991

  1986

  Glasgow and Strathkelvin

  24

  24

  Grampian, Highland and Islands

  13

  13

  Lothian and Borders

  16

  15

  North Strathclyde

  15

  13

  South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway

  16

  13

  Tayside, Central and Fife

  15

  14

  Floating Sheriffs

  6

  5

  Total

  105

  97

  Health Service Contracts
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for the Argyll and Clyde health board(a) the services which are subject to compulsory competitive tendering, (b) the contracts which have been awarded to the private sector and (c) the contracts which have been awarded in-house; and what plans he has to extend compulsory competitive tendering in the health service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  a) The services of domestic catering, portering, transport and painting have been subjected to competitive tendering.

  b) Two contracts for portering and one for painter work have been awarded to outside contractors.

  c) 19 contracts have been awarded in-house.

  This has released an extra £2·2 million for the board to spend on patient care.

  Health boards have been encouraged to keep under review the range of services which may be susceptible to competitive tendering.

  Homes for the Elderly
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further resources he has allocated to local authorities in Scotland to help them meet targets for the provision of homes for the elderly in terms of both quantity and quality.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no such targets set centrally. The allocation of grant-aided expenditure for social work for 1991–92 provides for an increase of 14 per cent. on that for 1990–91. It is for individual authorities to decide on the allocation of expenditure to particular services in accordance with their own perception of needs and priorities.

  Schools
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1980 the number of special classes or units in primary schools in each local
  545
  authority region, expressing this as a proportion of all (a) primary schools in the region and (b) secondary schools in each region; and if he will express this as a proportion of all secondary schools in the region.

  Number and percentage of education authority primary schools with special departments by local authority region

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Education authority

  Number of departments

  Percentage

  Number of departments

  Percentage

  Number of departments

  Percentage

  Number of departments

  Percentage

  Borders

  7

  9·1

  7

  9·1

  6

  7·8

  6

  7·8

  Central

  0

  —

  2

  1·7

  2

  1·7

  4

  3·4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  9

  7·8

  12

  10·5

  11

  9·6

  14

  12·3

  Fife

  9

  6·1

  10

  6·8

  10

  6·8

  10

  6·9

  Grampian

  2

  0·7

  2

  0·7

  2

  0·7

  2

  0·7

  Highland

  11

  5·4

  10

  5·0

  11

  5·5

  14

  7·0

  Lothian

  11

  4·5

  12

  4·9

  12

  4·9

  13

  5·3

  Strathclyde

  8

  0·9

  8

  0·9

  10

  1·1

  10

  1·1

  Tayside

  13

  7·0

  15

  8·1

  13

  7·0

  13

  7·0

  Orkney

  0

  —

  0

  —

  1

  5·0

  1

  5·0

  Shetland

  1

  3·7

  1

  3·7

  1

  3·7

  1

  3·7

  Western Isles

  2

  4·9

  2

  5·9

  2

  5·9

  1

  3·0

  Scotland

  73

  3·1

  81

  3·5

  81

  3·5

  89

  3·8

  Number and percentage of education authority secondary schools with special departments by local authority region

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Education authority

  Number of departments

  Percentage

  Number of departments

  Percentage

  Number of departments

  Percentage

  Number of departments

  Percentage

  Borders

  5

  55·6

  5

  55·6

  5

  55·6

  5

  55·6

  Central

  7

  33·3

  7

  36·8

  8

  42·1

  9

  47·4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  6

  37·5

  7

  43·8

  9

  56·3

  7

  43·8

  Fife

  9

  47·4

  9

  47·4

  9

  47·4

  9

  47·4

  Grampian

  5

  12·5

  4

  10·3

  4

  10·3

  5

  12·8

  Highland

  10

  37·0

  10

  37·0

  10

  37·0

  11

  40·7

  Lothian

  10

  19·6

  10

  19·6

  10

  19·6

  8

  15·7

  Strathclyde

  6

  3·1

  6

  3·1

  8

  4·3

  8

  4·4

  Tayside

  6

  18·8

  6

  18·8

  7

  21·9

  6

  18·8

  Orkney

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  Shetland

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  Western Isles

  1

  6·3

  1

  6·3

  1

  6·3

  1

  6·3

  Scotland

  65

  14·8

  65

  15·0

  71

  16·6

  69

  16·3

  Courts (Closed Circuit Television)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has concerning the provision of closed circuit television links in court proceedings involving child witnesses in cases dealing with physical and or sexual abuse subsequent to the introduction of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I indicated last year in our debates on what are now sections 56 to 59 of the 1990 Act that we would be consulting the judiciary about the arrangements for implementation of these provisions. Equipment demonstrations have been mounted and consultations have taken place. An announcement will be made when we have completed our examination of the results.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he will use to judge whether to approve or otherwise any application for setting up an NHS trust.
  546
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is readily available only from 1987.

  The numbers and proportions of education authority primary and secondary schools with an attached special department, including classes or units, at September in each year are shown in the table:

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The criteria for NHS trust applications are published in "NHS Trusts: A Working Guide".

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland under what authority the chief executive of the national health service in Scotland has appointed Douglas Brown and Donald MacNeill as chairman designate and chief executive designate, respectively, of the Ayrshire national health service trust; on whose authority Donald MacNeill is organising the national health service trust application from property belonging to the Ayrshire and Arran health board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No appointments have been made by the chief executive of the national health service in Scotland: that of chairman-designate was announced by the Secretary of State. Procedures for applications are laid down in chapter 5 of "NHS Trusts: A Working Guide", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he has made to ensure that members or
  547
  officers of health boards charged with the responsibility of carrying out the consultation on NHS trusts are not themselves involved in any way in the trust application.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In all cases where trust proposals are being pursued, a team drawn from the unit concerned has been established under the control of a project manager.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information is included in the application for national health service trust status for the new Ayr hospital about the prospective directors of the trust.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The application describes the proposed management framework. This will be examined as part of the assessment of the trust proposal.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guarantees he has given to those appointed as officers designate of NHS trusts that they will be appointed to the equivalent substantive positions on the trusts, if eventually approved.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None. The appointment of executive members of a trust is a matter for the chairman and non-executive members.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the details of the standard contract between health boards in Scotland and proposed national health service trusts.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: There is no standard contract. NHS contracts between health boards and NHS trusts will be a matter for the parties concerned having regard to any general guidance which may be issued from time to time by the Scottish Office Home and Health Department.

  Chernobyl
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the area in acres and hectares, the number of sheep, and the number of farms currently under restriction, including the county or counties involved, as a result of the radioactive contamination following the Chernobyl accident.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Following the removal from 14 January 1991 of restrictions on a number of farms in Scotland, 148,647 acres (60,181 hectares), 116,000 sheep, post-lambing figure, and 63 farms in parts of Central region, Stirling district; Dumfries and Galloway region, Stewartry, Wigtown and Nithsdale disricts; Strathclyde region, Cumnock and Doon Valley, Kyle and Carrick, Cunninghame, Kilmarnock and Loudoun, East Kilbride and Eastwood districts are currently subject to restriction under the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Radioactivity in Sheep) Order 1991.

  Inverclyde Initiative
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the central Government financial assistance to the Inverclyde initiative, since its creation detailing precise allocations to specific activities.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 26 March 1991]: Central Government financial assistance to the Inverclyde Initiative for the years in question was as follows:
  548

  Scottish Development Agency Project and programme expenditure (the precise breakdown requested is not available)

  £

  1985–86

  3,387,000

  1986–87

  2,676,000

  1987–88

  2,792,000

  1988–89

  4,762,000

  1989–90

  7,784,000

  Urban programme—Inverclyde community initiatives fund

  £

  1987–88

  7,687

  1988–89

  8,404

  1989–90

  17,328

  Cancer
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will list for each year from 1986 onwards the number of reported cases of cancer-related diseases in(a) Scotland, (b) Forth Valley district health board area, (c) Falkirk district, (d) the postal district FK4, (e) the postal district FK5 and (f) the postal district FK6.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 19 April 1991]: The number of cancer-related1 diseases from 1986 onwards for (a) Scotland, (b) Forth Valley health board area, (c) Falkirk local government district, (d) the postal district FK4, (e) the postal district FK5 and (f) the postal district FK6 are shown in the table:

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Scotland

  24,995

  25,439

  25,901

  25,860

  Forth Valley health board

  1,268

  1,283

  1,303

  1,233

  Falkirk local government district

  655

  631

  668

  689

  Postal district FK4

  40

  64

  32

  60

  Postal district FK5

  70

  56

  82

  79

  Postal district FK6

  43

  43

  55

  45

  Final figures for 1990 are not yet available.

  1 All Malignant Neoplasms; International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision.

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish or place in the Library the minutes of discussion and decision of Grampian health board of 7 March with regard to the item dealing with NHS trust status of Aberdeen royal infirmary, Foresterhill site.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: Board minutes are a matter for the board concerned, in this particular case the discussion referred to took place in closed session, but I understand that Grampian health board has made clear to the hon. Member its willingness to make the minutes available.

  Forestry Commission
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the names of each individual on each regional advisory committee of the Forestry Commission and indicate whether they represent forestry, trade union or environmental interests.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: The Forestry Act 1967 stipulates that not fewer than four members of each regional advisory committee will be appointed by the Forestry Commissioners after consultation with organisations appearing to them to represent the interests of owners of woodlands and timber merchants respectively and organisations concerned with the study and promotion of forestry. In 1974, Forestry Ministers instructed the commissioners to appoint to each RAC representatives of agricultural, planning and environmental interests; it was also decided that the remaining place should continue to be allocated to a trade union representative.

  The names of the members of each RAC, and the backgrounds from which they have been drawn, are given in the table. RAC chairmen are, as far as possible, appointed from independent backgrounds.

  North of England RAC

  Professor G. R. Dickson—Chairman

  R. N. Cartwright—Forestry (Forestry Profession)

  J. Derham—Trade Union

  T. R. Fetherstonhaugh—Forestry (Timber Growers)

  N. C. Forbes Adam—Forestry (Timber Growers)

  Lady E. Kirk-Environment

  A. A. Macdonald—Planning

  R. J. Steel Addison—Agriculture

  J. T. Todd—Forestry (Timber Merchants)

  East England RAC

  W. E. Lane—Chairman

  N. A. Braden—Forestry (Timber Merchants)

  D. M. Clark—Planning

  M. Craske—Trade Union

  T. Cook—Forestry (Timber Growers)

  N. G. Halsey—Forestry (Timber Growers)

  A. R. Pelly—Forestry (Timber Growers)

  C. Stratton—Environment

  L. Woodham—Agriculture

  West England RAC

  Mrs. R. Thomas—Chairman

  N. D. Anderson—Forestry (Timber Growers)

  Lord Courteney—Agriculture

  C. A. Eade—Forestry (Timber Growers)

  A. Fooks—Trade Union

  R. Jarman—Environment

  J. T. Perry—Planning

  G. E. Smith—Forestry (Timber Merchants)

  J. H. B. Workman—Forestry (Forestry Profession)

  North Scotland RAC

  F. Critchley—Chairman

  B. E. Crabtree—Trade Union

  A. D. M. Farquharson—Forestry (Timber Growers)

  Professor C. Gimingham—Environment

  Councillor F. R. M. Keith—Planning

  A. N. G. Laing—Forestry (Timber Growers)

  M. J. Leslie-Forestry (Timber Merchants)

  Professor H. G. Miller—Forestry (Forestry Profession)

  M. Pottinger—Agriculture

  Mid Scotland RAC

  Dr. Jean Balfour—Chairman

  A. W. Barbour—Forestry (Timber Growers)

  P. Fairweather—Forestry (Forestry Profession)

  J. A. Fell—Forestry (Timber Growers)

  Councillor G. McGrath—Planning

  J. McNaughton—Agriculture

  550

  Morton—Trade Union

  P. S. Murray—Forestry (Timber Merchants)

  P. Wormell—Environment

  South Scotland RAC

  H. A. Waterson—Chairman

  D. B. Crawford—Forestry (Forestry Profession)

  J. F. S. Gourlay—Agriculture

  D. J. Liddell-Grainger—Forestry (Timber Growers)

  D. Minns—Environment

  Captain J. W. N. Mitchell—Forestry (Timber Growers)

  T. Smith—Forestry (Timber Merchants)

  Councillor A. L. Tulley—Planning

  H. Wilson—Trade Union

  Wales RAC

  M. A. McLaggan—Chairman

  Mrs. S. A. G. Ballance—Forestry (Timber Growers)

  J. Donovan—Environment

  Dr. G. K. Elliot—Forestry (Forestry Profession)

  J. R. Lloyd Jones—Agriculture

  M. J. Morgan—Planning

  K. Neale—Trade Union

  Colonel P. C. Ormrod—Forestry (Timber Growers)

  M. Oxnard—Forestry (Timber Merchants)

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the biographical details of the Forestry Commissioners indicating whether they have experience in(a) forestry, (b) environment and conservation, (c) employment and (d) other.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: The information is as follows:

  CHAIRMAN
  J. Raymond Johnstone—Chairman of the Forestry Commission since 1989. Chairman of Murray Johnstone Ltd. Chairman Scottish Financial Enterprise. Honorary president Scottish Opera. Past member Scottish Advisory Committee of the Nature Conservancy Council.

  DEPUTY CHAIRMAN AND DIRECTOR GENERAL
  R. Cutler—Full-time appointment since 1990 at grade 2 level. Professional forestry qualifications and considerable experience in multi-purpose forest management. Formerly member of the Colonial Forest Service in Kenya, latterly chief executive, New Zealand Ministry of Forestry.

  OTHER COMMISSIONERS: FULL-TIME
  R. T. Bradley—Commissioner Private Forestry and Development at grade 3 level. Professional forestry qualifications and wide experience in multi-purpose forest management. Held various posts in the Forestry Commission since 1960, becoming a Commissioner in 1985.
  D. L. Foot—Commissioner Operations at grade 3 level. Professional forestry qualifications and wide experience in multi-purpose forest management. Held various posts in the Forestry Commission since 1961, becoming a commissioner in 1986.
  D. S. Grundy—Commissioner Administration and Finance at grade 3 level. Economist. Joined the Forestry Commission in 1982, after periods with the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of the Environment and the Civil Service College. Appointed commissioner in 1990.

  OTHER COMMISSIONERS: PART-TIME
  J. D. Pollock-Appointed 1978. Former General Secretary of the Educational Institute for Scotland. Past member of the Manpower Services Committee Scotland and the Broadcasting Council for Scotland. Former chairman of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. Member of the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
  D. Coutts—Appointed 1984. Chartered accountant with local government experience. Norfolk county councillor since 1970 (leader 1973–79). Member of Local Government

  551
  Audit Commission 1983–90.
  C. R. Woosnam—Appointed 1986. Woodland owner and farmer. Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors with wide experience of management of agricultural and forestry properties in Wales and the Border counties. Member Timber Growers UK (deputy chairman (1983–86).
  F. M. Strang Steel—Appointed 1988. Woodland owner and farmer. Has managed a mixed forestry/farming estate near Selkirk for 10 years. Chairman of south-east region of Scottish Landowners Federation. Member Timber Growers UK. A keen conservationist and member of Borders Farming and Forestry Wildlife Advisory Group.
  R. P. Hancock—Appointed 1988. International insurance consultant. Member of Lloyd's, freeman of the City of London. Presently has farming and forestry interests in Surrey and the Scottish Borders. Particular interest in wildlife conservation and deer husbandry. Council member of the Surrey County Agricultural Society.
  T. S. Mallinson—Appointed 1989. President Timber Trade Federation. President UK Institute of Carpenters. Former Chairman Timber Research and Development Association and former president Institute of Wood Science. Chairman Epping Forest Centenary Trust.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the biographical details of the conservators of the Foresty Commission, indicating whether they have experience in(a) forestry, (b) environment and conservation, (c) employment or (d) other.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: The Forestry Commission's conservators are:

  North England—S. A. Neustein

  East England—N. Dannatt

  West England—R. J. N. Busby

  Wales—J. F. Morgan

  North Scotland—J. Atterson

  Mid Scotland—G. J. Hamilton

  South Scotland—G. M. Cowie

  They are Forestry Commission officials who have been appointed to their posts through the normal departmental procedures. It would not be appropriate to give biographical details.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Whales
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to press for a permanent ban on any killing of whales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have taken a strong stand, both as Minister of State and as Minister, on the importance of conserving whale stocks and I have repeatedly stated my determination that no whale stock should again be over-exploited by man. Unless and until certain conditions are met I would not even contemplate agreeing to the lifting of the moratorium imposed by the International Whaling Commission on commercial whaling.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to make any representations to the Japanese authorities about their continued slaughter of whales.

  Mr. Curry
  The Japanese Government are well aware of our views on scientific whaling. Last year the United 552
  Kingdom co-sponsored a resolution agreed by the International Whaling Commission calling on Japan to reconsider her intention of conducting scientific research whaling in the Antarctic ocean. Japan agreed to modify her programme in the light of comments by the IWC's scientific committee. We shall raise the issue again at the forthcoming meeting of the IWC.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what circumstances he would support a limited resumption of commercial whaling.

  Mr. Curry
  We are not prepared even to contemplate agreeing to the lifting of the moratorium placed by the International Whaling Commission on commercial whaling unless and until it is clear that whale stocks are at healthy levels, a satisfactory management procedure is in place and the methods of killing whales are as humane as possible. These conditions have not yet been met.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will pursue a common and permanent ban on the killing of whales for commercial, research or other purposes within the EC's common fisheries policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The European Community does not have competence for whaling matters and could not therefore take action within the common fisheries policy. There are no moves, however, by any member state to begin whaling in Community waters and trade in cetacean products is prohibited.

  The United Kingdom has been and will remain in the forefront in the International Whaling Commission in working to ensure that the objective of conserving whales is fully observed.

  Scottish Seed Potatoes
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to whom his Department communicates the relevant information where his plant health department confirms that a batch of Scottish seed potatoes has high levels of virus infection.

  Mr. Curry
  If virus levels in excess of those prescribed in the Seed Potatoes Regulations 1984 are found in Scottish seed potatoes dispatched to England and Wales, this is reported immediately to the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations govern the disposal or destruction of a consignment of Scottish seed potatoes which are confirmed to have high levels of infection or virus.

  Mr. Curry
  Regulation 18 of the Seed Potatoes Regulations 1984 provides authorised officers with powers to serve notices requiring action to be taken in respect of seed potatoes which, on an official examination, do not meet various requirements in the regulations. The course to be taken will depend on the circumstances of the case. Notices are unlikely to be served if all the tubers have been removed from their sealed containers, thereby preventing their resale as seed, and if the virus concerned is not one which is subject to statutory action under the Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1987.

  Agricultural Spending
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many letters he has received on the subject of the decision by the United Kingdom on 8 April to oppose the measures presented by the Commission to increase the legal limits of agricultural spending; and what is the nature of these representations;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the measures proposed on 8 April by the European Commission on the limits of agricultural spending; and what steps the Council now proposes to take on these proposals.

  Mr. Curry
  The Commission's 1991–92 price proposals, published on 13 March, are designed to contain agricultural expenditure within the legally binding limit—the guideline. At the ECOFIN Council on 8 April the United Kingdom confirmed its support for a settlement compatible with the guideline.

  Farm Subsidies
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what was the average subsidy paid in the last financial year, on a per acre basis to farms smaller than 163 acres;

  (2) what was the average subsidy paid in the last financial year, on a per acre basis, to farms larger than 163 acres;

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the extent to which farm size is an accurate basis for the allocation of financial subsidies;

  (4) what was the average subsidy paid on a per acre basis to farms of 33 acres or less in the last financial year.

  Mr. Curry
  Support for farmers under the CAP is provided primarily through market prices; in some sectors direct subsidies to farmers also play a role. The level of support received by individual farmers will depend on factors such as the combination of enterprises on a particular holding and the level of output, and any estimate of average levels of support per acre would be of little relevance. For these reasons farm size on its own would not provide a satisfactory basis for determining levels of support.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment his Department has made of the effects that the proposed alterations to the CAP would have on the British farming industry;

  (2) what is his estimate of the average subsidy which will be paid on a per acre basis to farms of (a) 33 acres or less, (b) less than 163 acres and (c) more than 163 acres over the current financial year and in that beginning in April 1992 if the current proposals for the reform of the CAP go ahead unchanged.

  Mr. Curry
  The European Commission has yet to produce detailed proposals for the reform of the CAP. If the Commission was to pursue the principles for reform set out in its February discussion paper, United Kingdom producers would be severely disadvantaged.

  Green Premiums
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the extent to which the proposed levels of green premiums payable to farmers will be sufficient to compensate farmers for the loss of income brought about by(a) the use of less intensive farming techniques and (b) the reduction in subsidies from the CAP.

  Mr. Curry
  There are no proposals yet from the European Commission for green premiums.

  Livestock Rendering
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many companies in the livestock rendering industry have gone out of business in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not available centrally. However, since 1 April 1990 10 renderers in Great Britain have asked to have their names removed from the register of protein processors under the Processed Animal Protein Order 1989.

  Green Currency
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to seek the abolition of the green currency system.

  Mr. Curry
  It is Government policy to seek the removal of the monetary gaps created by the green currency system by the end of 1992 at the latest.

  Blue Ear Disease
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken by his Department to ensure that blue ear disease in pigs is kept out of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under European Community rules, member states are not permitted to send breeding or production pigs to other member states from holdings or, where appropriate, municipalities where the new blue ear pig disease exists.

  The disease has been confirmed in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. Because we have no foot and mouth disease quarantine premises approved for the handling of pigs, we do not, in any case, import live pigs from these countries. There is no evidence that pigmeat contributes to the transmission of this disease, but we shall continue to keep a close watch on developments and we shall press for additional controls if these appear justified on the basis of scientific evidence.

  Farm Diversification
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to seek through the policies of the EC to encourage diversification within the rural economy.

  Mr. Curry
  This has been our policy for several years and we have already secured the adoption of Council regulation 3808/89, which extends the scope of the Community provisions for capital grants for farmers to include grants for diversification.

  Production Methods
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to seek to amend the common agricultural policy to improve and widen incentives to production methods which enhance environmental protection and countryside management.

  Mr. Curry
  Our aim is to secure greater integration of environmental and agricultural policies so as to encourage farming methods which protect the environment and enhance the natural beauty of the countryside.

  Farms (Environmental Benefits)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to seek amendment to the common agricultural policy to make environmental benefits available to farmers and landowners irrespective of the size of their property.

  Mr. Curry
  Our policy is to ensure that schemes offering incentives to farmers and landowners to adopt environmentally friendly farming systems continue to apply irrespective of farm size.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to support the European Commission's proposal for a more effective and attractive set-aside scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  We favour making the set-aside scheme more effective and attractive. In particular we need to ensure more even uptake throughout the Community and to make set-aside more environmentally friendly. The Commission's proposal for a one-year set-aside scheme linked to refund of cereals co-responsibility levy does not meet these objectives; therefore we do not support it.

  Farming Techniques
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies his Department has made or intends to make of incentives to encourage farmers to move towards less-intensive farming techniques.

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  TV

  Radio

  Press advertising

  Other publicity material

  £

  £

  1982–83

  nil

  nil

  3,000

  n/a

  1983–84

  nil

  nil

  27,000

  n/a

  1984–85

  nil

  niil

  26,000

  575,000

  1985–86

  nil

  nil

  29,000

  656,000

  1986–87

  nil

  nil

  54,000

  825,000

  1987–88

  nil

  nil

  12,000

  693,000

  1988–89

  nil

  nil

  380,000

  1,004,000

  1989–90

  nil

  nil

  116,000

  2,373,000

  1990–91

  nil

  nil

  53,000

  2,379,000

  Figures for publicity advertising prior to 1982–83 are not available as the information for those years includes recruitment and other types of advertising. Information is not readily available to distinguish between expenditure on advertising in newspapers and that in the press generally. Separate figures for expenditure on other publicity material prior to 1984–85 are available only at disproportionate cost.
  556
  Mr. Curry
  Socio-economic and environmental evaluation studies are being carried out in respect of the environmentally sensitive areas, nitrate sensitive areas and pilot beef and sheep extensification schemes.

  Building Work
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will list the number and location of all new buildings or extentions commissioned by his Department in each of the past five years which(a) had contracts worth between £3 million and £5 million and (b) had contracts worth more than £5 million.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry took on responsibility for vote accounting and project sponsorship for major new building projects three years ago. Before this the Department of the Environment, Property Services Agency held this responsibility and I have details therefore only of commissions placed after the date of the change.

  New buildings commissioned by this Department over these last three financial years in the categories requested are:

  (i) value between £3 million and £5 million 1989–90. One at Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk.

  value over £5 million 1988–89. One near Sand Hutton, Yorkshire. One at Weymouth, Dorset.

  There were no extensions.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give separate figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what are his latest estimates for 1990–91 and budgets for 1991–92.

  Mr. Curry
  Expenditure by the Department in the financial year 1982–83 and each subsequent year was as follows:

  The overall publicity budget for 1991–92 is estimated to be £4·4 million.

  Fish Imports
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the level of imports of Icelandic fish, both as a total figure and as a percentage of all imports of fish.

  Mr. Curry
  In 1990, the latest year for which we have complete figures, United Kingdom imports of fresh, chilled and frozen fish from Iceland totalled 109,198 tonnes. This is 36 per cent. of the total United Kingdom imports for 1990, or 302,313 tonnes.

  Chernobyl
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his reasons for refusing to grant permission for the publication in the New Scientist of a scientific paper by scientists from his Ministry about the behaviour of radioactive caesium in the soil following the contamination of British soil arising from the Chernobyl accident.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department took the initiative for and prepared this article. A text for publication was submitted to the New Scientist on 4 April, and I hope that it will publish it in a future edition. The hon. Member's information is therefore not correct.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the area in acres and hectares, the number of sheep, and the number of farms currently under restriction, including the county or counties involved, as a result of the radioactive contamination following the Chernobyl accident.

  Mr. Gummer
  Following the release of some areas from restriction this January, the information for England is as follows:county: Cumbria
  area: approximately 104,000 acres (42,000 hectares)
  holdings: 144
  sheep: 130,000 (estimated post-lambing figure).

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all actions taken by his Department since the Chernobyl accident to mitigate the effects upon United Kingdom farmers of the radioactive fallout from the Soviet accident.

  Mr. Maclean
  Full details of the Department's actions were submitted to the Agriculture Select Committee in May 1988. The development of live-monitoring techniques and the introduction of "mark and release" arrangements were designed to minimise disruption of normal husbandry practices of those farmers whose sheep have been caught by post-Chernobyl movement and slaughter restrictions and the Government have so far paid over £8558
  million in compensation to the farmers concerned. In addition, we have funded an extensive scientific research programme aimed at obtaining a better understanding of the behaviour of radiocaesium in the affected upland ecologies and at identifying any options for remedial treatment of either the land or the sheep which graze it. However, our first priority has been to ensure that consumers remain fully protected at all times and, by successfully maintaining public confidence in the quality and safety of British produce, the Government have helped to sustain healthy markets for British farmers both at home and overseas.

  Clenbuterol
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any evidence of the use of clenbuterol in cattle; what precautions have been taken to detect the importation of clenbuterol from Community countries; what new controls have been introduced this year to control the importation from the Republic of Ireland of beef strengthened by clenbuterol; and if he will make a statement on the existence and use of clenbuterol in the beef industry.

  Mr. Maclean
  Clenbuterol is the active ingredient in three veterinary medicinal products licensed under the Medicines Act for use, only on prescription, to treat respiratory disease in calves and horses and as an aid to cattle at the time of calving. At present, there is no evidence of any existence or use of illegal clenbuterol in the beef industry in Great Britain.

  Last year, around 300 liver samples were taken from slaughterhouses in Great Britain and tested for clenbuterol. No positives were detected. Surveillance in 1991 is being stepped up, both in terms of the number of animals tested, and the age range of cattle covered. Within the Ministry's imported meat monitoring programme, which includes checks on meat from EC countries such as the Republic of Ireland, 114 liver samples have been tested and no positives found.

  Carcases (St. Tudwals)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the results of his Department's investigations into the carcases of red deer and sheep on the island of St. Tudwals, near Abersoch, Gwynedd.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have been asked to reply.

  Samples were submitted for examination to the veterinary investigation centre at Bangor by a private veterinary surgeon. This was an ordinary commercial transaction and as with all such work the results are confidential.

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.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business I take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, I have accepted an invitation from the President of the Bundesrat to visit the Bundesrat in Bonn and to undertake other engagements in Germany on 7th and 8th May. I have also been invited to attend the Conference of European Speakers in Berlin between 9th and 11th May. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence from Tuesday 7th May to Friday 10th May.

Community Charge Levels
3.1 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the highest community charge proposed for the 1991–92 financial year, and by which local authority it is demanded; and what is the lowest proposed community charge, and by which local authority it is demanded.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, before the Budget announcement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lambeth had set the highest charge at£590, and Wandsworth the lowest at£136. After the Budget the ranking did not change but the charge set by Lambeth is reduced to£450 and Wandsworth to nil.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that extremely interesting reply. Will she say what explanation there is for that quite extraordinary disparity between one borough and another?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would take too long to give a detailed reply, except to say that on almost every count on financial management and quality of services Wandsworth simply does a better job.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House the specific support that Wandsworth has received from the Government during the past few years which no other borough has had?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, every charge payer in Lambeth is supported by government support to the tune of£1,557. Lambeth spends considerably above
368
its SSA. As a direct comparison, Wandsworth receives government support of only£1,192 and spends considerably below its SSA.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the now somewhat tattered reason for the poll tax was its universality. Can the noble Baroness explain why it is a good thing that no one in Wandsworth should pay anything?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, under the system that is about to be phased out and the new system that is about to be phased in, the relativities of good, well-run authorities will still be evident.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House how many schools were closed in Wandsworth and Westminster resulting in a loss of jobs? Do the Government agree that that is a way of saving money?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not aware of any schools being closed in Wandsworth or Westminster. However, that is another question. It is not part of this Question, which relates to the highest and lowest spenders.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I live in the Tory-controlled county of Berkshire in the borough of Reading. Because of the high charges in Tory-controlled Berkshire, I pay£476, less of course the£140 that the Government have given for electoral purposes. Is the noble Baroness aware that, if Reading were receiving the same level of grant as Wandsworth, Reading would make a rebate instead of a charge to its charge payers and Wandsworth charge payers would pay considerably more? How does she explain that disparity?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have given the details across the Dispatch Box previously. Reading and Berkshire both spend above their SSAs. I believe that the combined figure is£35. When an authority spends under its SSA not only does it benefit because it spends less but it benefits because the grant that it receives, which is consistent with its SSA, becomes a bonus. When an authority spends above its SSA, not only does it not receive any more grant above the SSA but it also has to charge the charge payer more. The gearing effect of spending above is just as important as the gearing effect of spending down.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Baroness gets into trouble from her comrades and colleagues in Berkshire, Berkshire is not spending above the SSA.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall check the figure. However, I recall answering the question specifically about Reading and Berkshire. Compared with Wandsworth, one of the reasons is that they spend above the SSA.
To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, all authorities receive grant consistent with their SSA whatever the level of spending. Therefore if they spend down, not only do they have the benefit of spending down but also the benefit of surplus grant,

369
which benefits the charge payer. If they spend above, they have to levy disproportionately on the charge payer.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Government have indicated that it will take them four years to provide 35 more secure places in children's homes to avoid children being remanded into prison service accommodation? Is she aware that 28 of those places have been abolished by the London Borough of Wandsworth? That borough is therefore very nearly responsible for sending a high proportion of children to prison because of its failure to provide adequate accommodation, is it not?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord cites a very specific detail which I am unable to answer at the Dispatch Box. Clearly I shall consider the matter. I have undertaken a fairly detailed study of the services provided in Wandsworth compared with other authorities which are not so proficient. On most counts Wandsworth comes out on top.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, since the borough of Lambeth has one of the highest charges, if not the highest, and the borough of Wandsworth, next to it, for some reason has a nil charge, would it not be fair and equitable to amalgamate the two boroughs so that they pay the same in order to achieve the Prime Minister's aim of an equal society?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is far from the Question on the Order Paper. However, the noble Lord might like to put such a question to the people of Lambeth.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that, quite apart from other considerations, one of the reasons for the outstanding performance of Wandsworth—an area in which as a former ratepayer and as a resident I must declare an interest—is that it has an internal structure of command which is far superior to that of Lambeth, or for that matter of any other Labour-controlled borough in London?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is absolutely true. The Government have determined that internal management needs consideration. However, Lambeth is probably the worst example of internal management in the whole of local government.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister accept that if we compare this year's Budget figures with those of last year the average Tory district council has increased its expenditure by 13.9 per cent., whereas the average for Labour districts is 12 per cent.? Does she also accept that since 1979, had RSG remained at the same level, the average bill would now be£101 per head, unlike the present average poll tax? In other words, the figure is due almost entirely to the Government switching the burden from central taxation to local taxes. Does the Minister also accept that under Labour's Fair Rates the average household would now be benefiting by at least£67 per year?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in Labour'sFair Rates the figure is wrong. With an annual rolling revaluation programme involving four factors—capital values, rental values, rebuilding costs and maintenance costs—Fair Rates would be unbelievably bureaucratic and expensive. It is obvious that, with no capping and high-spending local authorities, ratepayers would be much worse off. Conservative authorities in shire districts and counties and in any class of authority are charging their charge payers less. I have the specific figures but I do not have time to give them. In aggregate all Conservative authorities are spending 4 per cent. below SSA and all Labour authorities 3 per cent. above SSA.

British Shipping: Government Support
3.10 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that their policies have strengthened the capacity of the British merchant fleet to compete internationally.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, in recent years the Government have introduced a range of measures to support and improve British shipping. On the one hand, we regulate the industry to ensure that it operates to the highest standards of safety, efficiency and working conditions; on the other hand, we take every opportunity to encourage the removal of restrictions to healthy competition both at home and abroad. It is a continuing process carried out in close consultation with interested parties.
Lord Jay: My Lords, despite that, does the Minister realise that the British merchant fleet has declined disturbingly close to total extinction? That situation is serious nationally from both a defence and economic point of view, and the industry requires more substantial fiscal support than the Government have yet provided.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I accept that the shipping industry has declined. The mid-1980s was a period of deep depression for most of the world's shipping industry. The previous Budget introduced changes that were designed to help the shipping industry and other recent measures have been taken. The joint working party was established by the Government and the British shipping industry in May 1990 and was chaired by the then Secretary of State and Sir Jeffrey Sterling (as he then was). He is now a Member of your Lordships' House. Its report concluded that:
"British shipping is lean and fit. It is a vital national asset. The industry is well placed to take advantage of growth and world trade in the right conditions".
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, did the Minister hear the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, speak on television? The noble Lord, Lord Sterling, said that he was amazed to find that the fleet was down to only 64 ships, and that the majority of our exports are being carried in ships sailing under flags of convenience.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, according to my figures, we are not down to 64 ships. We come halfway in the league table of trading nations.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Minister is right in saying that the British fleet is lean. However, it is far from fit. Is it not a fact that during the past decade the fleet has declined more rapidly than any of its major competitors? Is it not also a fact that, apart from one issue, the Government have totally ignored the recommendations contained in the joint working party's report? Is that not aiding and abetting the further decline of this precious industry?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord takes issue with that distinguished working group. Every recommendation is being pursued.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister indicate in what way they are being pursued? Did the Budget not present a perfectly adequate opportunity to act? The General Council of British Shipping made earnest entreaties to the Government to take urgent action. However, is it not a fact that, apart from accepting one recommendation, the Government in their Budget did nothing to honour the demands being made in the joint working party's report?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Government believe that subsidies distort economic decisions and are not the way to encourage a healthy and competitive industry. We are working hard in Europe to encourage the reduction of subsidies elsewhere. Other recommendations accepted include the provision of assistance for the costs of Merchant Navy officer training. The scheme was introduced in 1989 under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and as a result cadet recruitment has tripled. Assistance was given to the cost of transporting UK crews to vessels in deep sea waters. There has been the simplification of technical registration requirements and surveyor guidelines. Other changes have been made which were part of the recommendations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it correct that if once again the Falkland Islands were invaded by a Fascist dictator we could not mount a proper and successful rescue operation due to the huge reduction in the number of ships?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to reassure the noble Lord that in such an unhappy event we should be able to mount that operation.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the Minister agree that since the days of King Alfred we have been a maritime nation, that we are proud of our Merchant Navy and we hope that the Government will do all they can to support it?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I accept my noble friend's remarks. We continue to attach great importance to an important national asset.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Question asked by my noble friend Lady Fisher referred to the fact that some
372
industrialists are taking advantage of flags of convenience. That method undermines the British commercial fleet. Is anything being done about that activity? Is it necessary? If not, why are some industrialists showing such lack of faith in a British industry?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I agree that moves towards flags of convenience are regrettable and reduce standards. Indications show that as some of those flags of convenience become more responsible, they are declining in numbers.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is it not clear that great anxiety is felt about this issue by many Members of your Lordships' House? Will the Minister represent those anxieties to his senior colleagues?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I well understand the anxiety and I shall be pleased to do as the noble Lord asks.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, despite his recent reply, does the Minister agree that among the serious problems besetting our Merchant Navy is the increasingly important question of manning? Bearing in mind the recent regrettable decision to flag-out four of our container ships to the Bahamas, and to crew them with Filipinos with only the master and chief engineer being British, will the Government consider following in the footsteps of other countries such as Norway and Japan in setting up a training establishment in the Philippines or elsewhere in order to ensure that those crews are trained to the requisite standards?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I understand that steps have been taken to try to sort out the problem. I shall draw that interesting suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friend.

"Inspector Morse" TV Programme
3.18 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the employment of a baby in the "Inspector Morse" television programme broadcast on Wednesday, 20th March, was within the law; how the child was induced to cry at the appropriate time; and whether the laws relating to the employment of children in entertainment are generally enforced.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, we have contacted the television company responsible for making this series. We are satisfied that it is aware of the legal provisions governing the participation of the child in the programme, and, with the company's assurance, that it complied with the provisions and that the child was in no danger at any time. We understand that the child cried spontaneously during filming. We are not aware of infringements of the law in this area.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Equity films organiser was worried about the incident because he believed that it was, as he put it, going over the top? Is the Minister further aware that there is a wider anxiety because, since the employment of children was legalised, the regulations permitting that are not always enforced? Will the Minister examine that aspect of the matter? There is no use in having regulations in respect of such a sensitive area unless they are carried out.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am aware that there have been anxieties about this film. I understand that the baby who appeared in the programme did not take part in any performance or rehearsal for more than the permitted one hour per day. Apparently, another baby—the equivalent of an understudy—was available to deputise if necessary. Although the baby cried spontaneously during the take, it appears that the scene had to be shot several times because the baby persisted in smiling contentedly. Her mother was present on the set during filming. The effect of the child apparently being held over the top rail of the stairs was contrived and the child was never more than two or three feet above floor level.
Although this may appear amusing, I recognise the seriousness of the noble Lord's anxiety. Numerous provisions are contained in government legislation and local authority byelaws which place detailed restrictions on the hours and conditions of children's employment. The guiding principle behind those provisions is that children may be employed only to the extent that their health, education and general welfare do not suffer. As I said in my original reply, we are not aware of infringements of the law in this area.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us believe that the laughter occasioned by this Question is typical of unthinking people, particularly the Liberal Democrats? If this Question referred to animals, it would be received in reverential silence. However, far too many children are used in the soap operas. As a mother and as a female, I have been anxious about that. Children do not cry naturally unless induced to do so.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, although I am not a parent, I understand that children sometimes cry without that being induced. However, I recognise the serious aspect of the Question. I can reassure the noble Baroness that an officer of the local education authority may at any time enter any place where a performance is being given, whether licensed or otherwise, and can make inquiries about any child taking part in a performance. That power is also available to the police. A parent or guardian who allows a child to take part in a performance in contravention of the legislation is committing an offence.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, there has been happy laughter on these Benches as well as on the Liberal Democrat Benches. However, does the Minister agree that this is a serious issue? Will she say rather more about the monitoring which applies? Is she satisfied that this issue would have been raised had my noble
374
friend not asked this Question? Is she satisfied about the general system of monitoring, which should ensure that children do not suffer either physically or mentally from this situation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, under the wide body of provisions which govern these arrangements, responsibility is placed on the appropriate authorities. Infringements of the many provisions to safeguard children in part-time jobs should be brought to the attention of the local education authority or, in the case of industrial and agricultural employment, to the Health and Safety Executive.
As I said, we are not aware of any infringements and there have been no prosecutions for infringements of the licensing provisions; I have in mind, for example, Section 40(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the fact that the Government are not aware of any infringements may well be because there are insufficient inspectors employed to enforce the regulations? Will she investigate the possibility that the existing regulations are not being adequately policed or enforced?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as a result of the noble Lord's Question, we have investigated this case. I shall draw the Question and the anxieties which have been raised to the attention of the Department of Education and Science, which is the responsible department. The Department of Health rarely receives any complaints and indeed my department is not a responsible authority in that connection.
Lord De Freyne: My Lords, will my noble friend help us on this matter? I am told that a brace of babies was used in "Coronation Street". They were happy and gurgling all the time for a number of weeks.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am sure that we should all be very sorry if baby actors and actresses, laughing or crying spontaneously, were not permitted to appear on our screens. However, it is important that safeguards and protections should be in place and fully in force.

Census Forms: Delivery and Collection
3.25 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many households did not receive a census form by Sunday, 21st April, for the current census.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, field managers reported that all households located by enumerators received a census form by census day. However, the operation involved the delivery of some 25 million forms. The census offices therefore made arrangements for local and national contact points to be advertised in public places and the press, in case anyone had not received a form by 21st April. Some 7,000 calls had been received by 23rd April from people who had not received a form. Enumerators have since delivered forms to people who phone in.

375
Census enumerators are doing a vital job for their local arms as well as for the country as a whole. I feel sure that the House will agree that they deserve our thanks and support in completing their task.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply, although I fear that that is not the final position. Does the noble Baroness accept that on a local phone-in programme on a London broadcasting station on Sunday, people were phoning in one after the other complaining that they had not received a census form? An officer from the department responsible for the census was brought on to the programme. He gave out a hotline telephone number for the public to use. That number was found to be out of order for the whole of Sunday morning and most of Sunday afternoon. After that it was totally jammed and useless.
Will the Minister accept that since then I have met a number of people who received census forms but who still have them because nobody has been to collect them? I have been trying since last Wednesday week to obtain a form and I still have not obtained one. Therefore, this may be the tip of the iceberg. What credibility can be attached to the results of the census in view of this botched exercise?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I said that 25 million forms were issued. I believe that the 7,000 calls received represents less than a tip of an iceberg. The census help lines received some 116,000 inquiries. Some of those dealt with questions on forms and with people who did not wish to complete the forms. As the noble Lord will know, any person refusing to complete the form is liable to be prosecuted and fined. As regards collection of the completed forms, enumerators made a start on Monday of this week. Across the country they have been given until today in order to complete their collection rounds. In some areas, such as London, where experience shows that it is often difficult to find people at home, the timetable allows enumerators until the end of this weekend and it will continue into next week if necessary. As a last resort, people will be supplied with pre-paid envelopes in which to post their forms.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed reply. Does she agree that it is important for the public to know what should happen if their forms have not been collected? Is she aware that I have no complaint, because mine has been collected and the census officer took me through the form point by point as I am a pensioner and would not be able fully to understand the form? However, as the noble Baroness said, I know that many forms have not yet been collected. Will she make quite certain that wide publicity is given to what should be done by those people whose forms have not been collected? Obviously, the effect of this census is dependent on the highest possible proportion of people replying to it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, had a good experience in his case. I reaffirm that the collection process is continuing. If an enumerator is unable to make direct personal contact with a householder, in
376
the last resort he will put a stamped addressed envelope through the door for people to post. People should wait for the enumerator to arrive and, failing that, for the stamped addressed envelope to arrive.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give some advice to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, who has not received his form? He has not returned it because he did not receive it. Will he be prosecuted?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can do better than that. I can give the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, a census form.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the Report stage of the Child Support Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1991 and the Social Security (Overlapping Benefits) Amendment Regulations 1991 will be taken.

Llanelli Borough Council (Dafen Estuary) Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Business of the House: Debate, 1st May
The Lord Privy Seal(Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Annan set down for 1st May shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as this is such an important Bill and the Report stage is an important stage in it, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will permit me to mention that the groupings on this occasion are in a bit of a muddle. I do not blame anybody for that. However, I ask noble Lords to look at the groupings list, which is not always the practice, otherwise there may be a lot of confusion. The numbers go backwards and forwards.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The duty to maintain]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I, line 8, leave out ("an absent") and insert ("a separated").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the earlier stages I used a number of unpleasant epithets to describe my opinion of the Bill. I do not propose to repeat them but I may find some additional ones.
The Bill reflects in a number of respects a spirit of hostility towards parents who are described as "absent". It is the "absent" parent—usually the father —who is the target of the Bill. Most of us in our experience of life regard the word "absent" as implying some failure, neglect or culpability for not being where we should be. When I went to Sunday school—and I did go to Sunday school—I received prizes for being never absent and never late. That meant that I was never guilty of failure in my duty of attendance at the school. The word "absent" in many connotations in human relations carries with it that unpleasant imputation. I want it removed from the Bill.
I believe at an earlier stage—I have not been able to verify this—the Minister (possibly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor) asked whether we could think of a better word. On the Marshalled List, in addition to my proposed substitute for the word "absent", are other alternatives. Whatever description is applied to the person regarded as being in default of maintenance support payments for children, it is unlikely to fit everybody. Even the word "absent" does not fully explain the position of many people affected. "Absent" means not being where they were or where they should be, which is at home.
In many cases an absent parent was never there in the first place. Not all children are born to couples who are living together. Many people will be covered by the Bill who have never lived with the mother and child at all. Whatever else those people may be, they are not "absent". A large number of people will be covered by the Bill who are excluded from the home by order of the divorce court. It may be part of the conditions of the granting of the divorce that a parent —probably a divorced husband
—should vacate the marital home. Therefore he is not absent; he is pushed out.
Whatever one takes as the basis, there may be some gaps in the Bill's universal application. However, one word that everybody understands in this connection is the word "separate". We all know that sometimes married men are separated from their wives and that married couples are separated. We do not regard them as being absent; they are separated. They could be estranged but in some cases we are told that they are on perfectly friendly terms when they bust up and settle their differences. Therefore, although they are estranged in the marital sense, they are not actually estranged.
An alternative mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stallard is "non-resident". That is also an appropriate
378
term to use. If we decide to remove the word "absent" we shall have to substitute another word in many places in the Bill. Amendment No. 1 is merely a symbolic amendment to debate the principle of the matter.
I want to emphasise that, notwithstanding the ethos of the Bill, which I believe to be hostile, many people are comparatively innocent victims of circumstances or of their own failure or weakness. They are not wicked people. The incidence of the break-up of marriages and the problem of maintenance support for children has been spreading of late. It is one of the new features of our social and personal lives. If we cannot alter what is happening, we must attempt as far as possible to adjust to it, with some understanding, care and sympathy.
There is much misery among those who will be caught by the measures in the Bill—anguish, tears, the trauma of separation and the wailing of children. There is the breakdown of marriage on a large scale. It is drawn to the attention of your Lordships' House in the Bill because of many cases of failure of support from parents from whom conventionally and in law support might have to come. It reaches the depths of the problem.
I do not want to use an emotive phrase unnecessarily or unfairly, but it is an anti-working class Bill. It may be said that there is no such thing as the working class. Westminster City Council recently discovered that there is when it proposed to sell some council flats which were built on a lease granted by the Grosvenor Estate many years ago for the erection of dwellings for the working classes. The council thought there were no working classes any more and that as soon as tenants left they could doll the flats up and sell them for£85,000 each. However, an action was taken to prevent the council transgressing one of the covenants upon which the dwellings were erected. The court ruled in favour of the Grosvenor Estate. I am a citizen of Westminster, and housing for the working classes in Westminster is now safe.
There are all kinds of things about the Bill which upset me. It is so deeply emotional and yet, if I may say so without giving offence, it is written in the language of bureaucrats and lawyers. I notice that in the Bill as it now stands there is a very large slab of new material, with references to appeals against determinations made by the bureaucracy and without the flexibility that bureaucracy is often given. There is non-discretionary determination and that kind of thing, which are matters not dealt with in this clause.
I am merely trying to surround my amendment with a relationship to the Bill as a whole. I hope that the Government will respond to this desire to find an alternative to the word "absent". The word "separated" is neutral and implies nothing. It means that the parties are no longer together. "Separated" is a word which is well understood and is without prejudice among those of us who have to refer to our friends and relatives, and probably members of our immediate family, as separated from their husbands or wives, or living separately. We understand the word.

379
We do not say that they are "living absent". I do not say that my son is "absent" now from his wife. I say that he is "separated" from his wife.
There is common sense here. Who has decided that "absent" is the correct word? If the Government intend to stick to it and say, "Here we have nailed our description to the mast and we are going to use all our powers of confirming it in the Bill", then surely we are allowed to alter one word in the Bill on a matter of this kind. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it may be for the con venience of the House if I speak to my Amendment No. 2 at this stage. Like my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I am not happy with the Bill. At Second Reading and Committee stage I made criticisms of it. During the debate on my amendments on this subject at Committee stage, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor invited suggestions to find a pair of words as a substitute for the word "absent" which would encapsulate the necessary idea without using "absent" or "caring".
My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby has put forward his alternative and I now do likewise. In my view the word "non-resident" more accurately reflects the situation in most cases where one parent is not living permanently with the child. It may be thought that too much fuss is being made over words. But words matter. For example, these days we do not refer to the crippled or insane. We describe such unfortunate people as physically or mentally handicapped. They are softer words. We do so rightly because the words "crippled" and "insane" cause offence n at only to the sufferers and their relations but to the wider community. It is certainly true that those words have been dropped in official vocabulary and largely by the general public.
In the terms of this Bill the word "absent" is certainly offensive to those parents who cannot be with their children and often, as my noble friend mentioned, through no desire or fault of their own. They feel stigmatised by the word "absent" used in this context. One can understand why. Quite recently I bought a new Chambers Thesaurus.It is the most modern thesaurus for the ordinary man that one can buy. I took the trouble to look up the word "absent":
"absent adj.absent-minded, absorbed, abstracted, away, bemused, blank, day-dreaming, distracted, distrait(e), dreamy, elsewhere, empty, faraway, gone, heedless, inattentive, lacking, missing, musing, non-existent, not present, oblivious, out, pre-occupied, truant, unavailable, unaware, unconscious, unheeding, unthinking, vacant, vague, wanting, withdrawn wool-gathering".
Under those circumstances, it is no wonder that fathers or parents who for one reason or another cannot live with their children feel stigmatised by the word "absent". There is no doubt that these people are right in feeling that "absent" is a pejorative word.
There s another aspect of the matter which has been brought to my attention relating to the term "unreasonable behaviour". This has a relevance which I shall come to. As stipulated in the Divorce Reform Act 1969, that ground for divorce was intended to be a successor to the ground of cruelty. However, over the past 20 years the term "unreasonable behaviour"
380
has come to mean that the idiosyncrasies of one spouse or another, no matter how trivial, can result in the courts granting a divorce or legal separation.
Under such circumstances, and particularly since the courts apparently regard any challenge as vexatious, many non-resident parents consider themselves not absent but expelled from the family. Therefore, my amendment more accurately describes the real position. I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. At Committee stage I said that the word "absent" was not a good description because, strictly speaking, somebody serving in the Army is an absent parent. When I worked for Army wives, one of the saddest features was that the family had no sooner been moved to Germany than the husband was moved to Northern Ireland. Therefore, strictly speaking, he was an absent parent in the dictionary meaning of the word. Like my noble friend, as an ex-teacher I always look in the dictionary, where one finds some very good jokes. If one wants to speak at a dinner one looks at a dictionary for a definition.
I do not dislike the word "separated" which is preferred by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. When I sat as a magistrate "separated" had become an acceptable term for people who were separating prior to divorce. It was a word included in legal jargon. It may have got there by accident. Of the words chosen I think "non-resident" can hardly be questioned because it is a simple and very clear explanation which everyone will understand.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Stoddart, have pronounced anathema on the words "absent parent". I join with them in doing so as I did at Committee stage. At that time I suggested that the appropriate word might be "non-custodial". I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, might find that just another example of the lawyers, bureaucrats and anti-working class people getting to work on the Bill. I also see that possibly it implies that the mother who may have care of the child also has custody of the child, which may not he correct at law. I concede that there are objections to the use of the expression "non-custodial". Of the alternatives that have been put before us this afternoon, I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, in preferring the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I hope that it will find favour with my noble and learned friend.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this Bill is not intended to be "anti" anyone or any group. The Bill is intended to provide machinery for the support of children, which machinery is appropriate to the particular circumstances of the child's parents. The distinction which the Bill underlines and emphasises is the distinction between someone who has the day-to-day care of the child and is with the child, at least to some extent, from day to day and the person

381
who is not with the child in that way and whose obligation of maintenance will be discharged by making payments for the support of the child.
We have used the word "absent" to describe that person. We have used it without any suggestion that the absence is wrong, unreasonable, inappropriate, unjustifiable or anything of that kind. There is no such suggestion anywhere in the Bill. The word "absent" is intended to describe, briefly, a state of fact. The Bill does not leave it at the word "absent". There is a definition clause in the Bill for this purpose. Clause 2(2) states:
"The parent of any child is an 'absent parent', in relation to him, if—

(a)that parent is not living in the same household with the child; and

(b)the child has his home with a person who is, in relation to him, a person with care".

Therefore the idea is as I have said.
I do not believe that it can reasonably be construed out of the Bill that it is antipathetic to any particular group of people. All classes and descriptions of people have children and have an obligation to maintain and support their children. If they are with the child in family, then one would expect that obligation to be discharged by the ordinary method of looking after the child. However, if the person is not in family with the child, then the obligation should be discharged by means generally of a money payment. The phrase "absent parent" is used in that context.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, treated us to a considerable variety of possible meanings for the word "absent" taken out of his recently acquired and valuable possession. However, not all of those would be regarded as equivalent to "absent" in all circumstances. I do not think "absent" necessarily means dreamy. Even if one of your Lordships was not in the House today but was absent, I would not necessarily conclude that that particular noble Lord was dreamy, or even dreaming. One has to adapt the meaning and choose the meaning which is appropriate to the context. What the phrase "absent parent" does is to describe a relationship with a child: the parent is absent from the child.
If I may take the alternative of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, there is no question of us having a closed mind about this. If any of your Lordships, or anyone else, can come forward with a neat and better phrase, we have extremely open minds to receive suggestions. The only qualification is that the phrase must be better than the one we have.
The first suggestion, of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is the one that provides for a separated parent. As the noble Lord himself pointed out, separation implies that the people have previously been together and that a separation between them has been effected. As the noble Lord pointed out, that may not be and very often will not be the true state of the facts. This particular parent may never have been living in family with the child. The noble Lord himself emphasised that. That demonstrates quite plainly that the word "separated" is not a suitable equivalent.
I come now to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, of "non-resident". I said
382
at the outset that the phrase "absent parent" is intended to indicate a relationship or the absence of a particular type of relationship with the child. "Non-resident" does not carry that context, in my view. I commend that view to your Lordships. Everyone is resident in some sense. "Non-resident" is usually related to being non-resident in a particular place. "Non-resident" in a tax regime, for example, normally means non-resident within the ordinary tax jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. "Non-resident" is not an appropriate phrase to use in respect of the relationship between a child and a parent who is not living in family with the child.
We are retaining an open mind about these matters. The phrase "non-custodial" that my noble friend Lord Coleraine suggested last time is a difficult phrase for the reason which he explained today. While we have an open mind, I fear that for the reasons which I have attempted to give, none of the suggestions which have so far been made attracts us as being better than the one we have ourselves made. For those reasons, while leaving open the quest, I hope your Lordships may feel that for the moment we should adhere to what is in the Bill. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, and only because with his usual generosity he invited suggestions from noble Lords if they had any, it occurred to me while he was speaking—I hope this is helpful—that if we describe the parent as the "financially responsible parent" it carries with it no opprobrium. It has in fact the meaning within the Act of the parent who is financially responsible. I should have thought that that might be of assistance. I merely proffer it for the noble and learned Lord's consideration and for the consideration of my noble friend.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as usual the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has made a suggestion which is well worthy of consideration. He will recall that in somewhat similar circumstances he helped us out of a difficulty of expression in relation to the Children Act, which I still gratefully remember. This particular suggestion, if I may offer a comment on it immediately, would imply that this was the only financially responsible parent in respect of that child. The parent with whom the child is living also has a financial responsibility for the child. Therefore the parent who is absent is not unique in being financially responsible. What perhaps is a little unique about him or her is that the responsibility is discharged only, if at all, by the payment of money. That is of course a result by way of the Bill.
I thank the noble Lord for making a constructive suggestion. At the present moment it does not attract me as necessarily being one that on deliberation we would accept. However, I am very grateful for it.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and before my noble and learned friend sits down, does he not agree that one objection to the use of the phrase "absent parent" is that so often the absent parent is in fact present? That is a state of

383
affairs which we in the law should seek to foster. Therefore there are objections to the use of the expression "absent parent".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that. It is very difficult unless one writes a compendium about the circumstances. One would then have to repeat it throughout the Bill. The phrase we are looking for is one that will be conveniently repeated throughout the Bill without transgressing principles about the length of the Bill which no doubt we shall have in mind all the time. The problem is that the person in question is predominantly absent. I hope he is not absent all the time. Indeed the fewer absent parents there are, all the better as far as I am concerned. I am sure that your Lordships would agree with that. We want to see parents and children together so far as possible. But, as I say, the predominant state of affairs is that the parent is absent. Therefore, that seems to be a reasonable description, although it does not apply at all times.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his explanation. Of course, he approaches the matter in terms which are well understood by lawyers. But, with the greatest respect, I submit that his language will not be understood by ordinary people. We have before us a Bill which applies in the main to a certain section of the community. Those people will understand words which apply to their condition in the context of common place language. In other words, the word they will understand is not "absent", nor is it "absentee"; it is "separated". They understand that word. These terms will be used by officials. An official may say, "You are an absent parent". The person may well say, "I am not the absent parent". Then the official will say, "But you are at least separated". The person concerned will understand that and will say, "Yes, I am of course separated".
There are occasions when we must ensure that the law is worded in the language of the common people so that they can understand it. This issue is an example of that need. Moreover, the issue has been nagging at some of us for so long and it seems to be so symbolic of what we believe to be the underlying purpose of the Bill that it has now almost become a point of principle. We must at least get the "buzz" word—namely, "absent"—replaced by a word which is more commonly understood. I think that we should try to get this bee out of our bonnets. I propose to test the opinion of the House.
On Question, amendment negatived.
4 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("an absent") and insert ("a non-resident").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. Nevertheless, I shall move it formally. I believe that the words which I have
384
suggested are relevant; indeed, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, they have a relevance because Clause 2(2) states that:
"The parent of any child is an 'absent parent', in relation to him, if—
(a) that parent is not living in the same household with the child".
The wording of that subsection seems to support my amendment. In my view, the House should come to some conclusion on the matter. Therefore, I intend to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have already commented upon this amendment. It is possible that a child could be in a situation of separation to some extent from both parents. However, in my view, the important aspect is the relationship between the parent and the child. The phrase "absent parent" emphasises that fact. Strictly speaking, a person is not a non-resident. Such a person may or may not reside with the child, but the term "non-resident" does not suggest a relationship with the child. I should have thought that "non-resident" would relate much more to a particular place.
Therefore, while I appreciate the noble Lord's suggestion, I believe that the wording we have is better. I do not think that I can elaborate further on the matter. The noble Lord must take the course of action which commends itself to him in this connection.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I believe that this amendment has the merit of meeting the point made earlier by the noble and learned Lord; namely, that we are dealing with a person who is not charged with the daily care of the child. In a sense, that is quite distinctive. I hope that the House will support the amendment.
4.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Bottomley, L.

Northbourne, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Northfield, L.

Coleraine, L.

Phillips, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Mulley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Aldington, L.

Butterworth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Caldecote, V.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Alport, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Arran, E.

Carnock, L.

Astor, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Attlee, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Auckland, L.

Cockfleld, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Bellwin, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Birdwood, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Blatch, B.

Cox, B.

Blyth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

385

De Freyne, L.

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Mountgarret, V.

Downshire, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Moyne, L.

Elles, B.

Munster, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Nelson, E.

Faithfull, B.

Norrie, L.

Fisher, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Foley, L.

Palmer, L.

Fortescue, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gainford, L.

Pender, L.

Geddes, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gridley, L.

Polwarth, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Porritt, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Quinton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Halsbury, E.

Reay, L.

Havers, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Henley, L.

Selborne, E.

Hesketh, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Holderness, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hood, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Stedman, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Ilchester, E.

Strathclyde, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Jeffreys, L.

Swansea, L.

Kimball, L.

Terrington, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Teviot, L.

Knollys, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Ullswater, V.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Waddington, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Westbury, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wharton, B.

Mersey, V.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Morris, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Mottistone, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to according.
4.13 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page I, line 13, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 15 and insert ("requires the making of periodical payments, it shall be the duty of the absent parent with respect to whom the assessment was made to make those payments.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment designed to clarify and improve the accuracy of the clause. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, because it was he who tabled a similar amendment in Committee, and pointed out that in order to conform with the high standards that he was describing for us a little while ago, the Bill required to be a little fuller than it was. I undertook at that time to look again at the clause and to seek the views of Parliamentary Counsel. Counsel has redrafted the clause, and the amendment seeks to reflect that, under the provisions of the Bill, it is possible to have a maintenance assessment made which has a value of zero. In those cases no payment of maintenance will be required. The amendment seeks to make that plain. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert:
("(4) In the case of a child conceived by artificial insemination, the term "parent" includes—

(a)the husband or male partner of the woman who bears the child, where he has given his written consent to artificial insemination; or

(b)where no husband or male partner has given his written consent to artificial insemination, the donor of the sperm; or

(c)in any case where the person granted a licence under section 16 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to provide treatment services has refused to name the donor, that person.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to regularise the position in relation to the so-called virgin births, and to provide equality of treatment for fathers. The Bill is based upon the premise that the prime responsibility for maintaining children lies with the parents and not the state. Hence, the Bill creates a separate and powerful agency to collect maintenance payments, mainly from fathers.
Since the publication of the Bill, it has come to light that certain clinics are administering AID to single women who have no male partner and intend not to have one. As a result, there will be only one parent with financial responsibility. However, there is a father involved—the donor of the sperm—but because he wishes merely to perpetuate his genes, without any human relationship with the mother of his child and without any responsibility for the child's upbringing, he is to escape all financial responsibility for the child's nurture and care.
In contrast, the father who has had sexual contact with the mother, perhaps on one occasion only or where there has been a failure of contraception, is to be pursued with the utmost vigour for the maintenance of his child. If he refuses to accept financial responsibility, he risks going to gaol. Surely that cannot be right. A father is a father irrespective of the method used to fertilise a woman's ovum, and there is no case for different treatment. The Government seem content to countenance different treatment. They appear to be supporting the view that when men donate sperm they are not fathers and they escape all responsibility, including financial responsibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, was good enough to write to me on the subject, and I thank him for that. He confirmed that a man who donates sperm for treatment purposes does so confidentially, and that his identity is to be kept secret. He makes the point that Section 33 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 makes it an offence to disclose information about donors. He also implied in his letter that so-called virgin births would be rare, and that in any event the mother would be liable for the child's maintenance. I hope that he agrees that that is a fair summary of what he said. He also told me that the new draft code of practice will advise treatment centres that in cases where there is no legal father particular attention is to be paid to the prospective mother's ability to meet the child's needs throughout its childhood.
I do not blame the noble Lord for trying to soothe my fears on the subject, but how can we be so certain that cases of so-called virgin births will be rare? How can we be certain of that? His honourable friend, Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, the Minister for Health, confirmed that they would not be banned. She has already confirmed that. Therefore, there will be no legal restraint. In my view, the numbers of partnerless conceptions will become significant—certainly if the British Pregnancy Advisory Service has its way.
Let me quote a couple of paragraphs from a report in the Daily Telegraph of 13th March 1990 under the heading, No Change in Virgin Birth Clinic Policy:
"The British Pregnancy Advisory Service, at the centre of a row for providing artificial insemination for a virgin who did not wish to have intercourse, will not change its policy of allowing single women to receive donor insemination.
A spokesman said: 'We will continue to offer non-discriminatory, non-judgmental counselling and appropriate treatment to all women seeking help with fertility control."'
Clearly the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, felt able to give me is going to be undermined by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, because they envisage that there will be virgin birth on demand if that report is correct and is to be treated in the way that BPAS mean. This is not the occasion to go into the ethics and morals of virgin births. But it is the time to consider whether childbirth by unnatural means—and I say that advisedly—might throw a greater burden on the state.
This brings me to my second point. How are we to ensure that the prospective mother will be able to meet the child's needs throughout its childhood? That is a period of 16 years—16 long years. It is as much as most people can do to manage week by week or month by month. A year of financial planning is a lifetime for many people. How then can the mother's financial viability be guaranteed for 16 years? Of course it cannot possibly be. In a good many cases a large proportion of the cost of bringing up the child will fall upon the taxpayer because the father is protected by law from having to meet his responsibility. The state will not be able to tackle the father in this case.
There is another aspect of this matter that the Government seem to have ignored. When they say that the code of practice will advise treatment centres to pay particular attention to the ability of the prospective mother to meet the child's needs throughout its childhood, will there not be an accusation that it is only rich women who can be allowed lo enjoy a partnerless conception? Will there not be an almost irresistible demand that all women, irrespective of means, should be given the facility of a virgin conception? The implications of that for the Treasury and the taxpayer are enormous. The Government had better start to give the matter some serious and deep consideration.
They have to consider whether it is reasonable to expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill for women who decide not to share their children and their financial responsibility for them with a male partner. This is granting a special status and privilege to women and men who indulge in the virgin birth syndrome. My amendment seeks to equalise the position and to
388
ensure that the taxpayer is in the same position whether a child is conceived naturally or through AID.
I realise that this is not an easy subject, particularly since we seem to have conflicting legislation on the subject of child care and financial responsibility. I shall be interested to hear the views of noble Lords and in particular those of the Government at the end of the debate. I beg to move.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend, although I would not presume to add anything to his eloquent words. The argument advanced is one that is heard often, that this would be a very unusual and rare case. I recall in the racial discrimination legislation that one of your Lordships asked, in a slightly facetious way, "Would this mean that I could not advertise for a French cook?" Of course everybody laughed and thought it was funny. In fact, this was how this law worked out. Some unfortunate person said that they wanted a Scottish servant, and they were told that they had contravened this law.
This seems to me to be practically the same. Maybe it will be rare; but if the law is open for it to be deliberately flouted—and, as the noble Lord said, there is contradictory evidence in the matter—then it is at this moment that we should consider it in this Bill. I think your Lordships know my opinion of the embryology Bill. When we started that, we started all sorts of problems. This is only the first one. On the ethics and the morals of it, I have nothing to say at all that is different; but if it is going to mean, as the noble Lord explained, that there will be even a few cases, then it is necessary at this point in the Bill to put that matter right.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is a difficult matter. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, have spoken of it in an appropriate way, if I may say so. The sentiment behind the amendment is to ensure that there is always somebody liable to support a child who has been born as a result of artificial conception, and that there will be two people, two parents, liable in every case.
One has to go back to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of last year and its effects on this Bill, because the issue that is at the heart of this amendment was an issue that your Lordships had to face in the Bill that preceded that Act. I shall have to deal in a little detail on how that matter was resolved. My noble friend Lord Henley, in the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred, has explained this; but because it has been raised here, I ought to try to do it as best I can for the benefit—I hope it is for the benefit—of the House as a whole.
These were matters on which there was quite a wide difference of opinion at various stages. Your Lordships may remember that I tried to find an amendment that commended itself generally to the House in this area, and eventually an amendment was incorporated in the Bill that passed through this House.

389
If this amendment were accepted, it would have the effect that in cases of artificial insemination the husband or male partner of the mother would be liable to maintain the child if—but only if—he had given written consent to the artificial insemination. Where no husband or male partner had given such consent, the donor of the sperm would be liable, and where a person licensed under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to carry out infertility treatment refused to name the donor, that person would be liable. If the doctor who carried out the treatment refused to name the donor, he would be liable under paragraph (c) of the amendment.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 sets out the legal status of children conceived by artificial means and their parents. People treated as parents by that Act are so treated for all purposes in law. It follows therefore that the provisions of this Bill will apply to such people exactly as they do to natural parents.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, expressed her views on the 1990 Act. I perfectly understand her views. However without that Act there would be no control in this area at all. The Act introduced stringent controls, although I realise there were differences of opinion concerning the controls. Under the 1990 Act, the husband of a married woman will be treated as the father of the child unless he shows that he did not consent to the treatment. The noble Lord's amendment is slightly restrictive from that point of view. Where an unmarried woman presents for treatment together with a male partner, that man will be treated as the father. There is no requirement that consent be in writing, and by adding such a condition the noble Lord's amendment would make it easier for the male partner receiving treatment which resulted in a child to avoid liability in such cases, even though in law he is the father. The noble Lord's amendment goes against the aim that he mentioned in that regard.
Another feature of the 1990 Act is that it expressly protects from becoming fathers those who make donations in accordance with the statutory scheme. It would be wrong for somebody who had in a public spirited act donated sperm for the treatment of others, on the understanding that he would not have any parental status or liability, to be forced to maintain a child born as a result. That would be the effect of paragraph (b) of the noble Lord's amendment and, in view of the provisions of the 1990 Act, I must urge your Lordships to resist it.
I should perhaps add that the protection of donors against becoming fathers does not apply to donations made outside the scheme established by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, so that, for example, a man who donated sperm for the artificial insemination of an unmarried woman which was carried out at home and not under the regulations of the Act might very well be liable to support a child born as a result.
Under the 1990 Act, a man who donates sperm does so confidentially and his identity is not disclosed. The Act makes it an offence for any member or employee of the authority to disclose information
390
about the donor. That in itself is, in my view, sufficient reason to resist paragraph (c) of the noble Lord's amendment—the paragraph that makes a doctor liable—quite apart from the manifest injustice which would be caused by making the doctor who treated the woman liable for the maintenance of the child.
The 1990 Act deals not only with artificial insemination, but also with egg and embryo donation. Dealing first with the position where the mother is a married woman, there is a presumption in the common law of England and Wales that a child born to a married couple is a child of that marriage. If for some reason that presumption is rebutted, for example by showing that the husband is not the child's genetic father, as would be the case if the child was born as a result of donation, then Section 28 of the 1990 Act provides that the mother's husband will still be treated as the father unless he can show that he did not consent to the mother undergoing treatment. In the case of a mother who is single but presents for treatment together with a man, that man will, in law, be the father.
Nothing in the 1990 Act prevents an unmarried woman without a partner from receiving treatment to enable her to carry a child. Such a woman's child would be legally fatherless, and only the mother would be liable for his or her maintenance. That is the essential point to which the noble Lord's amendment is directed. As my noble friend Lord Henley wrote in his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, we expect such cases to be few in number. As your Lordships may remember, proposals to restrict treatment to married women were debated in this House and in another place, and were rejected. However, the Act makes it a condition of all treatment licences that a woman should not be treated unless account has been taken of the welfare of the child, including the child's need for a father—that is part of the statutory framework of the Act—and the draft code of practice, which the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has recently published for consultation, advises that treatment centres should pay particular attention to the prospective mother's ability to meet the child's needs throughout his or her childhood.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has said, it is quite a tall order to be satisfied about a woman's ability to meet the child's needs throughout his or her childhood. That fact in itself will make it highly unlikely that there will be many cases of the kind that concern the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, as the theory is that treatment will only be given if the child's welfare, including his maintenance needs, is reasonably secure.
This is a difficult area. However, I believe that the answer to the question posed by the amendment is to be found in the terms in which this House and another place agreed to settle the embryology arrangements. To attempt to undo these arrangements from the point of view of maintenance or support would not be appropriate. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, I hope he will consider an amendment along the lines that those organisations which counsel single women who wish to give birth in the way we have been discussing should be responsible in law for the maintenance of the child. I read an excerpt from a report issued by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. I am not referring to the document that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned. The report I read stated that in a recent case of treatment the agency had taken fully into account the welfare of the child. How is it possible, before a child is born to a young, single woman, for an agency to take into account faithfully and honestly the moral and financial situation of the child? I know that the noble Barones3, Lady Phillips, and I took issue with my noble and learned friend on the point of naming a father in such a situation. I believe an agency which does not operate within the terms of the human fertilisat on Act should be made liable for the child, as such agencies give advice to young women who may be unaware of the real facts and difficulties of life. Someone must take the responsibility for giving this advice and allowing such women to undertake this form of birth.
I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend would give consideration to inserting a provision in the Bill which takes account of the principle of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. As my noble and learned friend has said, that amendment is defective in its drafting. However, the principle is one that we should consider very closely and we should insert a provision into the Bill which takes that principle into account.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the settlement—I hope I may refer to it in such a way—that was ultimately reached in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was the subject of a Division in this House. This House voted on whether there should be an exclus on in this kind of case. It was a free vote and I, on behalf of the Government, took a neutral stance.
The Government took a view on whether there should be a compulsion to name the father, as such a step had consequences in terms of maintenance. As I said earlier, if artificial insemination is carried out outside the terms of the embryology Act, the protection of the Act will not apply. Accordingly, the donor may well become liable. The organisations which offer treatment within the terms of the Act will be obliged to observe the system set up under the Act. They will need to observe the factors which are mentioned in the statute which take account of the welfare or the child, including the child's need for a father. That is the obligation which this House and the other place have placed upon the people providing the treatment. Therefore, in those circumstances the absence of a father will be a very important issue to be examined and advised upon before the treatment goes ahead.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Phillips and the noble Baroness,
392
Lady Elles, for their comments on the amendment, which I consider extremely helpful. I also thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the manner in which he dealt with the amendment.
This is an important matter. There is no question about that. It is my belief that we shall have to give it a great deal more thought because, unfortunately, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was discussed in isolation from and before this Bill. Had we discussed the two in tandem we might as a House have been able to handle the matter in a manner which would have been satisfactory and acceptable to us all. However, because they were handled at different times some thought needs to be given to the matter.
I appreciate fully that the noble and learned Lord said that the welfare of the children is to come first and that the need for a father will be taken into account in that regard. I understand that that will form part of the code of practice. However, my understanding is that it will not be obligatory under the code of practice for the clinic or agency to refuse AID to a virgin on those grounds. It will still be able to do so. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service has made clear that it certainly will do so. It envisages virgin birth being available on demand. Therefore I feel that we need to give a great deal of attention to the matter.
Clearly it would be absurd for me to press the amendment this afternoon. I tabled it on the basis that I still believe that we need a deep and wide discussion of the matter and that we need to give it a great deal of thought. This debate will have assisted in that process. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will take the matter very seriously and give it his own consideration. I hope that the Government will also consider the matter in the light of what has been said and in the light of what has happened since the passing of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act because the matter needs attention. I hope that my amendment will have assisted in that regard. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 2 [Meaning of certain terms in this Act]:
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 4, leave out from ("child") to ("and") in line 5.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is one of a series of amendments which I ventured to put down with a view to streamlining the Bill and reducing its verbosity. The Bill is unfortunately no exception to the prolixity that animates all modern statutes. That prolixity was remarked on by the Renton Committee on preparation of legislation which made various recommendations whereby that prolixity could be curbed and curtailed. Nevertheless, in the year when the Renton Committee reported, in 1975, there were three volumes of the statute book. Ten years later, in 1985, the number had swollen to five volumes although with fewer statutes in them. In other words, the prolixity had vastly increased rather than being diminished. Since then the format of the statute book

393
has been enlarged—very inconveniently: it is now taller. That enabled the number of volumes to be reduced from five to three. The number has now risen again to five. So the tendency goes on.
Nor is it merely the statutes themselves which have expanded. In a debate in your Lordships' House some 16 months ago the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, drew attention to the concurrent and fantastic growth in the volume of secondary legislation. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will agree that whatever can be done to curtail that prolixity and streamline the language of this and any other statute will be welcome.
The amendment proposes that the words in brackets in lines 4 and 5 on page 2:
"(whether exclusively or in conjunction with any other person)"
should be omitted because they are totally unnecessary. The provision unarguably means exactly the same whether or not those words are there.
Your Lordships will remember that the subsection is concerned with the definition of a "person with care" and not a parent with care. The ostensible object of the words in brackets was this. It was said that there is a very common situation. When a young wife has her marriage disrupted it is natural for her to return to her parents. It is natural for her mother to help with the children. She may undertake all the day-time work so that the mother of the children can go to work herself. She may, for example, take the children to school or, if they are very small, she may help with all the domestic duties in relation to the children. In other words, the day-to-day care of a child may be shared. The fantastic fear is that unless those words are included in the Bill it might be argued that a person with day-to-day care must be a person with exclusive care.
When a statutory provision falls for interpretation there are certain fundamental rules on which the process of interpretation proceeds. They are known to the draftsman who uses them as a code to signify the intention of Parliament to whoever has to interpret the statute. The first of those fundamental rules, which is called the golden rule, is that one looks at the words of the statute itself. It is a corollary of that rule that you do not read in words that are not there. Perhaps your Lordships will consider the provision with the words in brackets left out. In order to argue that there must be exclusive care, it is necessary to read into that paragraph the word "exclusive" which is not there, and that is quite unacceptable.
There is a second canon of construction, scarcely less fundamental, which goes by the technical name of the mischief rule. It means that, in interpretation, you look to see what the object of the Act is and whether the interpretation sought to be put on the words fits in with that object. That object should appear in the Long Title. Unfortunately, with the modern practice with Long Titles, it does not appear so that one must then look at the statute itself as a whole. There can be no doubt as to what its thrust is; namely, to enable maintenance to be better provided for the kind of child in question. You do not better provide for such a child by reading "exclusive" into paragraph (b). On the
394
contrary, you eliminate from the benefits of the Bill a great number—perhaps the greater number—of children in question; for example, those where the mother's mother—the grandmother—helps with the day-to-day care of the child.
In my respectful submission, either of those approaches is conclusive. Those words are not necessary to prevent an argument that day-to-day care means exclusive day-to-day care. However, one can go even further because you find over and over again in the Bill that shared day-to-day care is envisaged. It is envisaged on the very page in question, on the very next page and in many other places. If your Lordships would be good enough to look down to line 16, subsection (5), you will see that it states:
"For the purposes of this Act there may be more than one person with care in relation to the same qualifying child".
If one looks up to the head of the page, one sees in subsection (3) that a "person with care" is one:
"who usually provides day to day care for the child".
In other words, the statute states on this very page that there may be more than one person providing day-to-day care for that child.
When I proposed the amendment in Committee, my noble and learned friend demurred to it and rejected it. When I asked him to consider the matter further—a matter which, I contest, seems to me clear beyond question—he sat stony-faced. I subsequently wrote to him about the matter on 18th March. I have not heard from him since. Your Lordships will remember the famous description of Mephistopheles as the spirit that always says no. It is partly because this is a very plain case of construction and partly to give my noble and learned friend the chance of extricating himself from that doleful category, that I put down the amendment. With confidence, I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my desire to avoid appropriately being described as Mephistopheles will have to rest on other bases than the acceptance of this amendment at this juncture. Your Lordships know that I have from time to time said yes in relation to other matters.
The question of what is clear beyond all argument is a difficult question. Our feeling in providing the clause was that it was not clear beyond all doubt, without those words emphasising it, that a person who provided day-to-day care could do so in conjunction with any other person. There is a concept of uniqueness about care in the sense of the parents' care for the child. It is true that in this context we are talking wider than parents, but the original concept comes from the concept of the parents' care for the child. We therefore wanted to make it clear and, as the noble and learned Lord said, it is implicit in all that goes after, that more than one person can have the care. This is the definitions section. We wanted to make it clear that it did not apply only to a person who had the exclusive care of the child.
My noble and learned friend said that if the provision did not include the word "exclusive", it could not mean that. He has much longer experience than I have of listening to argument on statutory

395
construction, but even I have often heard it said that, if Parliament meant it, it would have said it. The argument must be addressed.
I accept my noble and learned friend's question about the matter, and I agree that it is a matter of judgment, but our judgment is that it is wise. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, the Bill is not directed only to lawyers. We want to use as plain and clear language as possible. We thought it right to emphasise that matter.
I am sorry if my noble and learned friend thought me stony-faced. I would not wish to have that description applied either, but I always hope that I make it clear that I shall consider arguments. Although I have answered anything that he has said today which is new, I shall certainly consider whether it affects what we should do. However, we have not been persuaded so far and, for the reasons that I have given to. your Lordships, it is important to make it plain in the definitions section. That is what the bracketed phrase endeavours to do.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, at least my noble and learned friend has now said that he will consider the matter. I had hoped that he would say that he would give favourable consideration. He did not deal with any of my three arguments; namely, first, that it is inadmissible to read in the word "exclusive" if the words sought to be left out are left out. Indeed, my noble and learned friend reinforced that point. He said that he has heard many times the argument that, if Parliament had meant to say it, it would have written it into the statute. So, if Parliament had meant to say exclusive day-to-day care, it would have written it into the statute. My noble and learned friend rightly reinforced the first of my arguments.
The second is that the mischief rule utterly excludes reading in the word "exclusive". The third is that the provision to which I referred on this very page of the Bill envisages day-to-day care being shared but nevertheless states that the person is a "person with care".
Unfortunately I have the feeling that the draftsman has been given instructions by the sponsoring department—it is not that of my noble and learned friend—at all costs to keep any possibility of application to the courts away from those provisions. It is no doubt to counter in advance the most fantastic and far-fetched arguments that every "t" is crossed and "i" dotted. With great respect, that is not the way to legislate. If we do so, we shall continue the process that I described of the statute book steadily swelling until not only is it unmanageable but incomprehensible.
As my noble and learned friend said that he will give further consideration to the issue, it would be churlish if I were to do other than to ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert:
("(3A) For the purposes of this Act a "child support officer" means a person exercising functions specified in sections (Powers of the Court with respect to maintenance) and 11 below").
The noble Lord said: I speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has treated the House to an exposition with regard to the non-use of words that are unnecessary. In addressing the House I intend to adopt that maxim and to be extremely brief. When there is a long debate on a principle, in advancing that principle I do not believe that it helps the House to repeat verbatim what was said at Committee.
At Committee stage I spoke to two principles based largely on matters that I believe will commend themselves to the House. First, it is important that this House and indeed Parliament keep the foundations for an eventual family court sound and secure so that upon that foundation we may one day establish the cherished family court for dealing with matrimonial matters. That is an urgent matter in our age when we consider the unfortunate number of family disputes and broken homes. Secondly, as a result of legislation we do not wish to have a breach of the principle that the doors of our courts are open to every citizen regardless of his means.
Perhaps I may quote what I said at the end of the debate at Committee stage. At col. 337 of the Official Report of 14th March, I stated:
"In our amendments we have said that those who wish to go to the agency will do so, but they have the right to go to court if they wish to do so. They have the rights of all other citizens. That strikes me as being such an important principle that at this hour of the evening"—
it was after half past six—
"I am not prepared to risk that important principle by taking this matter to a Division. It must await a further stage of this Bill for us to do so".
We have reached that stage at this moment.
The amendments that are presented again at this Report stage provide the following. First, we want to build on the family court principle of keeping family matters within one court if possible, a principle that we carried through in the Children Bill with the help, the courage, enthusiasm and ability of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. We also wish to preserve the agency idea, because, if noble Lords will forgive the expression, I believe that we are stuck with it. Therefore, the first amendment ensures that employees of the agency will be deemed to be employees of the court. To that extent we shall preserve in some degree the principle of the Family Division. Persons will be looked after by court employees and not by employees of the Department of Social Security.
I do not repeat—I promised that I would not, although others may do so with great effect—the reasons that many noble Lords did not like the idea of this issue being under the sole supervision of the Department of Social Security. Under the provisions of the Bill people will think they have to go to that department and walk into its atmosphere, however pleasant the employees try to make it.
The second principle is to be found in Amendments Nos. 30 and 31. We tried to get round what we believe is a wrong principle in the Bill; namely, that the doors of the court are shut to the poorest of our citizens who are forced to take advantage of the Bill. The Bill provides that they have to go to the agency and to the Department of Social Security. They are barred from going to the court while other citizens still have the right to do so. If I were to say no more, I believe that the two principles that I have enunciated are precious to the House and to the nation. We ought to secure those principles by these amendments.
My concluding words refer to certain observations that the noble and learned Lord made at Committee stage. He thought that calculations for administering benefit were more appropriate to a government department than to our law courts. I am sure that he would be the first to say—even though magistrates' courts do not come under his supervision but under that of the Home Office—that quite a few magistrates' courts already work with computers and do not have difficulty in that connection.
We have been told that it will cost£30 million to set up the agency. I wonder whether we are being presented with an opportunity to do something that I know the noble and learned Lord wishes to do. Our county courts, for example, are being given important administrative work under the Children Act. They are being called upon to carry out increasingly more work as a result of their increased jurisdiction. It would be a wonderful opportunity if we could spend anything like£30 million to obtain the kind of employees in our courts who can deal with the large amount of responsible work that the courts have been given.
The courts must continue to deal with many aspects of family dispute. I believe that we are being provided with the wonderful opportunity of spending some of that money to obtain proper employees for the courts to carry out those responsibilities well. Perhaps in doing so we shall bring nearer the advent of the family court which is so much desired by so many of us who have at heart the keeping together of families, caring for children and getting rid of some of the worst aspects of the divorce rate which we deplore. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, my comments are no more than a footnote to the powerful case made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, although they may be somewhat long. On Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, whether the agency could be married to a family court. He said:
"I do not preclude the possibility at some time in the future of wishing to alter the responsibility for the agency".—[Official Report, 25/2/91; col. 834.]
I fear that, as structured, the agency will make impossible its attachment to a family court, its development into a family court or its association with a family court. I hold that view for the reasons set out clearly and presciently by the Finer Committee on One-Parent Families some 15 years ago.
398
One of that committee's fundamental reasons for recommending a family court was to bring the private law of family maintenance into a new and effective relationship with the public law of social security. That is precisely one of the aims of the agency. However, the committee saw that task in the setting not merely of dealing with maintenance. It considered that maintenance could not be separated from a whole range of other welfare functions which a family court ought to discharge.
The committee paid great attention to the officers of the court and how the functions could be provided. It began by stating that any attempt in a family court to expand and systematise the welfare function carried risks as well as potential advantages. It saw risks to the judicial nature of the work which family courts should carry out. The committee stated:
"The court must remain, and must be seen to remain, impartial. This is of particular importance now that…governmental agencies of various kinds have powers and duties imposed on them which bring them into the proceedings, either as interested parties or as advisers".
The committee recommended that professional staff serving the court, including any who were responsible for assisting the court to reach sound conclusions on welfare issues, must be answerable to the court for what they did and how they did it. It stated that the aim must be to make adjudication and welfare march hand in hand. It believed that in that way a highly beneficial synthesis between law and social welfare could be established.
The one thing that none of the clients—if that is the right description—of the new agency will see it as being is impartial. It will be seen as being part and parcel of the social security authorities. Therefore one must ask: why remove from the court these developing functions and turn them into an administrative process?
Noble Lords may recollect that some 20 years ago, under pressure from the Treasury, which disliked the high proportion of expenditure on civil legal aid which was absorbed by divorce, the Lord Chancellor's Department promoted a system of do-it-yourself postal divorce. In practice it took from the courts and put into the administrative area a whole series of functions. That may have been a sensible development and it saved a good deal of money. However, it established a principle which if pushed to lengths could be exceedingly undesirable. The agency created under the Bill furthers that process by handing over to the administrators the determination of the maintenance of children in respect of a large category of people.
Given the irrationality of separating the maintenance of children from the maintenance of their mothers, that cannot be a stable situation. Once established, large numbers of people will be pointing out that the two aspects should go together. I can make sense of the notion of the agency, which I dislike intensely, if it is the Government's purpose to move larger areas of family law from the courts to the administration. I imagine that the next stage will see the moving of the whole area of maintenance not only of children but of mothers. I dread that prospect. However, one can make sense of the Bill in that way.

399
On Second Reading and in Committee some of the legal implications of the Bill were mentioned which flow from the discrimination, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which will exist between those on income support and those who may still go to the courts if they so wish. Today's Independent carries a letter from a leading group of academic family lawyers under the chairmanship of Mr. Eekelaar. That was a relatively short letter which I shall attempt to summarise. It deplores the fact that under the Bill parents will not have the option to go to the courts if they on income support but will be required—indeed, compelled—to use the agency.
Those academic lawyers point to a whole series of practical consequences which will follow from that. Those include the fact that parties in disagreement over a divorce settlement will need to have child support liability and other aspects of the settlement relating to a whole range of issues from property to children's residence determined by separate institutions using different procedures and at different times, thus adding to costs of delay.
Child support will become non-negotiable. Financial settlement, even if approved by the court as dictated by the formula, will not prevent the agency subsequently making a full child support order. That will inhibit people from reaching sensible private agreements.
This is not the place in which to go into any details in this area. I merely say that one purpose of the three amendments which we are considering is to remove that sort of practical difficulty by retaining the option for patents to go either to the agency or to the courts. In the short term, there are good practical reasons for that. In the long term, it seems to me that if we are to hope for a family court we must now preserve the jurisdiction of the courts in that area.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I spoke at great length both on Second Reading and in Committee on this matter. I shall not repeat the arguments because my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor well knows what they are.
I support both the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, in all that they have said. I wish to make two points. First, to have the agency based exclusively on social security is counter to the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 which laid down the rule and the precept that there should be one door on which to knock. If people with many problems have to go to several offices, life becomes very difficult. If a parent who is looking after several children finds it necessary to go to a social security office and then on to a court which might be miles away, dragging the children along, that can cause real difficulties.
I declare an interest because I am chairman of the Family Courts Consortium. I support very strongly the movement which we seek in this country towards family courts. All the other points which I wished to make have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord McGregor.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, from these Benches I support what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. We
400
recently heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, suggesting that the departmental brief on this Bill was to make sure that the courts had nothing to do with the support of children. Clause 7 is certainly an example of that tendency, if tendency there is. I deplore any move which postpones the arrival of unified family courts. To my mind this clause seems to do that.
I did not speak on these amendments in Committee but I recall that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor drew largely on a letter received from the chairwoman of the National Council for One Parent Families. Having read what she said, he said he could distinguish very clearly between the interests of the Law Society and the interests of a practising solicitor who has devoted her attention to the interests of one parent families. The chairwoman in question was a practising solicitor in that sphere. I am a practising solicitor but I do not practise in that sphere.
However, the lady said:
"I have been forced to the conclusion that the whole issue of child maintenance must be removed from the courts for both assessment and collection purposes. The Courts have self-evidently failed to ensure that reasonable levels of child maintenance are paid by absent parents on a regular basis".
If the courts have the jurisdiction, of course, they will
be able to apply the formula which the Bill provides so that levels of maintenance will be the same as those provided by the child support agency. From reading the briefings of the organisations like the National Council for One Parent Families it seems they have read the Government's proposal papers which promise very large sums to mothers whose husbands are absent. In this House we have not looked at those figures but I should be surprised if they prove to be practical to operate.
It is quite clear that the courts could just as well be able to operate the formula as would the child support agency. We should support this amendment as preserving a move towards family courts which we all wish to see come about.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has returned again to the question of family courts and maintained once more what seems to me a fundamental principle; that is, that the doors of the court should not be closed to any citizen.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, put forward—and he has adverted to it again today—an entirely reasonable proposal; namely, that the agency and the courts should have a concurrent jurisdiction. That is born out by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull; namely, that it is not possible to separate child maintenance from spousal maintenance. They must be considered at the same time. The noble Baroness pointed out the practical difficulties experienced by a mother claiming maintenance who may have to go miles to the local ministry office and then go elsewhere for her maintenance.
In a letter I wrote on 27th March to my noble and learned friend I explained how the provision would work. I took what he had said was a typical case in the White Paper of a young husband, a young father, earning£160 per week. By the application of the

401
formula he is liable to pay£46 for the maintenance of his two young children. That leaves him with£114. I put to my noble and learned friend a circumstance that is unhappily all too frequent nowadays; namely, a case of wife battering. The wife leaves because she has been ill-treated by the husband. She has to go perforce to some sheltered place and probably goes on to her mother. She claims maintenance for herself. I should think that any magistrates' court—and it is the magistrates' court which must deal with the matter—would say, "Why should a woman treated in that way be relegated to a lower standard of living than that of her brutal husband? Why should not he share his residual income of£114 with his ill-treated wife?" If that is done it brings the husband's income to below the level of exemption that is fixed by the formula and makes a complete nonsense of all the social arguments, such as they are, which lie behind the formula.
I shall not repeat what I said in Committee. I strongly support the concept of a family court. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, brought the matter up again. I support as strongly as I can the very reasonable proposal that there should be concurrent jurisdiction of the agency and the courts of law, which would be particularly valuable were both spousal and child maintenance claimed by the same mother.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I was unfortunately absent—I believe that is the preferred word in the context of this Bill—during the Committee stage. However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will remember from Second Reading that I dislike the Bill. Quite frankly, I find it repulsive.
I support these amendments as an essential amelioration of the Bill, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, we are stuck with—or words to that effect—and for all the reasons so eloquently stated today by all those who have so far taken part in the debate. I find the Bill repulsive particularly because, as I see it, parents who sign a document provided to them by the agent, who is called the child support officer, thereby by their own hand disapply and forfeit their rights in the courts. They do that by what seems to me to be in effect force majeure;in this case a mixture of a bribe and a threat.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I demonstrated in connection with the Children Act that I believe in moving towards a uniform jurisdiction which will provide an appropriate system of family justice in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in speaking to these amendments, was kind enough to say something along those lines.
I would not be proposing this Bill to the House if I thought that it was not consistent with that approach. The reason I say that is this. In my view the variety of agencies, including a great number of courts, that have had to address the problem of child
402
maintenance over the years found it extremely difficult to reach any consistency in their awards. No noble Lord with experience in these matters can doubt that.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord would allow me to intervene. Does he not agree that the inconsistency may be due to the infinite variety of circumstances that arise in those cases?
The Lord Chancellor: No, my Lords. I do not agree with that at all. If noble Lords examine the circumstances referred to in the papers that preceded the Bill it will be found that that is not an adequate explanation. It is one that is normally given for inconsistencies, but the standard of inconsistency goes far beyond what could reasonably be explained by reference to the circumstances.
The circumstances are indeed varied, which is the reason that any formula assessment will be complicated; it must deal with a great variety of circumstances. We believe—the amendments do not challenge this—that a formula assessment is the only way to reach over the large number of cases involved—something of the order of 2 million to 3 million—a reasonable degree of consistency.
That kind of application of a complicated formula to a set of facts is typically something best done by an administrative machinery. There is no judicial requirement; there is no requirement, generally speaking, for deciding disputed facts between parties or making decisions. If there is in any specific case, then some form of judicial adjudication is required. In the generality of cases what is in issue is the application of a formula to a given set of facts. I believe that the agency is the right way to approach the matter. It is not very different in its principles from the way in which social security benefits are calculated in the great variety of circumstances in which they are required to be paid. That is the first point.
The second point is that the courts do not possess the investigative machinery by which to follow up parents that are liable, first, to find out where they are and, secondly, to enforce the obligations that arise upon them, unless definite information is available to the court. Those who have practised in this field, like the lady to whom I referred earlier, often complain of the difficulty involved in that process.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point perhaps he will kindly indicate to the House why there is no legislation which makes the whole of child maintenance, regardless of the means of the parents, subject to administrative machinery and a formula. Why does the provision relate only to the poorer sections of our community?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is utterly incorrect to suggest that it relates only to the poorer sections of our community. That is not right. It is a misunderstanding of the Bill. We provide that for all cases in which an application for maintenance is made the maintenance is to be estimated on the basis of the formula where the formula can apply. Therefore there may be a situation in which people of quite substantial means disputing the maintenance of children are

403
required to submit their case to the agency and the formula. I utterly repudiate the idea that the doors of the curt are closed only to a particular section of the community in relation to a particular question. Parliament has repeatedly made special provision for dealing with special questions outside the court. The Industrial Tribunal is a good example of that. It was thought that that kind of issue was best addressed in a forum different from the court.
The application of a formula to a set of facts where the formula is settled under this Bill and regulations made under it is an administrative matter which is best dealt with by an administrative agency. Having regard to the: variety of circumstances, that is the only way in which reasonable consistency will be obtained. The number of cases in which this kind of issue arises is, as I say, of the order of 2 million or 3 million. That is a very large number in comparison with the number of cases that the ordinary courts and the courts dealing with family matters can cope with in the course of a year. Instead of promoting the interests of the family court and developing the family jurisdiction, if this kind of administrative work is put into the courts instead of being dealt with effectively by a suitable agency of the kind here described, the courts will be damaged irreparably by having to do work for which they are not really suited.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I do not understand. The Department of Social Security has had child maintenance officers. What have they been doing all these years? Why have they not been collecting over these years? Will they do any better after this legislation? That is what is puzzling many of us. I suspect that there has been a shortage of social security and child maintenance officers because they have been taken from their jobs. That is why we have this enormous number of people who have not been paid.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the obligation on the absent parent to maintain was a matter which, generally speaking, was enforced in the courts. The amount of money that the courts were prepared to order in these cases was often extremely small; sometimes it was vanishingly small. One of the objects of the Bill is to introduce consistency in that matter and to make the arrangements fair and consistent between the various people subject to them. The difficulty to which my noble friend has referred is an illustration of the point I am trying to make. The assessment and the enforcement of an obligation of this kind require more machinery than the courts can properly have or effectively exercise.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has accepted that the agency should go ahead under the Bill. These amendments do not prevent that. A dual system is required. If the agency is to be effective it must be set up fully, with all the resources required for it.
I would love to have£30 million, or whatever may be available, for the work of the courts. But I am certain that if I had the duty of enforcing the maintenance obligation through the courts,£30
404
million would be used up by them. I would need a good deal more money. It is not as though I were offered£30 million in order to do nothing extra. The offer would be contingent on doing this work. The point is that this work is much more effectively and better done by an agency. If the work were put to the courts the result would be to flood them with operations for which they are singularly unsuited.
One of the ways in which we have been able to improve the situation in the county court, where a great many summonses are issued, is to use a computer production centre at Northampton where that kind of repetitive work can be done. This proposed operation is very much larger and affects the country as a whole. The structure envisaged for the agency is a suitable structure. The amendments accept that the agency is necessary. Unless that work is given to the agency and the people required to use the enforcement machinery for ordinary maintenance arrangements are asked to use the agency, we are creating a complete waste of appropriate machinery.
I shall look at the amendments themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, took the line of general principles rather than looking at the detail of the amendments. As I have said, as I understand the amendments the aim is to give the courts powers in parallel with that of the child support officers in the agency to assess maintenance under the formula. Subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause would allow the child or either parent to seek maintenance from the courts under the existing statutory powers rather than under the formula. So you would have not only two different agencies—one the court and the other the statutory agency seeking enforcement—but you would also have two different systems for assessment.
Subsections (4) and (5) appear to be intended to prevent a child support officer assessing the formula for maintenance where the formula would produce an additional element above the basic maintenance requirement or an addition to the formula award for educational purposes. All such cases at all levels would have to go to the court. The agency is required to be used only by those who in any event have business with social security. There is no suggestion of sending them away to some different arrangement altogether. The child support officer will be operating in consequence of the person applying for social security.
Where a person wishes to apply for maintenance under the formula where there was no social security payment involved —that is, the voluntary situation —we would be offering the appropriate service to that person also. That person would be dealt with in exactly the same way as a person on social security. As to ease and efficiency, in very many cases there will be no connected court proceedings at all especially in two-thirds of the cases (which is an estimated 2 million in number) where assessment is being annually reviewed. It is one of the difficulties of the present system that the maintenance arrangements have to be reviewed because in the nature of things the circumstances of people change.
Can one imagine the burden on the courts of an annual review in as many as 2 million cases? That would swamp the courts with utterly unsuitable

405
responsibilities. Even in those cases where there are connected court proceedings, there may also be benefits in payment, as I have said. It may be as efficient and convenient to deal with the assessment within the Secretary of State's machinery as it would he to have it dealt with entirely separately from the benefit issues in the courts. Perhaps most compellingly in terms of efficient and effective administration, we could have no idea how many people would opt for a court and how many for the agency if there were a choice. The result would be that in providing for assessments in both institutions one would have to devote nearly double the resources to the job if we were to be sure of a reasonable standard of service for parents and children in both the courts and the agency. That seems an absolute formula for waste.
There is a further difficulty in organisational terms. The agency and related services provided by the Secretary of State will play a major part in investigating the means of the parties and other circumstances relevant to the case as well as in simply applying the formula to the facts, once established. These investigative activities are not, in the Government's view, suitable for the courts. Yet without them, either the parties who went to the courts would not enjoy the full range of services envisaged by the Bill or they would in any event have to use the agency and connected services for some purposes, even if ultimately the court applied the formula.
In addition to arguments about effective administration, there is a danger that loading what are largely administrative tasks onto the courts will distract them from their essential role in family proceedings of providing adjudication in cases where it is needed. I believe that that is absolutely fundamental. Instead of advancing the case, in practice, for a family court, if your Lordships were to pass these amendments you would do, in my humble view, exactly the opposite.
In the light of those arguments, the Government are convinced, as I hope are your Lordships, that concentrating assessments and related services in the agency will be the best way of producing a satisfactory service to those people who have long required it. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Faithfull, as well as many others, knows perfectly well that many people have sought to get maintenance for their children from the other partner who has gone away and have found it extremely difficult to do so. Even with a court order it can be extremely difficult actually to get the money and to trace the person in question.
In my judgment therefore there is very good reason for not going along with this. If the House wishes to adopt the very principles that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, set out and to go forward to a family court, the last thing it should want to do is put upon the courts which are likely to handle that business a totally unsuitable and huge burden. If we want to keep the courts open for the people of this country generally, we can do that best if we take away from them unsuitable tasks and leave them open for all
406
those who require them for the task for which they are suited. I hope the House will feel able not to give effect to these amendments.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will appreciate without doubt the reason for the noble and learned Lord's reputation as a great advocate. One of the strengths of a great advocate is that when he has a weak case he makes it sound extremely strong. I thought that the last remarks of the noble and learned Lord would have justified us taking a course that I do not believe would appeal to this House or to him; namely, that we should have a look at all the things the courts do and, if we find that a government department can do them rather better, we should take that administration and those powers away from the courts. What a dangerous precedent, especially when the noble and learned Lord did not answer one principle. If he is right, why do the wealthier in our society who wish to obtain a maintenance order for their children go to the one court which deals with all the other matters, including the maintenance of the wife? If that is wrong, why is it not wrong for them? These are important amendments on a matter of principle. I hope that the House will realise that when we divide.
5.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 86.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Addington, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Aylestone, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Blackstone, B.

Mishcon, L.

Bottomley, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Phillips, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Faithfull, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shannon, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L. [Teller]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Lawrence, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Longford, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ampthill, L.

Butterworth, L.

Arran, E.

Caithness, E.

Astor, V. [Teller.]

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Auckland, L.

Carnock, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Belstead, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Blatch, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Blyth, L.

Colwyn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Cox, B.

407

Craigavon, V.

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Munster, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Fisher, L.

Nelson, E.

Flather, B.

Onslow, E.

Foley, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Orkney, E.

Gainford, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gridley, L.

Pender, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Polwarth, L.

Henley L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hesketh, L.

Reay, L.

Holderness, L.

Renton, L.

Hooper, B.

Saint Albans, D.

Hylton Foster, B.

Seccombe, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Joseph, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Kitchener, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Swansea, L.

Lyell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trumpington, B.

Merrivale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mersey. V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Monson, L.

Waddington, L.

Morris, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.1 p.m.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to consider welfare of child
Where the Secretary of State or any of his officers, exercise any of the powers and duties conferred by this Act, the welfare of the child shall be taken into account.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to introduce into the Bill a duty to consider the welfare of the child. We discussed the issue in Committee and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made objections to the wording which was put forward in the amendment at that stage where we introduced the concept of the "paramountcy" of the welfare of the child. We have accepted the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord and have changed the wording. We hope that it will now be acceptable to the Government.
The intention of the amendment is to ensure quite simply that the child is the focus of concern in the operation of any arrangements for child support. We have removed the concept of paramountcy that we had before. In responding to the amendment which we discussed in Committee, the noble and learned Lord expressed support for the principle involved. However, he also voiced concern that to incorporate that principle into the Bill would distort the balance between the interests of the child and of others affected. The amendment takes account of the point which was made in Committee and seeks to ensure that the child's welfare is properly safeguarded in those areas of administrative decision-making which are covered by the Bill.
We believe that there are various aspects of the Bill which could in certain circumstances run counter to the best interests of children, especially those aspects which place the caring parents—usually the mothers —under a compulsion to supply information to child support officials. Those responsibilities could subject the caring parents to stress and tension and in some cases could even expose them, or their children, to threats of physical harm. In that context we feel that it is unarguable that the welfare of the child should take precedence over other considerations.
Perhaps I may remind the noble and learned Lord of what he said in Committee. He said:
"I do not wish to push the issue to one side. It may be possible to introduce something which would show that the whole idea of maintenance is for the benefit of the child. I shall consider whether we can do something of that nature". [Official Report, 14/3/91; col. 341.]
I am sure that the Government cannot now object to the way we have reworded the amendment. It provides the opportunity for them to express their undoubted support for the principle which was expressed in Committee by the noble and learned Lord. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches. It was put forward in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, in a different form of words. That form was taken from the Children Act 1989 and it provided that the interests of the child should be paramount. It was put to us that the word "paramount" was a little strong. We considered that case and, as will be seen, we have given way to it.
However, it seems to me that that concession calls for an equal and opposite concession. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill we have been informed of the interest of the taxpayer. That is a good and genuine interest and we accept the point. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the interest of the taxpayer is not paramount either; it is a good interest but one which has to compete, as does anything in the real world, with many other conflicting interests. Therefore, it would be most valuable to have it spelt out in the Bill that the interests of the child—which is, after all, where we started—should be one of those interests. As I said, I am happy to support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I made clear —this has already been referred to—when we discussed the matter in Committee, the underlying object of the Bill is to provide for the welfare of children and one of the most important aspects which affect them; namely, maintenance, or the payment of money for maintenance where the parent in question is absent from the child and is not the person who has care of the child.
The amendment acknowledges, very fairly, some of the argument that I put forward in Committee. It has been modified to take account of what I said. However, it still imposes a duty on the Secretary of State, or any of his officers, to take account of the welfare of the child in exercising any of the powers or duties conferred by this Act.
In Committee I promised to consider whether we could incorporate into the Bill a declaration of some

409
kind that the whole object of the Bill in relation to maintenance was to promote the welfare of the child, in the way I have just outlined. We have considered the matter carefully and sought the advice of parliamentary counsel. However, we have concluded that the correct way to look at the issue is to acknowledge the fact that the whole purpose of the Bill is, self-evidently, to benefit the child in that it provides for the assessment of the parents' financial liability for their children. It also makes arrangements for the collection and, if necessary, the enforcement of payments to meet that liability. The Bill is designed to advance the welfare of children. Indeed, Clause 1 speaks specifically in terms of parents' "duty to maintain" their children. I believe that a more explicit provision would be difficult to frame in a way that does not undercut the main structure.
Perhaps I may illustrate my point in relation to this amendment. The amendment proposed would in effect require the officers of the child support agency to take into account the welfare of the child when exercising any of their powers or duties under the Bill. In the case of Clause 5—and also in connection with Clause 22 which was removed in Committee—I can see that in such a situation the welfare of the child may be important if, for example, the result of requiring information would be to involve the child in threats of violence or actual violence, and so on. However, when it comes to deciding the amount of maintenance, one would apply the formula. In that situation, one has to take it that Parliament has provided a formula which is the proper one to serve the welfare of the child. Therefore, at that stage to say that the child support officer has to take account of the welfare of the child would only confuse that officer in what he is trying to do.
There is no questioning the fact that the most effective method to serve the interest of a child in this connection is to secure regular payments of maintenance for the benefit of the child. Not only do they provide a recognition of the responsibilities family members owe to each other, they also offer a basis of portable income on which the person caring for the child can build so as to enhance the independence of herself and of the household.
The formula takes proper account of the financial needs of children, both in terms of direct cost based on their age and in terms of the cost of their care. That is all done in pursuance of the welfare of the child. However, it is not right to have an additional factor as regards a child's welfare in that connection. Where one has a formula applying to the circumstances, the duty is simply to apply that formula and obtain the result. The nature of the formula, the allowances made and so on, have regard not only to the equity as between parents and children—which is important —but also to the equity as between the parents, if there are two parents who are separated.
I hope that the noble Lord will realise that we have examined the issue most carefully and that the aim of securing the welfare of the child is achieved by introducing a formula based on objective criteria rather than on discretion and enforcement provision
410
to ensure that parents meet their liabilities. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I find that a very disappointing answer. It may be that the answer given by the noble and learned Lord shows why we need this amendment to the Bill. The amendment is very clear; it says that:
"the welfare of the child shall be taken into account".
That phrase is well known in law and is in many statutes. I remind the noble and learned Lord that there is an injunction on the Secretary of State for Social Security to take into account the rate of inflation when considering child benefit. That has not meant that child benefit has increased every year as inflation has risen.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in deciding what the formula should be one might take account of the rate of inflation, but that does not mean that one has to give full effect to it. It means that that is a factor which affects the application of and the amounts in the formula. The point I am trying to make is that the welfare aspect does not affect the application of the formula which has already been worked out taking all that into account. So that has already been done in this system. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment is to reintroduce that factor after it has already been taken into account when at least a lot of the duties of the Secretary of State and his officers simply involve applying a formula.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if that is the case surely the noble and learned Lord should have come back to say he was not happy with the wording. We would have been entirely happy to remove the phrase, "exercise any of the powers and duties" and perhaps reworded it to take into account those powers and duties where the welfare of the child should be taken into account.
This stage of the Bill is not the time or place to advance the argument any further. I find it hard to understand the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord. I should like to repeat what he said in Committee:
"I do not wish to push the issue to one side. It may be possible to introduce something which would show that the whole idea of maintenance is for the benefit of the child. I shall consider whether we can do something of that nature".—[Official Report, 14/3/91; col. 341.]
I find the answer very disappointing. I felt that we were on the way to receiving the support of the Government. We shall certainly wish to return to it at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 3 [Child support maintenance]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 29, leave out from ("if") to ("arrange") in line 31, and insert ("so requested by either of the persons mentioned in subsection (1)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may propose this amendment and speak

411
also to Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18. Again, this is an attempt to shorten and render less cumbrous the wording of the Bill. I had a shot at it in Committee and two objections were raised on the basis that my redraft did not cover two contingencies. One was so unlikely—namely, the wife obtaining a maintenance order and the husband seeking to enforce it against himself —that it illustrated one of the prevailing vices of current drafting, that is, trying to cover every situation however unlikely it might be. The other objection, although it was not hard pressed, seemed to he one which ought to be met because it provided a means whereby a recalcitrant father could evade his responsibilities. Therefore, I had another shot at a redraft which I sent to my noble and learned friend on 27th March, suggesting that he might have it vetted by the draftsman. I have recently heard from my noble and learned friend that he has sent it to the draftsman but is not in a position yet to pronounce on the matter. With your Lordships' permission, I should like merely to read how the provision will stand under the amendments. Subsection (3) will read:
"Where a maintenance assessment has been made in response to an application under this section the Secretary of State may, if so requested by either of the persons mentioned in subsection (1), arrange for",
and so forth. Subsection (4) will read:
"Where a request for the enforcement of the obligation mentioned in subsection (3) (b)",
and so forth. At line 40, it will read:
"A person who applies to or requests the Secretary of State as aforesaid",
and so forth. Subsection (6) will read:
"Any person who has applied or made request to the Secretary of State under this section",
and so forth.
The total saving in mere words is nine. That may seem to your Lordships to be comparatively little, but with the bloated condition of the statute book even the smallest tapping of the dropsical fluid gives some relief. I hope that it will receive favourable consideration by my noble and learned friend. I venture to think that it is much simpler than the wording of the clause as it now stands. It also meets the two objections put forward by the draftsman to the draft I submitted in Committee. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend for raising these amendments and for the trouble he has taken to improve them in the light of the discussion we had in Committee. As I said in the letter to which he referred, I have asked parliamentary counsel to take account of them. I rather think the result may be a fairly substantial reordering of the clause to try to make it simpler on the lines that my noble and learned friend suggested. Parliamentary counsel has not finished his work in time to enable us to do anything about it at this stage. If I undertake to come back to this at a later stage of the Bill, perhaps my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I believe the effect of his having proposed it will be to improve the drafting of the clause.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, what my noble and learned friend has said is sufficient at any rate to take him out of the train of Mephistopheles. I am
412
grateful for his favourable response by way of consideration of the matter, and in the circumstances I ask your Lordships for leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 18 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Applications by those receiving benefit]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("family credit or any other benefit of a prescribed kind") and insert ("or family credit").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to exclude the disability working allowance as a prescribed benefit for the purposes of the Bill. The authorisation of the Secretary of State to take action to recover child support maintenance from the absent parent would include income support or family credit but exclude the DWA. It is a point we discussed in Committee. We have tabled the amendment again to find out from the Government how they see the DWA working in relation to the Bill. As I said, the intention is that the DWA should not be included in the prescribed benefits. That would entail that someone who is caring for a child and receiving that benefit is obliged to authorise the Secretary of State to take action under the Bill to recover child support maintenance from the absent parent of the child being cared for.
I shall not repeat all the arguments put forward in Committee. The DWA is a benefit designed to encourage disabled people to try out employment and to top up the earnings of a disabled person in recognition of his or her disadvantage in obtaining a job. It would be a recognition by the Government of the disadvantage faced by some disabled people in the employment market. When we discussed this issue in Committee we discussed the fact that the allowance is designed to help disabled people and to put them on an equal footing with able-bodied people. We feel therefore that it should not be included in the list of prescribed benefits but should be considered in the same way as the earnings of able-bodied people. Disabled people who are working and claiming DWA, like able-bodied people who are working, have the choice of whether to make a claim for child maintenance from the absent parent.
I am sure that the Minister will not need reminding of what he said in Committee but, nevertheless, I shall remind him. He said:
"It would be right for me to turn now to the disability working allowance because that was a benefit that both noble Lords mentioned, and it is one, I have to say, that we are minded to include, but we would not be able to include it in the wording of the Bill at the moment because … the disability working allowance does not exist because the Bill has not yet received Royal Assent".—[Official Report, 14/3/91; col. 347.]
If the relevant Bill were to receive Royal Assent before we reach Third Reading, is it the Government's intention to include the DWA in the list of prescribed benefits? If that is not the case, how do the Government intend to include it in the list? I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I am happy to support the amendment. We accept the assurance that my noble kinsman gave in Committee that the words,

413
"any other benefit of a prescribed kind",
are not intended to apply to housing benefit, community charge benefit or any of the contributory benefits. I entirely agree with what he said. Those assurances have considerable moral force; but as he conceded, they do not have legal force. This is not the last government there will ever be in the history of this country. If we put those words on the statute book, they may be used by other governments in other circumstances with other priorities. The words are a great deal too general.
I also agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I cannot see the case for including the DWA. All my noble kinsman said about that allowance in Committee was that it was included because it is a contributory benefit. There is a suppressed logic behind that, but I must confess that I cannot follow what it is. I should be rather glad to hear.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I can start by correcting my noble kinsman. I am sure that I never said that the DWA was a contributory benefit.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I misread my notes. I beg my noble kinsman's pardon. He said an income-related benefit.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for that apology. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, we discussed this amendment in Committee. I am not sure that I can take the matter much further. I opposed the amendment then, and I see no reason to do otherwise now. I announced in Committee, because the DWA was not included, that we intended to extend the provisions of the clause to cover the DWA. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, put forward reasons as to why he thinks that is wrong. I still believe that it is right that the provisions of the new system should apply to caring parents who are receiving that benefit. Parents who are disabled are, in principle, subject to the same responsibilities for their children as other parents. We believe that it is right in principle to treat disabled parents in the same way as other parents while making provision for the practical differences in their situation.
Like income support and family credit, the DWA will be paid because the caring parent's income is insufficient to meet the needs of her family, often because of the failure of the absent parent to pay maintenance for his children. There is a strong case for treating it in the same way as the other two specified income-related benefits for the purpose of this clause. As I said in Committee, obviously we cannot add the DWA to the list of specified benefits in Clause 5 because it will not exist until the disability Bill receives Royal Assent.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, rightly pressed me as to whether we would include the DWA in the list of prescribed benefits if the Bill had received Royal Assent before this Bill had completed its passage through both Houses. I should rather not speculate on that question because it involves another place. As
414
likely as not, this Bill will be in another place before the disability Bill receives Royal Assent. Certainly it is a point that I shall consider.
The noble Lord asked whether we would include any other benefit of a prescribed kind; in other words, are we prepared to have on the face of the Bill merely income support, family credit and the DWA. As I said in Committee, we have no intention at the moment of extending the provision to any contributory benefit or any other benefit such as war pensions, attendance allowance or mobility allowance. I confirm that intention today.
As I explained in Committee, we feel that it is important to retain the option to add to those two benefits and the DWA, as I said, by means of regulations. As both noble Lords will be aware, benefits change over the years. Income support replaced supplementary benefit and family credit replaced family income supplement. At some later date it may become necessary to replace the current benefits with something more appropriate to the needs of that time. Clause 5 as currently drafted would enable us to ensure that it applied to the successor benefits without having to amend primary legislation.
I shall repeat the assurance I gave in Committee. We have no intention of adding any benefit at the moment other than the DWA. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before I do I must say that I found the answer disappointing. I still do not understand the remarks the Minister made in Committee when he said that it would undoubtedly be right to recognise in some way the extra cost that disabled people might incur because of their disabilities when calculating their ability to pay maintenance and that the Government were considering how best to do that. We shall have to take that into account when we discuss later amendments relating to allowances for disabled children. It was a disappointing answer. I am afraid that it is the answer I expected. It was a little helpful because it indicated what the Government's timetable might be. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 39, after ("without") insert ("unreasonable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if the amendment is not accepted I should wish to express my amazement to the House. On a previous occasion we dealt with the duty of an applicant under Clause 5; namely:
"Where income support, family credit or any other benefit of a prescribed kind is claimed by or in respect of, or paid to or in respect of the parent of a qualifying child she shall",
and the words that follow indicate that the mother should give authority to the Secretary of State to do certain things. Then comes the subsection:
"That authorisation shall be given, without delay, by completing and returning to the Secretary of State an application".
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, moved an amendment because of the meaningless nature of the duty. What does "without delay" mean? He proposed that the

415
application should be submitted within 28 days. That was I hen dealt with on the basis that in some cases 28 days might be reasonable and in some cases 28 days might be unreasonable. I suggested that the matter might be closed by the use of the words in this amendment; namely, that the delay should not be "unreasonable"—"without unreasonable delay". I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am happy to support this amendment, which is a considerable improvement on the one I moved in Committee, for which I am grateful to the, noble Lord. Among the circumstances which might account for a not unreasonable delay I would ment on only the quite probable one of post-natal depression.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, when the noble Lord replies I wonder whether he could tell your Lordships if the words "without delay" have ever been construed? In Committee I ventured to suggest that they might be taken to mean the same as "immediately", which has been construed as "within a reasonable time". It might help the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, if he knew the answer to that question.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the present wording of the clause requires caring parents to return the form without delay, and the amendment seeks to make it clear that the return of the form should be "without unreasonable delay". I promised the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that I would consider this matter after his intervention on the amendment of my noble kinsman Lord Russell, which, as he said, was for 28 days, when he asked whether I would consider adding the word "unreasonable".
Following on from what the noble and learned Lord has said, as yet I do not have any authority that I can quote. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord might have such an authority. I was to some extent going to rely on what the noble and learned Lord said in Committee, when he said that in his view including the word "unreasonable" in the phrase "without delay' would not add anything to it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, he did not say that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will find that the noble and learned Lord suggested that the courts would construe—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if the noble Lord would allow me, it was the merest suggestion and guess. I should like to have the authoritative answer.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have no authority that I know of in the courts. The noble and learned Lord put it as a guess, but I have taken advice from our own lawyers, and they also would suggest that a court would construe "without delay" as meaning "without unreasonable delay". In the light of what the noble and learned Lord said earlier about brevity, I hope that he might prefer our interpretation of "without delay" as being better than "without unreasonable delay".
416
I have no legal authority that I can quote, but our advice is that "unreasonable" would be unnecessary. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will feel that it is not necessary to press his amendment. I shall certainly undertake to have another look at it between now and Third Reading, some two weeks off, but I honestly do not think that the word "unreasonable" would add anything in terms of how the courts would interpret such words as are here.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, is there not a formula in widespread use in all forms of bureaucracy in the country? The words are, "as soon as possible".
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and if I may remind the noble Lord that it is Report stage and I have spoken, what I was trying to say was that we felt that "without delay" would be interpreted as "without unreasonable delay".
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is difficult for me to rise and get to the Dispatch Box in a complete physical state and certainly in an acceptable mental one after having heard the noble Lord the Minister, for whom we all have not only respect but great affection. I do not want to minimise that respect or affection by anything that I say, but we have come to something in this House. It was admitted in the discussion that took place at Committee stage that nobody quite knew what the words "without delay" would mean. Therefore, in order to make sure that one knew what the words meant, somebody must not be guilty of "unreasonable delay".
The whole machinery of government has been creaking away in the interval on whether one could accept "without unreasonable delay". No alternative words are put forward, and the creaking comes over to the House at this moment and at this late hour in a way that makes one wonder whether there is anything one could say by way of amendment to this Bill that is going to be agreed to, however right it may be. I cannot remember one concession so far. All that one ever gets is, "Further consideration will be given", "Chats will take place with the draftsmen", and so on.
I say to the Government, and I mean this with every sincerity, that if an argument is advanced to improve the Bill please let it not be said by the Government, "We dare not agree to this because we are conceding something to someone who does not sit on our Benches". This is not the way for this revising Chamber to work. The noble Lord the Minister asks me to allow further consideration to be given to what I said at Committee and said to this amendment. In return of courtesy I will allow it by withdrawing this amendment. But is it right that this should go forward at Third Reading?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 4, leave out lines 16 to 19.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I also have enjoyed many debates with my noble kinsman. My noble kinsman therefore knows perfectly well that there is at least one area in which we disagree deeply and

417
profoundly, and I think will continue to do so, and that concerns the proper methods of drafting legislation. I think I should read the words that this amendment proposes to delete. The clause in the Bill imposes a duty to:
"comply with any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection as to the categories of information he requires".
It is a pretty sweeping form of words. Not only is it a pretty sweeping form of words; it is also probably redundant. We already have in subsection (6) -(a) a duty to provide the information necessary to enable:

"(i) the absent parent to be traced;

(ii) the amount of child support maintenance payable by the absent parent to be assessed; and

(iii) that amount to be recovered from the absent parent".

My noble kinsman was asked in Committee the reasonable question, "What do the Government want that is not covered by subsection (6) (a)?" He did not have an answer to that; he may have one now. If he has I shall listen to it with care. What he said on 14th March at col. 382 of Hansard was:
"The mere fact that we cannot think of some category to go into the Bill is a reason why the provision should be kept open. There is always the possibility that such an eventuality might be considered in regulation".
In other words, my noble kinsman was saying that this is a Micawber clause. It is there just in case something turns up.
No doubt when something turns up Parliament, if necessary, will be capable of approving the necessary powers, but before Parliament approves anything it ought to know what it is approving. Since the Minister himself does not know what he is asking us to approve, I do not see how we can. He says that regulations would come before the House, and then he says at that point Parliament would have a chance to comment on them. That telltale word "comment" gives away the whole of the case I want to argue here.
If Parliament is to approve something, it often needs not merely to comment on it but also to vote on it. If we let this power go forward, we will have approved we know not what. By the time we have found out what it is, it will be too late to say that we did not mean to do so. The clause is like the proverbial five reasons for drinking:
Drink…a friend, or being dry,
Or lest we should be by and by,
Or any other reason why.
When my noble kinsman can elaborate on what some other reason may mean, I shall consider the matter as seriously as I can. Until I know what that reason is, I do not think that the Government's provision should be in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I support the amendment. As the noble Earl said, the clause is so sweeping as to be almost frightening. This Bill has already been criticised by noble Lords on all sides of the House. It has been criticised on many grounds but mainly because it sets up an administrative organisation to deal with matters which should properly be dealt with by the courts. This clause contains provisions designed to force information from mothers in particular. If the mothers refuse to give that information they are to be clobbered as a
418
result; or rather they were to have been clobbered until we knocked out Clause 22 of the original Bill. Frankly I do not like this kind of provision. Clause 5(6) (b) states that a parent will,
"comply with any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection as to the categories of information that he requires".
My guess is that the regulations will be made not by affirmative instrument but rather by negative instrument. Therefore, there will be no automaticity —if that is the right word—as regards the matter being debated. We shall have to search for the negative instrument and table an amendment to it. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the regulations are to be made by negative or by affirmative instrument.
Such sweeping provisions in Bills are not good enough. I believe the Government have been warned on many occasions that a future government might even nationalise a whole range of organisations by a simple little statement such as this one. The Government should beware of trying to introduce a whole range of regulations without real and proper discussion. They should beware of asking Parliament and this House to approve such regulations when the House has no idea of the provisions they may contain.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I suspect, both from speeches made in Committee and from speeches made today by my noble kinsman and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that some misunderstanding has arisen as regards the nature of the clause. I apologise to the House because I suspect that I caused some of that misunderstanding.
It appears to be argued that subsection (6)(a) will give the Secretary of State all the power he needs to obtain such information as is necessary. There appear to be fears that all subsection (6)(b) does is to give the Secretary of State the power to ask for further information which may be totally irrelevant to the pursuit of maintenance. I should like to reassure the House that that is not the case. Rather than widening the scope of the information that we can seek in subsection (6)(a), subsection (6)(b) imposes limits on it. Subsection (6)(b) does not provide extra powers to those in subsection (6)(a); it provides for regulations to set out what is required of subsection (6)(a). Regulations will make clear what categories of information we can ask about, and that should be helpful for all concerned parties. Without subsection (6)(b), subsection (6)(a) would give the Secretary of State powers but there would be no need for the Secretary of State to make regulations to set out what the powers were. In effect, he could just operate under his powers.
We feel that regulations are the proper place for the categories to be set out, as it is far easier to add to or amend the categories if these are in secondary, rather than primary, legislation. Although we intend the categories to be as comprehensive as possible, we cannot guarantee that another kind of information which we would wish to use may not become available at some later date.
It is clear from the wording of subsection (6)(b) that the information to be obtained must be for the

419
purposes of subsection (6); that is, to obtain maintenance from the absent parent. That would limit the categories of information that we could cover in regulations.
If subsection (6)(a) stood alone there might be more force in the fears that my noble kinsman and the noble Lord have expressed. As I said, I feel that subsection (6) (b) acts as a limiting factor on subsection (6) (a) in that it stipulates that there must be regulations.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this is a matter of great importance. Before the noble Lord discusses any other point I hope he will be kind enough to consider the following matter. The noble Lord said that subsection (6)(b) of Clause 5 of the Bill limits the Secretary of State in regard to the categories of information that he can ask of an applicant. I believe that is what the Minister said and I see that he is nodding assent to that.
I pray in aid the assistance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on the matter of subsection (6). If what the Minister said is correct there would be absolutely no meaning in the word "and". The limiting words would be contained in subsections (6)(a) or (b) which would state words to the effect that the information required under subsection (6)(a) shall be limited to certain categories. We would then know what the categories were. However, as I understand the clause, it states under subsection (6)(a) that a person is under a duty to,
"give the Secretary of State such information as the Secretary of State considers necessary"
to enable certain things to happen. Subsection (6)(b) states that, in addition, the person is to,
"comply with any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection as to the categories of information that he requires".
The Secretary of State does not have to make regulations. He may do so if he wishes. There is nothing to say that the Secretary of State must make those regulations. The imposition of this clause is to make the applicant give the Secretary of State,
"such information as the Secretary of State considers necessary".
There is an additional power for the Secretary of State to make regulations, if he wishes, as regards,
"the categories of information that he requires".
The clause does not even state that the categories of information have to be limited. It merely states that the regulations are made,
"for the purposes of this subsection".
I do not understand what the Minister has said. However, that may be my fault.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that it is the noble Lord's fault, but I may be wrong. The noble Lord quite rightly said that the subsection provides only that tin Secretary of State may make regulations. I was trying to say that without subsection (6) (b) there would be no power whatever for the Secretary of State to make regulations. In other words, under subsection (6) (a) it would be left entirely to the Secretary of State to obtain such information as he considered necessary by whatever means he decided. Subsection (6) (b) limits twat power.
420
It is probably best if I say that we shall return to the matter if we find that the present drafting does not quite meet our intentions. However, we feel that it provides a limitation by giving the Secretary of State the power to make regulations. Otherwise, he could act without regulations, if the noble Lord follows me.
Lord Mishcon: I hope that the noble Lord will kindly permit me to add this point. Under subsection (6)(a) the person is under a duty to give the information which the Secretary of State considers necessary. I am saying that there is no obligation for the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purpose of limiting what is required under subsection (6)(a). As a result of the use of the conjunction "and", he can make regulations if he sees fit to define the categories of information that he wants. He does not have to do so, and subsection (6)(a) gives him that power in any event. Therefore, how can subsection (6)(b) be a limiting factor? I do not understand it.
Lord Henley: Subparagraph (6)(a) gives him the power to do so but without making regulations that would come before this House. That is what we consider to be the limiting factor.
As I said, we shall consider possible drafting amendments if we feel that the drafting as it now stands does not meet our intention as I have expressed it. I believe that we have gone beyond the confusion that arose in relation to a similar or the same amendment at Committee stage in that I hope that the noble Lord and my noble kinsman understand our intention. This does not widen the power of the Secretary of State to do anything. Instead, it imposes limits on him requiring that he must do these things by regulation.
I hope with that assurance my noble kinsman will not feel it necessary to press the amendment. We shall certainly have a look at the matter to see whether the present wording is necessary or could be better expressed—and I note what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about the word "and". On that basis, I hope that my noble kinsman will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that I am in order in intervening. We have been discussing the new subsection (6) (a) and therefore I hope that I am not intervening on Report after the noble Lord the Minister has made his speech. I merely desire to say that it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is right in his interpretation. Paragraph (b) must be something over and above paragraph (a) because of the word "and". It gives the Secretary of State power to make further requirements by regulation.
As the Minister is looking restive and as he has gone so far as to say that the drafting will be reconsidered, perhaps I may point out another oddity. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, pointed out, the main power under subsection (6) is subject to the negative procedure but when we come to subsection
(7) that is subject to the affirmative procedure.

421
Perhaps while the matter is being looked at—and it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is right—that aspect could also be considered.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House and with all due respect to the noble and learned Lord, I suspect that he was slightly out of order for Report stage, but because there has been some confusion in relation to the clause, his intervention is permissible in the circumstances.
As I said, we shall have another look at the matter. I have tried to set out what we consider to be the intention of subsection (6) (b) and how we thought that it imposed limitations on the Secretary of State's power. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, whose drafting skills are greater than my own, is right. However, I have assured the noble Lord and my noble kinsman that we shall take the matter away.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble kinsman for that answer. It has made me think quite hard. I listened with a great deal of care to what he said about the restrictive force of the subsection and about the power to make regulations which would not arise without the inclusion of those words. I also listened with great care to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I have many times regretted that I am not a lawyer. This is one of them. However, in the light of what my noble kinsman said, and in the light in particular of his promise to look at the drafting before Third Reading, I can do no other than beg leave to withdraw the amendment with thanks for its consideration and optimism about its result.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 19, at end insert:
("(c) or make a statement to the effect that there arc valid reasons for not providing the information required and describe the reasons.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment deals with a right to appeal for those on whom a duty rests under Clause 5. It attempts to give a proper right of appeal, to give definition to it and to lay down grounds under which it may be exercised.
The question of grounds is important. In paragraph 10 of its second report on this issue the Social Security Advisory Committee dealt with the Government's arguments that its assurance about being willing to accept good cause unspecified would be sufficient. The Committee said:
"We do not accept this, not least because we are told that the Department does not intend to spell out the circumstances in which good cause would apply beyond rape and incest".
The Committee was not satisfied. I, too, am not satisfied. In particular, I find it very difficult to see how any proper appeal could be conducted without grounds being stated which would justify the mother in refusing to comply with the demand to give information.
How can one make an appeal if one does not have any clear grounds on which to base one's appeal? It seems that one of three things must happen: as we go along, case law will make clear what grounds of appeal are regarded as acceptable; no exemptions will
422
in practice be allowed; or decisions will be internally inconsistent. One of those three must be the case. Any except the third, which I believe we would join in deploring, would have the effect of blocking what appears to be the argument of the Government that if the grounds were known fathers would go and commit whatever offence was specified as a ground in order to avoid paying maintenance. I find that a rather curious line of argument. Grounds must be spelt out, and a right of appeal must be spelt out.
In relation to rape and incest, I fully accept that it is the Government's intention to make an exception and that a woman whose child is the result of rape or incest will not be compelled to name the father. If that is their intention —and I welcome the fact that it is —I simply cannot understand why they are not prepared to put it in the Bill.
The other case, the Government's attitude to domestic violence, is rather more complicated. My noble kinsman dealt with the matter at some length in Committee. He said that the mother would not be compelled to name the father if:
"we are satisfied that there has been a history of violence". —[Official Report, 14/3/91; Col. 386.]
That gave rise to considerable discussion on which my noble kinsman commented (at col. 388):
"What I said was that there had to be evidence".
In other words, it seems that they were not prepared to accept the woman's word that domestic violence had taken place. The effect is to put very heavy pressure on any woman who is the victim of domestic violence to call the police immediately in order to have witnesses while the bruises are still fresh upon her. That may lead to the destruction of marriages which could otherwise have been saved. It seems an unnecessary, severe effect.
As bruises fade and as their causes may be disputed, it is normal that in most cases the only way that domestic violence can be shown is by the woman's word. If the woman's word is not to be acceptable evidence of domestic violence, the Government are in effect saying that domestic violence is not a sufficient excuse for not naming the father.
I am not being fanciful. There have been cases, including one recorded recently by a citizens' advice bureau in Staffordshire, of a mother who claimed maintenance and found her house was wrecked by the father and his friend. In the end the child had to be taken into care because he was so upset by all this that he started sniffing solvents. That is not a case of children coming first.
That is why we felt it necessary to spell out that the child's interests should be taken into account. If there is not to be a clear, spelt out, accepted exemption for victims of domestic violence, more cases like that will happen. The Bill will encourage them to go on.
My noble kinsman may perhaps say that, if we make violence an exemption, the woman will be encouraged to allege it where it has not taken place. I think that he would be unwise to go down that line of argument because if he did he would be admitting that, for whatever reasons, there are a great many mothers so reluctant to comply with the provisions of

423
the Bill that they would allege something very shaming to themselves rather than go ahead and comply. If that were the case, the Bill would be unworkable anyway.
I think that the Bill will be unworkable if the amendment is not accepted. If it is not accepted, it will cause a great deal of suffering and physical injury which otherwise would not take place. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, those of us who are old enough to remember will see the ghost of Sir Gordon Hewitt stalking around the Chamber at this moment. He was Lord Chief Justice and he prophesied all this; and what he did not prophesy, George Orwell did.
Wherever we go now in enabling legislation, we find traces of hidden tyranny. When people say that part of the function of the House of Lords is to scrutinise legislation, I say, "You can say that again". When you have thought of everything that you might need, the word goes round, "Well, in case we can't think of anything else at any time or, in case we do, we must have a final embracing clause which enables us to bring forward anything else".
It seems to me to raise matters of considerable importance in relation to the mode of compiling our statute law. Having gone through this myself at different times, I wonder about the process of scrutiny of Bills and who takes responsibility for what. It seems to me that what is put in the Bill is put in by the draftsmen; what the draftsmen have put in, the Ministers read out to us; and that is how the Bill is constructed. There should be far more discipline imposed upon draft legislation, especially enabling legislation, which is becoming more embracing all the time. That is the mischief here. We have never finished with it. It is either a kind of progressive disease leading down a very undesirable path or it is part of the creeping paralysis of the legislation of today. However, either way, it is a serious matter. We come up against it constantly and we find it in the Bill. It is written in the Bill all over the place.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, its purpose is to specify the circumstances in which there are valid reasons for not naming the absent parent. I shall not rehearse the arguments made by the noble Earl, hut perhaps I may add two more.
First, when women are in trouble like that, they often go to an organisation such as the citizens' advice bureau or to the social services department or probation department. It is difficult for the people working in those departments wisely and sensitively to help and advise a woman in trouble unless they know exactly what the circumstances are and it is laid down what the woman should or should not say.
Secondly, as was mentioned in the last debate, we must sometimes think about the men. I have dealt with cases in which a woman has become pregnant by a man who has wanted to marry her but she has not wanted to marry him. He has later gone off and married someone else, but he has not told his wife that
424
he has had an illegitimate child. If the woman has to name him, a second family will therefore be wrecked or there will be great disharmony in that family.
I therefore support the amendment for two reasons. But, speaking as a social worker, unless one knows exactly what the circumstances are and they are laid down by statute, it is difficult wisely and rightly to advise people coming to you for help.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it seems to me that something of that kind is needed. It must be open to the woman required to give information to show that she has good cause for not providing it. Those causes will be of infinite variety. She may not know who the father of the child is. I gave an example of that in Committee. On the other hand, she may know and think that the circumstances in relation to her family render it extremely undesirable for her to give the information which might put a man from whom she had good reason to wish to sever herself in touch with her and her children again. I am inclined to think that it would be a mistake to try to enumerate all those circumstances because they could be infinite in their variety. I should like to see something to the effect that the woman can show good cause in writing why she should not provide the information.
The question of good cause is essentially a matter for a court of law; it is not a matter for the Secretary of State or any of his millions. Every day the law courts deal with matters of what amounts to good cause. It is essentially the kind of matter that courts in England and Wales and, I think, also in Scotland—and, I am sure, in America—deal with habitually.
We have not yet come to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. It seems to me that something of that kind is also needed, but it should be provided that the appeal should be to a court of law, which should be a court designated by the Lord Chancellor according to the circumstances of the case. I must make it clear that in principle I support the amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I sympathise with the thinking behind the amendments, but I wonder whether, in the case of an application for maintenance where the child in question has been born as the result of a rape, there is any way that the clause can be put into a practicable form. I believe we all accept that where a child was born of rape there is no conceivable reason why that should not be a good ground for not providing information. We all know how difficult it is for a woman to prove rape even when she has been to the police immediately after the rape, named the man, and shown her bruises and her soiled clothing. In this case we could be dealing with an event not less than nine months it may be nine years—after the rape took place but where the woman has not complained at the time because she kept the rape secret. If she had complained there would be no question but that she had known the father.
In such a case one can see grave difficulties for the Secretary of State, through his child support officer, never being satisfied that the rape had taken place. He would ask all the usual questions that might have been asked of the woman years before in criminal

425
proceedings. By the nature of her situation, she would decline to answer them because she does not propose to name the alleged rapist. There seems no way in which a child support officer could be satisfied that the rape had taken place. It is conceivable that the difficulty could be overcome if there were to be some obligation on the woman to tell the child support officer, under veil of secrecy, the name and the circumstances. He would then have the opportunity to investigate. However, I do not consider that a realistic suggestion.
I believe that there are grave difficulties in establishing that rape could be a reason for not being required to give information. I hope that when my noble friend replies to the debate he will state how he views this issue.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in replying to Amendment No. 13, moved by my noble friend Lord Carter, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the Bill was about the welfare of the child and that therefore we did not need my noble friend's amendment. I begged to disagree with the noble and learned Lord then. There is nothing in this Bill about the welfare of children. There is nothing in the Long Title, although in the financial resolution there is much wording about saving £400 million.
How can the Bill concern the welfare of children when it contains Clause 5? Unless the amendment now before the House, or a similar amendment, is agreed to it is not only the wife but the children who may be put at risk. For example, if a wife is under duress from this new department to disclose the name of her husband, and her husband says, "Madam, if you disclose that name I shall come and give you and your kids a good hiding", then what? The children are at risk. They are as much, or perhaps more, at risk than the wife who is under duress and is being pressurised to give information which she may be frightened to give.
That is why this is a bad and dangerous Bill. It seeks to intervene between families and to create for families dangers which would not otherwise exist. I hope that the Government will review their attitude to the Bill. It is not about child welfare. It is not about a better life for children. It is about squeezing both parents for information and money to save the Treasury £400 million. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Government will have second thoughts about the Bill and perhaps go so far as even to accept the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment, or wording along those lines.
It is important that we recognise that the women in question are usually in a state of some emotional turmoil. It is difficult for them to deal rationally and in a detached way with the situation in which they find themselves. I believe that it is the experience of most people who deal with the breakdown of human relationships, that people in such circumstances
426
cannot view them in proper perspective. I am sure that all noble Lords are very much in support of seeking to ensure that men accept full responsibility for their wayward activities. I certainly wish to encourage that. Indeed, I go so far as to say that we need to put pressure on men to do that.
However, the danger is that the Bill puts pressure on the wrong person and at the wrong point. This clause, unamended, puts yet further pressure on a woman who is already in considerable emotional difficulty. As the noble Lord said, it merely puts increased pressure on the child because of the additional pressure on the mother. I am gravely disturbed that a Bill on child support puts children even more at risk.
I hope that the Government will think carefully before pressing ahead without amendments which give women the opportunity to indicate that there are good reasons why they should not provide the information required. I hope that we shall be careful before we go much further down this road.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to put my name to the amendment. I do not wish to add to the arguments that already have been expressed extremely well, though I had intended to make the point that was made most powerfully by my noble friend Lord Stoddart.
I remind noble Lords that when we discussed Amendment No. 13 the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that it is self-evident that the intention of the Bill is to promote the welfare of the child. I suggest that the attitude the Government take to this group of amendments will show the House how self-evident is that intention.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I totally reject the argument of the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Carter, that the Bill is not about the welfare of the child. It is in the long-term interests of the child that the caring parent is in receipt of maintenance.
Perhaps I may deal with the group of amendments in two halves, referring first to Amendment No. 22 and then Amendments Nos. 24 and 26. I assume that it is the wish of the House that because these amendments propose three separate ways of dealing with the same problem they should be decided upon individually rather than as a group. In other words, any decision on the first would not necessarily bind on the second. I do not know whether that meets with the wishes of the House, but they seem to be totally separate amendments dealing with the same issue.
Amendment No. 22 would mean that a caring parent could avoid the obligation quite simply by saying that there are good reasons why she should not provide the information, and stating those reasons. I do not believe that such a provision is right. There is no provision to consider whether the reasons are good reasons. The parent merely has to say what the reasons are.
A caring parent could not be exempted from the obligation to provide information simply because she says she has good reasons not to provide the information, even if she then goes on to give those reasons. We believe it is right that there should be

427
some consideration of the reasons. Subsection (7) of the clause gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations which set out the circumstances in which the obligation need not be applied or can be waived. I hope that the noble Earl will agree to withdraw Amendment No. 22.
I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 together, when I hope to be more sympathetic. Essentially they appear to try to achieve the same objective; that is, to set out on the face of the Bill more detail about what should constitute good cause for not complying with the obligation to provide information —in particular, that violence, rape, incest and any other form of unlawful sexual intercourse should count as good cause. We have already said that where there has been rape or incest, or where the Secretary of State is satisfied on the evidence available that there has been a history of violence—I must repeat that his being satisfied that there has been a history of violence does not mean that he must have witness or that bruises must show but that it is a question of belief —or where the parent has a well-founded fear that seeking maintenance will put her or the child at risk of violence, then these will be accepted as good cause.
Both today and in Committee I listened carefully to everything that was said about the need to be more forthcoming about putting good cause on the face of the Bill. We understand the concerns that have been expressed. We have looked into the possibility of meeting those concerns but have concluded that it is not possible to frame a suitable amendment. There are a number of problems. Rape, incest and violence are criminal offences. It is possible that in making an administrative decision on good cause the Secretary of State might run the risk of it being said that he had come to an opinion that a criminal offence had taken place where there had been no conviction or where a trial NA as pending. A further difficulty is that in framing primary legislation the aim is to be precise. However, that means that there is a greater risk of the definition being too narrow and inflexible for our purposes.
We accept that this is a sensitive and difficult area. We must balance the need to protect the caring parent and her children where there is a genuine risk against the danger of wilful manipulation of the system to avoid the payment of maintenance. We do not wish to do anything that might increase the risks to the caring parent and child. I am grateful to the noble Lords for tabling the amendments. I do not believe that we are far apart on the issue. I also thank noble Lords who have spoken in the debate for their helpful comments. I propose that we should take away the amendments for further consideration to ascertain the best way forward. I hope that with that assurance the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for that reply. I express my gratitude for the support that I have received from all quarters of the House. I wish to take up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I agree that amendments should not try to enumerate all the causes. For that reason Amendment No. 26 states:
"prescribed circumstances shall include".
428
I hope that that meets his important point.
I listened with great care to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. I was not certain on which side he was speaking. It appeared that many of the points he made about practicalities were against the whole force of the Bill—
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, the noble Earl has kindly given way. I concede that the points that I made were to a large extent against the practicality of Clause 5 of the Bill.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. His comment meets the point that I was making and I believe that I had read him correctly. It is difficult to work the procedure and that is one reason why we believe it to be bad.
I was grateful in particular for the intervention of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. My wife has done some work for a refuge for battered women. I have heard about the depth of the emotion involved but I am not sure that I can comprehend it. It is precisely for that reason that we believe that the detail must be spelt out on the face of the Bill. The area generates very deep fear. If that fear is not entirely satisfied women will not co-operate with the Bill. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, about the impracticality of a procedure of telling the name sub rosa. That procedure was used and gave rise to the Staffordshire case on which I dwelt a moment ago.
I confess that I had intended to press the amendments to a Division. However, I warmly welcome the offer of further consideration. On the understanding that should that further consideration be unsympathetic I should be entitled to bring back the amendments and press them to a Division on Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 25 minutes past 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill
7.26 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Ports Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1991
7.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st March be approved. [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the proposals before your Lordships seek authority for the Engineering Industry Training Board to raise a levy on the employers in the engineering construction and steel erection industries to finance the running costs of the board and to fund a range of training initiatives, including a grants scheme. The proposals do not relate to engineering manufacturing as that part of the engineering industry will move to independent training arrangements around the middle of this year.
The basis of the proposals is a levy of 1.5 per cent. on the payroll of site employers in the industry, although no levy will be paid on the first £50,000, and a levy of 2 per cent. on all payments made by employers for sub-contract labour. Additionally there is a levy of 1 per cent. on the payroll of head office establishments with more than 30 employees. Those head offices which train satisfactorily will, however, be exempt from all but a small non-exemptible levy. Because of these provisions 40 per cent. of firms will pay no levy at all and a further 8 per cent. only a small amount towards the board's operating costs. The proposals have the support of the employers as required by the Industrial Training Act 1982 and have the full support of the board.
Your Lordships will know that the Government thought long and hard about their decision to retain statutory arrangements for these sectors of the EITB. In principle we believe that independent employer-led arrangements which have the full support of employers offer the best way forward for industrial training. In general the track record of compulsion through statutory levies in raising the quality and quantity of training is not a good one. However, we have retained the statutory principle in the case of this part of the industry because of strong support from employers. The engineering construction industry has particular characteristics which create peculiar problems for training. The mobile nature of its workforce, both geographically and between employers, together with the large scale use of sub-contract and self employed labour produce a unique set of circumstances in this sector of the engineering industry.
We consulted widely with the industry about the EITB. There was a widespread and strongly held view that independent arrangements should be set up for engineering manufacturing but that statutory arrangements needed to be retained for engineering construction.
We were persuaded to accept these proposals and intend laying an order before Parliament around the middle of the year which will remove engineering manufacturing from the scope of the EITB and define
430
the boundaries of engineering construction. At the same time the board will be renamed the Engineering Construction ITB to reflect this change.
We are concerned though to ensure that statutory burdens on firms are kept to a minimum and that firms which train appropriately are rewarded. To this end we have asked the new board to replace its head office exemption scheme by a voluntary code of practice based on the investors in people initiative, to raise the exclusion level for small firms and to review the effects of its grant scheme on training employers. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be looking to the new board to address these issues in 1991–92.
We intend to keep a close watching brief on the new board. Its powers to raise a levy will be exceptional, and the Government, like your Lordships, must be convinced that they are necessary to preserve the basis of training in the engineering construction industry. The Government have decided, because of the peculiar nature of the industry, to continue with a statutory board for the time being.
The Government continue to believe, as set out in the 1989 White Paper, that the most effective incentive for companies to train is a knowledge and understanding of the skill needs, not centralised regulation based on statutory powers.
I believe it is right for 1991 that the House should approve the proposals before it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st March be approved. [15th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Ullswater.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to thank the noble Viscount for explaining with his usual lucidity the meaning of the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order now before your Lordships. As it stands, it is non-controversial because it is the product of consultation among all those involved.
However, I can hardly let this opportunity pass without expressing some regret from this side of the House that the EITB as originally constituted has ceased to play the statutory role which it once played. I made that point yesterday in the debate on unemployment, and I repeat it today. I believe that, with its grant and levy-raising powers, had the EITB not been in existence during the period in which it was in existence, a number of important initiatives in the industry would not have been taken. I am still anxious that those initiatives will not be pursued by the successor body.
I note that the new system is to be watched and I am glad about that. I am glad also that the Government have accepted, after due consideration, that the engineering construction industry is rather different and has special needs and requirements. For that reason, the grant and levy arrangements will continue to apply. There will be a new board, as I understand it, concerned only with the construction engineering industry in the near future. We shall all watch very carefully to see how that arrangement works.
Your Lordships will be aware that from this side of the House we wish to ensure that there is a good system of training in this very important industry. We

431
are concerned lest under the employer-led, voluntary system there may be a situation in which large employers will carry out their share of training but that other employers, who do not spend money on training, will poach those trained by other people. That situation existed widely before there were industrial training boards. We hope that we shall not see a return to that.
Having said that, as I said earlier, this is a non-controversial order. On those grounds, I offer no opposition from these Benches.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Rochester, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, we offer no opposition to this measure.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Earl for their support for the order. These proposals are particular to the engineering construction industry. They represent no change in the Government's view that independent, employer-led and employer-supported arrangements are preferable to compulsion. The engineering training authority, supported by employers in the engineering manufacturing industry, will now take forward the training initiatives for that sector of the industry. It has the full support of the employers whereas the EITB lacked that support.
The engineering construction industry is different from most if not all other industries and it needs to be treated accordingly, as I explained. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7.37 p.m.

Social Security (Overlapping Benefits) Amendment Regulations 1991
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order (S.I. 1991/547) be annulled.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it's that man again! This is another consequence of the chaos in which the government programme has been thrown by the election for Eastbourne of my honourable friend Mr. Bellotti.
The concession extending child benefit—the extra pound for the first child—was extremely welcome. It cost £360 million gross. I believe that that is the correct figure although I shall be happy to be corrected if I am wrong. Before my noble kinsman says it for me, I accept that that must be paid for.
However, it seems to me that it is being paid for several times over. In the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer saved £360 million—the same sum—by freezing the married couple's allowance. In our opinion, that is the right way to do it. However, I must confess to some regret that the freeze on child benefit lasted throughout the time that I had teenage children and the freeze on the married couple's allowance is introduced as soon as I had no dependent children. However, if my married couple's allowance is frozen
432
to subsidise the costs of bringing up my noble kinsman's daughters, that is entirely proper and is right in any country which cares about its posterity.
Also, there is the saving on statutory sick pay. That was £100 million reduced to £98 million because of the concession on small businesses. In this order there is a claw back of the £1 increase from any families claiming guardians' allowance, child special allowance, invalidity benefit, widows' benefit, retirement pension, severe disablement allowance and invalid care allowance. I believe that affects something over 200,000 families. I have heard no figure for the amount of savings resulting from these regulations. I should like to hear such a figure from the Minister. However, I cannot believe that the savings from these regulations are sufficiently significant to justify such a conspicuous piece of meanness.
However, we have not yet finished with the savings. There is also the freezing of one-parent benefit covering 1.5 million families. I believe that amounts to £6.8 million gross although it is difficult to calculate the net figure. Therefore I believe that the Government have overdone it. They do not need these regulations for the stated purpose because the cost of child benefit increase has already been met.
In addition, I cannot follow the logic of my noble kinsman and the Government. I do not see why, on the ground that they are overlapping, people should not receive both benefits. They overlap only in the sense that they are given to the same people. They are paid for different reasons. If people have two different and entirely logically separate reasons for receiving benefit, there may be a case for them receiving both. Child benefit is paid in respect of the child. As the Secretary of State repeated when he increased it, it is paid because of the cost of children. Invalidity benefit is paid in respect of illness; severe disablement allowance is paid in respect of the disability, and so forth.
I cannot see why, because the child costs the family more, it follows that the disability does not cost the family more. If the Government are saying that all families with children therefore should not receive disability benefits, that is a more far-reaching argument than I believe they are yet prepared to come forward to justify.
I cannot understand the logic by which, if one has two claims for benefit, one may receive only one of them. It does not make sense to me. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order (S.I.1991/547) be annulled.—(Earl Russell.)
7.41 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his Motion against the regulations. He began by saying, "It's that man again". I presume he was referring to the programme "ITMA". I believe both he and I are old enough to remember it, though I am not sure that the Minister is. However, I remind both the noble Earl and the Minister that there was a character in it called Mona Lott. Perhaps the Minister may wish to apply it to his noble kinsman.

433
I do not wish to add a great deal to what the noble Earl has already said. From time to time in the past we have discussed the increase of £1 a week in child benefit for the eldest child. I have made the point a number of times, and I do not apologise for repeating it. It produces a situation where the rich family with one child receives exactly the same increase in its total weekly income as the poor family just above benefit level with three or four children. To add to that injustice we now have this group, in excess of 200,000 families, who do not even see the increase in their weekly income because of this unfair and what I can only describe as miserly clawback. We read that the party opposite describes itself as "The party of the family" and speaks of a caring society; I wonder how it squares that with this kind of action.
The point regarding one-parent benefit which was frozen was well made by the noble Earl. The Secretary of State, Mr. Newton, justified the £1 extra benefit by saying:
"As the extra £l … will go to every family and will indeed be larger than the retail prices increase would have been in one-parent benefit—which is itself defined as an increase for the eldest eligible child—I decided that, on this occasion, it would not be right to make a separate increase in that benefit as well".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/2/91; col. 987–8.]
The freezing of the one-parent benefit is particularly unfair to those families who would also lose out from the clawing back of the extra £1. I am sure when the Minister replies he will say that it has always been done that way; the £1 has always been deducted from dependency allowances. But the increase due in October will not be subject to a clawback. The £1 will not be clawed back from the child dependency increase and other benefits, and the rates of income-related benefits will also be adjusted to enable all families to benefit in full from the rise in child benefit. If that can be done in October, why not in April? What is the justification for the difference in treatment on each occasion? I shall he interested to hear the Minister's reply.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, before I explain the purpose of the regulations that we are discussing, I should point out that they do not establish new principles or indeed do anything to break with the approach adopted by all governments since 1948 in relation to child dependency increases and child-related benefits. I stress that it is only child dependency increases and not child-related benefits. My noble kinsman seemed to take them on to invalidity benefits, but it is only if there are child dependency increases in those that they would be affected.
The regulations amend the overlapping benefits regulations which provide for adjustments between benefits where an individual is entitled to more than one benefit serving the same purpose at the same time. The amendment concerns the benefits payable in respect of children, such as guardian's allowance, and the increases of benefits such as invalidity benefit or widow's benefit which are payable where a beneficiary is supporting a child. The amendment provides for an
434
equivalent reduction of these child-related benefits where they are in payment for the only, elder or eldest child in respect of whom the £1 increase in child benefit has become payable since 8th April. The amendment secures the same result that would have been achieved by the operation of the normal formula used for the annual uprating of these increases and child-related benefits. The formula provides for any increase in child benefit to be taken into account when setting the new rates of child dependency increases and child-related benefits.
Since 1975 there has been a legislative requirement for an annual review of rates of benefit and provision has also been made for any increase in benefits for children to be adjusted to reflect any increase in child benefit.
In the course of reviewing the rates of benefits, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is required to look at the rate of child dependency increases and also guardian's allowance and child's special allowance which are payable at the same rate as child dependency increases. He is also required to consider the rate of child benefit and if he decides that an increase in child benefit is appropriate, he is empowered to make a reduction in child dependency increases and child-related benefits.
The linkage between child benefit and benefits payable for children has been operated on the basis of formulae which enable an increase in child benefit to trigger a change in benefits payable for children. The current formula, which was first used by the last Labour Government in 1977, has applied continuously to the annual increases of benefit since 1980. It involves calculating what the child dependency increase would be if the general uprating percentage were applied and then deducting from that amount any cash increase in child benefit. The formula also applies to establishing the new rates of guardian's allowance and child's special allowance. It is therefore possible when setting these rates to reflect by the operation of the formula the combined effect of the uprating increase and any reduction considered to be appropriate.
The use of the formula has meant that in years which have seen no increase in child benefit, beneficiaries have had the full percentage rise in their child dependency increase. Equally, the formula achieves an intention which has been shared by all those responsible for the social security scheme since 1948. This common intention has been that increases of benefit to be paid to those supporting dependent children should take account of payments made for children on a universal basis whether such payments have been originally in the form of family allowances or subsequently child benefit. The formula makes it possible to adjust the constituent parts of overall child support.
The operation of the formula has been simple in practical terms up to now because, since 1978, there has been, on the one hand, a single rate of child benefit for all children and, on the other hand, one rate of long-term benefit increases for children and, until their abolition in 1984, one rate of short-term benefit increases for children. Since the legislation provides

435
for a single rate for benefits applicable to children, it has been a straightforward matter to increase that rate by the general uprating percentage and then to take off the actual amount of any increase in child benefit.
However, the creation of two rates of child benefit has raised a problem in implementing the formula because of the fact that the main legislation is currently framed in terms of a single rate of child depencdency increase. The £1 per week increase in child benefit for the only, elder or eldest child in a family from April this year while the rate of child benefit payable for the other children in a family remains uncharged creates a higher and a standard rate of child benefit. The increased amount of child benefit does not apply to all children and application of the uprating formula to establish the new rates of increases and benefits for children would necessitate the creation of two different rates for those benefits. However, such a reintroduction of different rates would require the amendment of main legislation and it was rot possible to achieve this by the time the new rates of benefit would become payable. Therefore we have adopted a different means of taking the increase in child benefit into account and thereby to achieve what would normally be the result of using the uprating formula.
As I have explained, the overlapping benefits adjustment that we have introduced is designed to secure exactly the same result as would have been achieved by the operation of the child dependency increase uprating formula. We consider that it secures a fair level of support for each child and achieves the aim of recognising the natural interdependence between payments available in respect of children. The effect of the regulations is that a beneficiary receiving both child benefit and a child dependency increase or a child related benefit will receive the same total amount of £17.95 per week in child support for each child whichever of the two rates of child benefit is in payment for each particular child.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why there is an adjustment on account of the April increase in child benefit but there will not be as regards the October increase announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget. The October increase in child benefit has been specifically designed to give extra help to all families regardless of whether they are receiving other benefits. In addition, the adjustments take account of the April increase in child benefit and were part of the uprating formula for child dependency increases of benefit, guardian's allowance and the child's special allowance. As these benefits are not being increased in October, they are not relevant to the October increase in child benefit. I repeat that there is nothing sinister in these regulations. They are doing nothing new other than continuing exactly the same approach as has been adopted by all governments of whatever persuasion in relation to child dependency increases since 1948. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his Prayer.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord said that a clawbacl; will not take place because that factor was not taken into account when the child dependency
436
rates were last up-rated. Does that mean that it will not be taken into account when the benefits are up-rated next April?
Lord Henley: My Lords, when they are up-rated next April I believe that they will be considered in exactly the same way as they were this April. In other words, and as I have explained, the policy intention which has been in existence since 1948 will continue.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I apologise to my noble kinsman and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for keeping them from their dinner. I thank my noble kinsman very warmly for that reply. It will need careful study. I shall go away and read it with great care. It seemed to add up to: "We have always done it this way". That is not really an answer. To these Benches the proposition that both Labour and Conservative Governments have both got it wrong is one that holds no terrors whatever. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.52 to 8.25 p.m.]

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 5.
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 4, line 19, at end insert:
("(6A) Any person required by the Secretary of State to provide information under subsection (6) above shall be entitled to appeal against this requirement where that person has reasonable grounds for withholding that information and the circumstances of the case fall within those prescribed pursuant to subsection (7) below.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I introduce this amendment with some considerable optimism in that for the first time we have an amendment which already has some sympathy for it. That sympathy was expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I hope that his intentions will have influence with my noble friend on the Front Bench.
The main consideration in presenting this amendment is to include the main principle that if discretion is used by an official we must give a right to the individual to appeal against the exercise of that discretion. That is a principle which in law and human rights noble Lords would be willing to accept. I am concerned with the principle and not so much with the wording of this amendment.
During the discussion in Committee on Clause 22 a great deal was said about failure to co-operate without good cause; a somewhat Orwellian phrase which reminded me of Big Brother. In fact what we are now faced with is that we have no acceptable grounds for failure to disclose information as required. They have not been spelt out. Presumably there will be regulations prescribing the grounds, albeit widely drawn because it has already been said that it will be

437
difficult—understandably difficult—to prescribe circumstances narrowly. When a definition is widely drawn it automatically leads to the fact that the officials who have to implement the regulations are given discretion in their implementation. The removal of Clause 22 and the absence of any penalty in the Bill, so far as I am aware, for the failure to provide information required may well result in further pressure—this is what many of us are afraid of—on the claimant in order to force the claimant to provide the information required under Clause 5.
I now refer to the report of the Public Accounts Committee, Session 1989–90. Under the heading on page vi, On the Department of Social Security's procedures for obtaining maintenance, paragraph (xi) states:
"We recommend, too, that the Department monitor the way in which this work is undertaken to ensure that the pressure on offices to achieve a substantial increase in maintenance recoveries does not lead to undue pressure being put on lone parents to co-operate in liable relatives work".
We must be aware that quite clearly there has been pressure because that comment would not have appeared in the report if it had not been based on evidence which was put before the committee.
Further, evidence has been sent to us from the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) which, as we all know, is a highly respected NGO that has been working in this field for many years. The group has put together examples of lone parents being put under undue pressure to co-operate in pursuing maintenance. Such examples were provided by the citizens' advice bureaux. I have with me a few selective examples. They cover the whole of the country; so it is not just one particular area or office where there may be some officials who have taken a different line from others.
Without taking too much of your Lordships' time, perhaps I may cite one or two examples, many of which have been adumbrated by noble Lords during today's debates. One example comes from the East Midlands. It concerns a divorced lone parent whose former husband visits her daily but refuses to give her his address. The income support payment has been stopped for the second time because the lone parent will not (or cannot) give the husband's address. A further example comes from Scotland. I have note of an extract from a letter which was sent by a local DSS officer to a lone parent on income support. It states:
"There may be changes soon in the law concerning maintenance for children".
It goes on to ask the lone parent to fill in the form,
"to help me decide what further action is needed".
A handwritten addition to the letter states:
"Please note, failure to reply may result in loss of benefit".
As I said, such examples have been sent to us by the CPAG and there are also further examples from other highly respected organisations, such as the National Council for One-Parent Families which deals in that area. Therefore, this is not a figment of the imagination; it is something which is actually happening, where a kind of pressure is being put on women for failure to provide the necessary information.
I believe that we have all recognised during the course of our debates on the Bill—and this applies to Members on all sides of the House—that this is a unique Bill. It deals with state benefit departments acting on information from claimants which directly affects not the claimant personally, but a third party; namely, the absent parent. That is the difficulty with the Bill. We have the state interfering in a relationship between two people who have been emotionally and financially tied for some time or even, perhaps, a short time. Nevertheless, it is state interference in a very delicate and dangerous area of relationships.
That is one of the difficulties with regard to providing information. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford covered that aspect by saying that the vulnerability of women in this particular situation leads to enormous difficulties when we expect her—or sometimes him —to give the required information. Such refusal may be due to the fact that the woman does not have the information; or she may refuse to give it because she knows perfectly well that, as a result of giving it, she could find herself in a violent situation. Indeed those of us who have families, or who have friends with children, know only too well of such situations where perhaps the husband leaves home. The wife, being so anxious for a reconciliation in the hope that the husband will return, might hesitate to give the information believing that it could put pressure on the man and then prevent him —in her eyes, at any rate—from returning to the family home.
Of course we could go on discussing endless examples. However, the fact is that there are many such situations happening day by day in cities all over the country which show that the matter must be handled with extreme delicacy and great discretion. That means that the regulations which will be produced must also deal with this aspect of enabling the officer in charge to use his discretion. The latter point brings me back to my main principle: if discretion is used by an official, there must be a right of appeal for the claimant who finds herself (or himself) in the position of being pressurised by a particular official for failure to give the information required.
I make one further technical point. I hope that my noble friend the Minister who is to reply will be able to tell me something about the role of the child support officer. Is such an officer acting in the capacity of an adjudication officer or as an official? For example, if a claimant has an objection about the way in which a child support officer has acted, would an appeal go through that officer to a senior officer in the agency who would then act as an adjudication officer? Further, would it then be possible to appeal through that adjudication officer to a court which could, possibly, be the proposed child support appeal tribunal which I understand is included in some amendments on the Marshalled List?
In conclusion, I very much hope that noble Lords will agree that this is an essential protection of the rights of the subject. I should point out that it also acts as a form of monitoring on the acts of officials. Everyone knows about the excellent work which

439
officials carry out and the great sympathy which they show in the many cases with which they have to deal, some of which are very difficult. I believe that it would give them support if they knew that, if they took a wrong decision and did something which exceeded the bounds of normal conduct, there would be the right of appeal for the claimant. In addition, the provision would give the claimant a certain power and strength to be able to face the difficult problems involved in giving the required information. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not think that the case for the amendment could have been better put. I do not intend to detract from what has been said. I should simply like to express my support for it.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I wholly agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I am also most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for tabling the amendment. I should like to say a few words in an attempt to general se the grounds upon which one might rest an objection to the principles of the Bill for which she wishes.o permit an appeal.
The Bill completely neglects the sensibilities of the women concerned. I believe that it ignores what have been traditional feelings of delicacy and modesty in respect.of invading the intimacies of the ways in which our fellow citizens exercise their reproductive powers. I have a very strong objection to a situation in which officials can dabble their fingers in—and I am using a phrase of Virginia Woolf—the stuff of other people's souls.
In my view, the point can be generalised in the way in which Isaiah Berlin deals with certain aspects of human rights. I shall paraphrase his words. He says that all Inen—I believe that he includes womenkind in that word—whatever power governs them, have an absolute right to refuse to behave inhumanly and that there are frontiers within which men and women should be inviolable. Those frontiers are defined in terms of rules so long and widely accepted that their observance has entered into the very conception of what it s to be a normal human being. He also says that normal human beings could not break these rules easily without a qualm of revulsion.
I feel more than a qualm of revulsion for a Bill which gives servants of the state powers to inquire into matters in respect of which women should be inviolable. We should not permit the agency to cross this particular frontier. That is a general principle, the breach of which in the Bill I found profoundly shocking. I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, says in respect of appeals. I hope the Government will accept what the noble and learned Lord, Lard Simon of Glaisdale, said in respect of another amendment: that a good cause stated in writing would be that "These inquiries offend against my sensibilities".
Lord Henley: I deal first with one point made by my noble friend Lady Elles. I should like to say a word or two about the current system of income support. Under the current arrangements, the payment of
440
income support does not depend on co-operation in seeking maintenance. If my noble friend knows of any cases where this appears to have happened, I will be happy to investigate them and will be the first to do so.
Turning to the amendment itself, it seeks to provide a right of appeal under the obligation imposed on a caring parent under Clause 5. We feel there is no need for a right of appeal in such circumstances. Clause 5 imposes an obligation to provide information but does not provide for any penalty or sanction if that caring parent refuses on whatever ground to comply with the obligation. If a caring parent receiving income support, family credit or any other prescribed benefit refuses unreasonably to co-operate in obtaining maintenance, we have provided for that person's benefit to be reduced under the former Clause 22. That benefit reduction would have carried with it a right of appeal to a social security appeals tribunal which would have considered all the relevant facts of the appeal, including any refusal to provide information. That clause was removed at Committee stage.
As the proposed benefit reduction does not form part of the Bill we do not feel there is a need for the associated appeal rights. One might ask why we feel there must continue to be an obligation to provide information under Clause 5 when there is nothing we can do if the caring parent simply refuses to co-operate. We still believe that Clause 5 serves a useful purpose even without the benefit reduction in cases where there is no good cause, as set out in the previous Clause 22. It makes clear the Government's view that a caring parent should also do what she can to help obtain maintenance from the absent parent. It reminds her of her responsibility for her children and also gives my right honourable friend the Secretary of State authority to take the initiative in seeking maintenance.
I turn to the question raised by my noble friend about the role of the child support officer. The child support officer is not an adjudication officer. When considering questions of whether there is good cause he merely forms an opinion.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble Lord, Lord Henley, leaves the first point, do I understand him to say that because Clause 22 has been removed and there is no penalty for refusing to comply with Clause 5, it is not the Government's intention to bring back Clause 22 at any stage of the Bill? It is important to know the answer to that question. If the Government intend to bring back Clause 22, is the noble Lord saying that the amendment by his noble friend Lady Elles is necessary for the purpose of the Bill? That is what he seems to be saying, and it leaves the Committee in a cleft stick or on the horns of a dilemma.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is an old hand both in this House (though not as old a hand as I am) and in another place. He knows very well the convention that we do not speculate as to what another place might do with the Bill. What I will say is that if another place should decide to bring back

441
Clause 22, which contains a sanction, there would be a need for a right of appeal. All I am saying is that we are discussing the Bill as it was amended by your Lordships' House at Committee stage. At the moment there is no benefit sanction and therefore I see no need for an appeal. But I cannot speculate on what another place might do.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to intervene. He said there was no need for an appeal. He has said that any appeal would be merely to an administrative tribunal. Does he think that is equivalent to an appeal to a court when the question to be decided is one of good cause or reasonableness?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I did not say that. I said that under Clause 22 there was a right of appeal and that appeal would go to a social security appeals tribunal. The noble and learned Lord knows perfectly well that with some regularity there are appeals on points of law to the commissioner from social security appeals tribunals.
I told my noble friend that the child support officer is not an adjudication officer when considering the question whether or not there is good cause and he merely forms an opinion. I go on to say that when there was a Clause 22 in the Bill (at the moment there is not) the benefit decision would have been taken by an adjudication officer. I hope I have satisfied my noble and learned friend that as the Bill stands at the moment there is no need for an appeal. There is no benefit sanction in Clause 5, and therefore an appeal process would not be necessary. In the light of that, I hope my noble friend will accept there is little point in having such a right and she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Mishcon: Before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he and the House would permit me to add something. As I was so brief before, perhaps I deserve a little recompense. I am afraid that so far I have not understood the Minister's reasoning. I will tell him why that is so to give him an opportunity of dealing with my remarks with his usual courtesy.
At the present moment under the Bill and before we reach the stage of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, there is a firm duty imposed on an applicant. The words are mandatory. They mean that if an officer decides somebody has in his view unreasonably failed to carry out a duty imposed upon her under the Bill that officer will be entitled to make a note on the records that the person has unreasonably refused to give the information which under the Bill she is required to do. As I understood the noble Baroness in moving her amendment so eloquently, she asked that there should be a right of appeal to some superior authority from that officer who could say it was wrong to put on the record that the applicant did not obey the injunction under the Bill and she was quite reasonable having regard to her grounds in not doing so. Therefore, with great respect, the Minister is wrong when he says that the position under the Bill at the moment is that there is no need for an appeal
442
because there is no sanction. The sanction will be that there is something on the record which is contrary to the interests of the applicant and her character.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Lord said. All I have said is that, as it stands, Clause 5 imposes an obligation, but I stressed that there is nothing that we can do if the caring parent refuses to co-operate. With no Clause 22, there is no need for an appeal. There is only need for an appeal if there is a Clause 22. If there should be a Clause 22, that may be the time to consider whether an appeal process is necessary. I do not accept what the noble Lord said. Without Clause 22 there is no need for an appeal.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not want to be unduly persistent because that would be rude to the Minister and to the House. The Minister must realise that he has not answered the point that I made. Does he agree that the officer would be entitled to put on the record that the applicant has not carried out the duty imposed on her under the Act? That is something contrary to her interests and to her good character. It is that against which an appeal should lie. Will the Minister please answer the question?
Lord Henley: My Lords, with all due respect, I answered the question. I stressed that if the caring parent refused to comply with the obligation, it would have no effect on her. This is not the right place for an appeal. There should be an appeal only if there is a benefit sanction. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene in this interesting exchange of views between the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend the Minister. I disagree with my noble friend. I do not believe that he has studied subsections (6) and (7) very carefully. We have spent a considerable time discussing subsection (6) (b) which states that a person under a duty imposed by subsection (1) shall,
"comply with any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection as to the categories of information that he requires".
The person is under a duty to comply. We do not know what will be in the regulations.
Those of us who from time to time have had to look at social security Acts, whether they date from the 1970s or the 1980s, will be aware that in the regulations there is always a clause which allows for disentitlement or disallowance in certain cases. One of the problems with the Bill—I understand to some extent why—is that we do not know what will be included in the regulations. We do not know that there will not be a disentitlement to income support in certain circumstances where a claimant refuses to give certain information for one reason or another. We have only to look at subsection (7) which provides:
"The obligation to provide information which is imposed by subsection (6) shall not apply in such circumstances as may be prescribed".
We do not know what those circumstances are. We have not been told what they are. We do not know

443
whether sanctions will be put into the regulations. We have referred to "circumstances", but what will be prescribed?
I am sorry to say to my noble friend that I disapprove of the way he has answered the amendment because a claimant should have the right to be able to make an appeal. That is essential. During this afternoon we have discussed the situations that women especially find themselves in. A Government who pretend to be, and nearly always are, fair and show human understanding and humanity will be slipping in their standards if they do not allow an appeal in this case. I am sorry to say that, but I feel strongly that this is one amendment that could have been considered fairly, especially in the light of the total ignorance in which the Chamber is being kept as to the circumstances which will be prescribed and the regulations which will be adopted. Having said that, of course I have no option but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 22, at end insert:
("(aa) shall not apply where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person to whom it would otherwise apply had reached an understanding with the absent parent that they would not be asked to contribute to I he upkeep of the child, and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 27. This is a matter which has been brought to my attention. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that where a child is born before the Act becomes law and the parents have come to an understanding that the father will not contribute financially to the upkeep of the child, the mother should not be obliged to give details of the father.
The cases with which the amendment deals are those where the parents were not married, and the mother, finding herself pregnant, wished to continue with the pregnancy although the father felt that he could not take that responsibility at that time. When making her decision to continue with the pregnancy, the mother did not feel it right to call upon the father for financial support. We have all known of teenage pregnancies where that has been the case.
In such cases the mother will feel that she is breaking an agreement if she becomes unemployed and is called upon to provide information for the agency to enable it to track down the father. Until the Act is in force, the mother will be acting within her rights to come to such an agreement with the father. Without the amendment, the Act, in effect, will have a retrospective effect. The mother's agreement with the father will become invalid as a result of the Act. Although, as we are aware, she will not now lose benefit if she does not co-operate, she might find herself having to face difficult interviews with the agency which might upset herself and her children. As I said, she would have to break an agreement that had been reached with the father before the Act became
444
law. The wording of the amendment may not be perfect, but the point is an important one which should be taken into account. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I offer our support to the amendment. It is a sensible and practical proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is right about the retrospective effect of the clause. When I had just arrived here, I remember listening to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who said that the Chamber did not like retrospective legislation. That is true and should be true.
As it happens, when the Bill was first published I had occasion to rearrange a tutorial to find the time to be here. As a result, I fell briefly into conversation about the Bill. I discovered that the pupil concerned was a divorced, single parent in precisely the position described by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. She said that were her own arrangements to be retrospectively upset it would cause her considerable dismay. I do not believe that she is the only case.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that the wording of the amendment was not perfect. As I shall show, it is defective in some ways. I am not entirely sure of the noble Lord's intentions.
The amendments seek to remove the obligation to provide information imposed by subsection (6) of this clause where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the parents of a child have reached an agreement for the absent parent not to pay maintenance for the child provided the child was born before April 1992. There are several interested parties where child maintenance is an issue. The parents clearly have an interest and so does the child. Indeed, as we have often said, the interests of the child must come first. Where the caring parent is in receipt of income support, family credit or any other prescribed benefit, the taxpayer also has an interest, as the amount of benefit is affected by any maintenance paid.
Is it acceptable that parents should be able to agree that the absent parent should not pay maintenance, even though he may well be able to afford to do so? It may be acceptable to the absent parent. The caring parent may not gain anything in the short-term from the payment of maintenance if she is receiving income support (but not if she is receiving family credit or the proposed disability working allowance), although in the longer term both she and her children could lose out. Certainly it is unacceptable to taxpayers, many of whom have their own children to support and who would argue that it is wrong to expect them to support other people's children as well merely because the parents decide between themselves that maintenance should not be paid; and if the amendment is accepted this would increase the risk of collusion between the parents to avoid the payment of maintenance. There is also the practical problem of how the Secretary of State is to be satisfied that a private agreement genuinely exists if the caring parent is unwilling to give any information about the absent parent.
It could be argued that placing a time-limit on when paragraph (aa) should apply gets over these problems, as it is accepted that once Clause 5 and the

445
maintenance formula become effective then parents should not be able to reach these private agreements. However, even if one accepts that existing private agreement not to pay maintenance should take precedence over an absent parent's duty to pay maintenance if he can afford to do so, and I do not accept that, Amendments Nos. 25 and 27 mean that the proposed exemption will apply to any child born before April 1992, regardless of when the parents separate. So we could have a situation where a child is born in March 1992, his parents separate in 2002 when he is 10 and because they have agreed that the absent parent should not pay maintenance the child support agency will not be able to pursue maintenance. I cannot believe that this is what the noble Lord had in mind in these amendments. In view of all this, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I ask him to remember so far as he possibly can at the next stage of the Bill that he used the words —I hope I quote him accurately —"We have all agreed that the interests of the child under this Bill must come first"? Is that an accurate record of what he said? If it is an accurate record, will he remember it at Third Reading when an amendment stating that the interests of the child under this Bill must come first will undoubtedly be moved?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is as wily as ever and is trying to box me into a corner so as to cause my noble and learned friend some problems. The mere fact that I used those words at the Dispatch Box does not necessarily mean, as the noble Lord will well know, that they are suitable words for the Bill.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is all rather extraordinary. It was only about an hour or two ago that the noble Lord got cross with me when I made that point. I shall look at Hansard to see what he said, but according to my memory he said, "I should make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that it is not the intention of the Bill that the welfare of the child should be paramount". He seems to have changed his mind in the last two hours.
Lord Henley: My Lords, this is Report stage, but I hope I did not say that. I can check Hansard tomorrow and make sure that that is correct.
Lord Carter: My Lords, let us all read Hansard tomorrow. It will make some extremely interesting reading. The wording of the amendment was not intended to produce the result that the noble Lord gave as an example of the parents with the child born in March 1992. I said that the cases with which this amendment would deal were where the parents were not married, and the mother, on finding herself pregnant, wished to continue with the pregnancy, whereas the father felt he could not take that responsibility at that time. That was the intention. If we could get the wording of the amendment correct it would avoid the retrospective effect that the Act will have on these pregnancies.
446
It seems that we cannot change the mind of the Government at this time, but I reserve the right to come back at Third Reading on this point because we have not yet had the answer that we should have in the cases I have described. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 28:
Leave out Clause 6 and insert the following new clause:
("Right of child to apply for assessment
—(1) A child, where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the child has sufficient understanding, may apply to the Secretary of State for maintenance assessment to be made with respect to him if no such application has been made by a person who is, with respect to that child, a person with care.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in any case where section 5 applies.
(3) Where a maintenance assessment has been made in response to an application under this section the Secretary of State may, if the person with care, the absent parent with respect to whom the assessment was made or the child concerned applies to him under this subsection, arrange for—

(a) the collection of the child support maintenance payable in accordance with the assessment;

(b) the enforcement of the obligation to pay child support maintenance in accordance with the assessment.

(4) Where the application under subsection (3) for the enforcement of the obligation mentioned in subsection (3) (b) authorises the Secretary of State to take steps to enforce that obligation whenever he considers it necessary to do so, the Secretary of State may act accordingly.
(5) Where a child has asked the Secretary of State to proceed under this section, the person with care of the child shall, so far as that person reasonably can—

(a) give the Secretary of State such information as the
Secretary of State considers necessary to enable—

(i) the absent parent to be traced (where that is necessary);

(ii) the amount of child support maintenance payable by the absent parent; and

(b) in particular, comply with any regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection as to the categories of information that he requires.

(6) The child who has made the application (but not the person having care of him) may at any time request the Secretary of State to cease acting under this section (but subject to any regulations made under subsection (8)).
(7) The obligation to provide information which is imposed by subsection (5)—

(a) shall not apply in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; and

(b) may, in such circumstances as may be so prescribed, be waived by the Secretary of State.

(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such incidental, supplemental or transitional provision as he thinks appropriate with respect to cases in which he is requested to cease to act under this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can take this shortly. At Second Reading I asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a question. We were providing in the Bill that Scotland should retain a procedure under which a child could make an application under this legislation. I asked why Scotland, and not England and Wales. Understandably, because there were a number of questions asked at Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord did not have time to answer that

447
question, but he answered it at the Committee stage when an amendment in precisely these terms was put down.
The noble and learned Lord's answer was—and I am paraphrasing it; I hope he thinks I do it fairly—that there were differences in procedure between Scotland and south of the Border; that that had been so for a long time; that what was suitable for Scotland might not necessarily be suitable south of the Border; and that this Bill was not meant in any event to be a Bill amending matrimonial law. That was much better done
by a matrimonial Bill if it were to be done at all. He also dealt perfectly fairly with the way in which this was utilised in Scotland, and told us that it was rarely used by younger children and was mostly used by those IA ho were having the benefit of higher education.
All those replies are intelligible but they do not go to the root of the matter. If a Scottish child has that right, then I would hope that if it had a benefit, children south of the Border should have it. If on the other hand it is not utilised at all and is of no real benefit, then one wonders why in this Bill one has to go to the special trouble of seeing that Scotland retains it and that Scottish children have the benefit of it.
I would ask the noble and learned Lord to consider, by moving this amendment at this stage, whether it would riot be a good idea, without in any way harming matrimonial law reform, that we take advantage of the opportunity of giving children on both sides of the Border precisely the same rights—and if it is a worthless right, then why take the trouble to retain it under this Bill? We would be able to have a little bit of uniformity where uniformity could be useful. That is why I have brought this amendment forward at this stage. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we need not go down the road of arguing a case for uniformity between England and Scotland. Differences between the legal systems of the countries are long-standing, deep and a matter of national pride. I do not think the case for this amendment rests on a case for uniformity between those two countries: it rests on the fact that it meets a real need. It is proverbial that to lose one parent might happen to anyone but to lose two savours of carelessness. Equally to quarrel with two parents savours of carelessness. But carelessness has happened before and it will happen again. There may be times when fie only way the child is going to get maintenance is through the amendment which the noble Lard, Lord Mishcon, has moved. There may not be very many of those cases but they are entitled to our cansideration. I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the remarks that I made earlier in the proceedings have been fairly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Therefore I need not repeat them. Since we last discussed this matter I have given it some further thought. I remain of the view that this Bill is not a vehicle for a change of this kind. As I sought to explain, at present in Scotland girls of 12 and over and boys of 14 and over may themselves seek aliment from
448
a parent. They are minors in Scottish nomenclature. Children under those respective ages are described as pupils and they do not have that right.
In England and Wales that right generally vests in the parent or guardian of the child or the person who has custody of him. I believe that answers the point made by the noble Earl. This amendment would overturn both approaches by allowing a child of "sufficient understanding" to apply for a formula award whether or not the child is a "qualifying child" in the terms of the Bill. I am not sure whether that effect was necessarily intended. It may be a detail of the amendment which has still to be considered.
As I explained in Committee, this Bill is intended to improve the assessment, collection and enforcement of maintenance for children. That apart, our intention is to leave the structure of family law in both jurisdictions as undisturbed as possible. As I have already said, we do not believe that this Bill is a proper vehicle for conferring new rights on children in Scotland and in England and Wales that are different in principle from their rights of action at the moment. Accordingly we have followed the established principles of each jurisdiction in limiting child applications in Scotland to minors—that is, those presently able to apply to the courts there—and in England and Wales by excluding child applicants.
If such fundamental changes as this amendment would cause are to be made in either or both jurisdictions, that could only follow a very thorough review of the matter. In my view it should be a general reform covering applications to the courts as well as through the agency. We do not wish to introduce unnecessary subtleties into the law. Why should the general principle about the extent to which a child can make applications not be a general rule, rather than state that in a particular type of child maintenance application a child can apply if he is of "sufficient understanding" but in all other cases he must be 18 years-old? That would seem to introduce an anomaly into the general law. I believe it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, who said that a system that cannot demonstrate reasonable logicality is unlikely to survive. The more illogicalities and unprincipled distinctions there are, the more difficult it is for the legal system to be regarded as such.
Indeed one of the peculiar if unlooked for effects of this amendment is that applications for additional awards would be bound by different rules to those rules which apply in respect of the formula applications. We have considerable doubts as regards the practicality of the amendment. It bases the test of standing or entitlement to apply on whether a child has "sufficient understanding". That may be a perfectly reasonable provision when considering whether a child's views should be taken into account, but to make that a test of whether a child can apply for an award would be extremely difficult. Until the child applies and until the application is entertained, there is no machinery for deciding that matter. It is an awkward kind of test to use as the initiating test for a legal process. At the very least to establish whether a

449
child is of "sufficient understanding" would require interviewing the child and other measures. That would have to take place before the action was competent.
There is concern that, with the latitude that such a broad test would give, a parent with care might for example attempt to use even quite a young child to apply for maintenance rather than do it himself, perhaps as a way of deflecting or reducing the other parent's expected hostility.
I should like to mention one aspect of this question which is of a general nature. Those who have experience in this field, as many of your Lordships have, realise the danger of doing anything which makes children pawns in disputes between their parents, setting them up to do what the parents would not be willing to do themselves.
As I mentioned earlier, the amendment is technically defective because it would appear to allow children who are not qualifying children to seek a formula award. I do not believe that I need to go into that aspect.
I strongly submit to your Lordships that it is a sound principle in preparing legislation of this kind to follow the general principles of the legal systems affected by the legislation in respect of standing to sue, or title to sue or whatever is the appropriate phrase. Accordingly, I hope that in the light of those observations the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, decides what he wishes to do perhaps I may mention the fact that he described the right in Scotland as a worthless right. Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say whether in his view it is a worthless right? I am sure that it is not. Secondly, can he say whether there has been any recent application that has proven the case that it is of use in Scotland?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the position in Scotland, as I explained on the previous occasion, is that the right applies to older children as well as to younger children. So far as I know, extremely little use is made of it but such use as is made of it is in respect of the older children. In the Bill the situation in respect of older children is different. Therefore, in so far as the right exists in Scotland it is not in respect of younger children, which is the area in which the test would be important in this case, that the right has proved valuable.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, so that there should be no misapprehension as to what I thought I said, perhaps I may make abundantly clear what I was trying to put over. It is this. If it was a worthless right in Scotland, why take the trouble to legislate to continue with it? If it was a worthwhile right, why should not children south of the Border enjoy it? The noble Earl is kind enough to nod his head, presumably as an intimation that I have now made myself clear. I am sorry if I did not do so before.
The noble and learned Lord has correctly pointed out a technical slip in the amendment which I had not
450
noticed before and which I now recognise. He dealt with it perfectly fairly on the basis of principle and not on the basis of any technicality.
I still find it difficult to understand why the question that I have just put, because of the noble Earl's intervention, does not still apply. However, there is no point in pursuing the matter. The noble and learned Lord is very powerfully in charge of legislation which deals with matrimonial affairs. If he takes the view that it is inappropriate in a Bill of this kind to deal with the matters that I raised, only because of Clause 6 of the Bill, I do not believe that it would be worthwhile to press the matter further. We have noted what the noble and learned Lord has said and I ask leave to withdraw this particular amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Clause 7 [Role of the courts with respect to maintenance for children]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 29
Page 6, line 15, at end insert:
("()This section shall not prevent the court from exercising any power which it has to make a maintenance order in relation to a child if the order is made as part of a final order in ancillary relief proceedings in which capital is provided for housing the dependent children.").)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to express my regret that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is not in his place because he is a powerful advocate when it comes to dealing with procedural matters in divorce proceedings. That is one of the questions which is raised by the amendment.
Perhaps I may remind the House that we dealt with the matter at Committee stage. It is customary and very useful in matrimonial proceedings that where there is a family home it forms part of a bargain which the court is usually happy to sanction. The matrimonial home goes into the settlement. In the normal case the children stay there with their mother. That means that their security is not further ruined. It is sufficiently damaging that one parent has presumably left that matrimonial home. At least there is the security that the bedroom that the children know, which was their bedroom, is still their bedroom and that the family home is still their home.
It is customary for orders of that kind to be made where a father, for example, who has an interest in the equity of the house transfers that to the mother and, as a result, the maintenance that he is required to pay both to the wife and to the children is lessened because of that arrangement, which the court puts into effect by way of an order. Those orders have a certain name with which I need not weary the House. I merely recall the fact that they have a name so that the House realises that they are fairly common orders for the court to make and orders that the court encourages.
The worry of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and I —others participated in the worry—was that there did not seem to be any provision whereby, if you adopted formulae which were fairly inflexible, you could take into account the fact that a father had transferred his interest in the equity to the mother or into trust for the benefit of the children, or whatever course might have been adopted. That would be discouraged if the Bill

451
became an Act and a very desirable social measure, which is usually taken in those cases where it is possib e, would be removed. We therefore regretted it and showed our regret by putting down amendments which are in similar terms to that which I now move, while speaking also to Amendment No. 34.
When we put forward our case the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor listened to it with some sympathy, but could not agree with it because he said that there were two aspects that he wanted the House to consider. Where there was a transfer of properly the award to the children would be reduced to reflect the absent parent's loss of that property. He said that if the house goes to the caring parent and the children it will reduce their housing costs and that, in turn, will emphasise the reduction in the award which will be payable under the formula. In other words, the parent will realise that that is the fact and this beneficial transfer of property—the family home—will therefore take place.
The organisation that looks after lone parents is very interested in the Lord Chancellor's reply and respectfully disagrees with it for a statistical reason which I shall now give. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will take it into account. Recent research which has been funded by Rowntree, based on 4,000 cases and undertaken by the Family and Community Dispute Research Centre at the University of Newcastle, shows that most lone parents who take over the family home have high costs to meet as they take over a mortgage which was formerly paid from two or one-and-a-half incomes. The housing costs of the majority of those lone parents were increased, not decreased, by the property transfer. The effect of that aspect of the transfer would therefore be to increase the maintenance award rather than to decrease it.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor also claimed that the maintenance awarded would be reduced in the sense that the absent parent's housing costs are taken into account in working out maintenance. Again, that argument was looked at by that worthy organisation which is so concerned about the matter. It says in reply that while there would be some reduction in the award through this mechanism, it would not be sufficient. In addition, some absent parents may find that they are unable to take out mortgages as they will have no capital. Others will find that the reduction in the award does not correspond to the increased payments necessary to buy a house without capital. The research points out that the White Paper gives an example of a case of property transfer in example 7. The home that is transferred is worth £40,000 in equity. Initially the father rents a property and pays £35 rent and £64 maintenance. However. when he buys a property his housing costs increase by £55 a week to £90, but his maintenance is reduced by only £27 a week to £37. If it is realised by absent fathers that they will still be paying considerable weekly cash maintenance payments, as well as losing their equity, there will be resistance to property transfers.
The noble and learned Lord made one other point in answer to the amendment. He said that it would lead to an increase in benefit payments because lone
452
parents would receive lower maintenance awards and that would not be fair to taxpayers, many of whom do not own houses. The organisation says, "We have considered that carefully". It points out, first, that where a property transfer leads to lower housing costs for the lone parent, that would reduce benefit payments.
Secondly, they believe that the unamended Bill, if not amended by these provisions, would lead to fewer property transfers and therefore more calls on local authority provision and to more homelessness. That in itself would lead to a greater burden on taxpayers. At present the national total of council housing is shrinking at a rate of 140,000 units a year. At the same time homelessness and the use of crisis accommodation would cause further disruption for the children of the family who would already be dealing with the effects of the relationship breakdown of the parents.
It is true that overall the children of divorced parents are already disadvantaged in terms of housing tenure. Research carried out by the Department of Environment labour force survey in 1986 indicates that whereas between 70 per cent. and 76 per cent. of married parents are owner occupiers, depending on age, only 21 per cent. to 45 per cent. of divorced lone parents are owner occupiers depending on age. I am indebted to that worthy organisation for briefing me as they may have done other Members of your Lordships' House so completely with regard to the answers that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave on the last occasion. I hope that this further anxiety of this organisation, which is expressed too by other organisations, will make the noble and learned Lord think again about these amendments and agree to them. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the group of amendments allows the court or the agency to adjust the amount of maintenance which the formula would otherwise produce in certain circumstances. When similar amendments were discussed in Committee, as the noble Lord said, the anxiety underlying them was explained as, first, a wish to achieve fairness for an absent parent which some noble Lords believed would not be achieved if the formula were applied in these cases without some discretion or modification; and, secondly, to allow the parents flexibility in settling financial arrangements on divorce including securing a home for the children.
I explained then—and I shall make some comment on the responses that the noble Lord has made—that the Government believe that the formula will produce a fair result without such amendments, and that it will be sufficiently flexible as it stands to take reasonable account of property transfer, and in particular the provision of a home for the children.
The examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, provided to him by the organisation from which he obtained information, suggest that there is a flexibility in the formula. For example, in the first circumstance that he mentioned there had been a transfer of a substantial mortgage in addition to a transfer of equity in the house. The arrangement was

453
that the caring parent should pay the mortgage instalments. If that is correct the formula will take account of that situation. The absent parent will not have a mortgage responsibility to meet and therefore there will be a reduction in his expenditure. The general consequence will be that that factor will tend to increase the payment for maintenance that he must make. The second example illustrated the opposite circumstance and again the formula will broadly produce the right result.
There is no question of the matter being exact in every case; a good deal depends on the way in which the parties arrange their affairs. I repeat, that one of the difficulties now faced by property owners on divorce is the great uncertainty about the final arrangements. No clear rule is laid down about what the courts will do. I have received more than one letter from Members of Parliament raising questions about that difficulty. On balance, the letters suggest that the constituents believe that the courts are too hard on husbands and that they penalise them in the settlement and in the transfer of the order to too great an extent.
One of the great advantages of the formula is that when one knows the circumstances one will know the exact situation. The transfer of valuable house property in favour of the caring parent and children will reduce their expenses. The replacement of those assets for the husband to give him a place in which to live will increase his costs and reduce the amount that he will have to pay. Therefore the formula will result in the right balance. If, on the other hand, he retains the property and the wife and children must incur house costs in order to set themselves up, his housing costs may be reduced to that extent depending on the size of the mortgage which must always be taken into account. As a result he will have to pay more under the formula and that will help to compensate for the additional housing costs which the circumstance gives to the wife and children.
The Government believe that the formula as at present constructed should already produce a fair amount of maintenance. Any attempt to take special further account of property transfers would often result in double counting and would be unfair to the child and to the caring parent. I should also stress that Amendment No. 29 would severely erode a major objective of the Bill; namely, the provision of a certain and predictable award which cannot be attacked as being unfair or being a result of a bias on the part of the court either for or against husbands and wives. The Government believe that it is right that where children are concerned awards of maintenance should be consistent and predictable. A main purpose of the formula is to achieve that.
The matters which the noble Lord raised are obviously rather detailed. I tried to follow them as he put them to me but I shall study further what he said to see whether I missed any matters. I believe that I followed the general thrust of what he was saying. At present I commend the provisions as they are without the amendment. I shall look carefully at what the noble Lord said as a result of the communications
454
which he has received. I shall take account of those and shall see whether anything further needs to be done.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his last remarks. I intend to make only a few concluding remarks.
The noble and learned Lord mentioned people writing to their Members of Parliament and Members of Parliament had passed on those letters to him. Most noble Lords will agree that husbands who are content with an order of the court do not write to their Members of Parliament to say so. Only those with a grievance do so. I should be very surprised if any letters reach the noble and learned Lord which praise the court or express contentment with a situation.
The other point which I wish to make—and I know that the noble and learned Lord will not think it unfair —is that so often we hear from those putting forward legislation, as we on this side of the House would want to say if we were putting forward legislation, that flexibility is so important because circumstances vary. It is rather strange to hear the defence, "We cannot be flexible because we must be certain and there must be the certainty of the formula". It seems to me that that does not amount to a consistent argument in regard to legislation especially when, as I understand it, it would be extremely difficult to import flexibility afterwards by way of regulation which went against the principles of the Bill.
This is the stage at which we either decide to alter those principles and the basis on which calculations are made or we do not. As I said at the outset of my concluding remarks, the noble and learned Lord was good enough to say that he will consider the points which I rehearsed, having obtained them from the organisation to which I referred. I am sure that that organisation will be as grateful as I am that the noble and learned Lord has promised to consider those points and see whether they cause him to alter his view. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will have the courtesy, if possible, to let me have any observations which he has before Third Reading so that I can consider whether it would be appropriate to table further amendments at Third Reading. In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Maintenance assessments]:
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 7, line 17, leave out ("support").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not sure that Amendment No. 32 is in order because I cannot make sense of it.
As regards Amendment No. 33, I am confused about the difference between maintenance and child support maintenance. Clause 9(2) states:
"The amount of child support maintenance to be fixed by any maintenance assessment shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Part I of Schedule 1"
What is the difference between maintenance and child support maintenance? In the maintenance enforcement Bill that we passed in January there seemed to be no doubt that we talked of "child maintenance". Why has "child support maintenance" suddenly come into it? Is it a bit of gloss like the pictures on the document accompanying the Bill to say that children are special? Why use three words to deal with what after all is maintenance or child maintenance?
"Maintenance" is a statutory word; "child support maintenance" is something we are creating in the Bill. It is thy; same thing but has a different name. Does child support maintenance come out of a maintenance assessment which is not a child maintenance assessment? What is it? Throughout the Bill we see this confusion between a maintenance assessment which k then apparently turned into a child support maintenance payment or determination. We should clear the matter up.
I allowed Amendment No. 12 to pass because I was so exhausted with all the other work I was doing. I was attempting to arrange for the defeat of the Government on Tuesday in addition to working on the Bill. I found that to be a great strain for a man of my years. Therefore I allowed Amendment No. 12 to pass. But the point arises here. I am not sure whether it is worth pursuing. But it should be cleared up if we are to leave the Bill in any kind of intelligible order. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to provide that the amount of child maintenance,
"to be fixed by any maintenance assessment shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 1".
I do not believe it is a point of vital importance. If the noble Lord will allow me, I shall ask parliamentary counsel a) look at the matter specifically. I suspect that we may be able to make it even simpler.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I hope we can sort the matter out later on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 19, at end insert:
("() in fixing the amount of child support maintenance payable, account shall be taken of the cost to the absent parent of maintaining contact with the child.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the debate at Committee stage I stressed that costs of access could in many instances be very high and quite prohibitive. Long distances may be involved resulting not only in high travel costs but also in many instances overnight costs in respect not only of the visiting parent but also of the children. Eating out costs also may be incurred in some circumstances and they are high.
Unfortunately in too many cases access costs are so high as to be beyond the means of the non-resident parent, with the result that contact with the children is
456
lost. Surely that is not what we want. Society increasingly recognises the value of maintaining contact with both parents after divorce or separation. Indeed, the Bill is about each parent being responsible for the financial maintenance of the children and demands the interest of both parents for that purpose.
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which supports the amendment, made an interesting point in its briefing note wherein it quotes evidence published by the Family Policy Studies Centre in March of this year which shows that almost half the fathers of children who live alone with their mothers have lost contact with these children. In total, 750,000 children have lost contact with their father. As the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has pointed out, if access costs are not included in exempt income, more children may lose contact with their fathers. That would be a very sad result.
Since the Committee stage I have received information from Families Need Fathers which not only shows how high access costs can be but also draws attention to a further disadvantage suffered by visiting parents in relation to concessionary rail fares. An example is that of a man whose wife moved from London to Cornwall and who had to spend over £200 on rail travel to collect and return his children over the Easter holiday. That is because family rail card concessions are not available on those portions of the journey where the parent is travelling alone.
The matter was taken up with British Rail. It was proposed that where all the tickets for a holiday were purchased at one time a concession could be made, which seems absolutely reasonable. However, BR InterCity said that it would be impossible to control the provision and it would be open to fraud. So the visiting parent is further disadvantaged by being unable to get concessionary fares to visit his children although the cost may be very high and, as I have said, quite prohibitive.
During our debate at Committee stage I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was unsympathetic. He did not seem to think that this was a very important matter. I sincerely hope that he has thought better of it since because it is important. If we want to ensure that children have access to both parents, and if we believe that that is important, I hope that the noble Lord will accept my amendment. If he does not I hope that he has much better news for me than he had at Committee stage. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am pleased to support this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Stoddart. As my name is attached to Amendments Nos. 96 to 99, I shall speak to those too as they are in a group. My noble friend has already covered extremely well the point about access costs. The whole group of amendments to increase the exempt income for assessable income purposes is necessary because maintenance agreements which are made on such a basis are more likely to be realistic and are therefore more likely to be paid regularly. That is extremely important.

457
In this group there are the three items to be exempted from the assessable income: the work-related expenses (for example, travel expenses); the costs we have already heard about incurred in maintaining access to children—travel to the children's home, overnight accommodation and so on; and the cost of the community charge liability after deduction of the appropriate rebates and reductions, in so far as we can keep up with the rebates and reductions which the Government are introducing. The above costs are either unavoidable (that is, community charge), or help incentives to work (that is, the work-related expenses), or to maintain family relationships as in the access costs. We feel that all three expenses should be recognised as having sufficient importance to justify exemption.
Amendment No. 96 is to increase the exempt income of the absent parent by introducing an allowance for work expenses. Obviously the impact of such a change would be greatest on the low-paid absent parents. In addition to increasing exempt income to cover work expenses, we believe that it is right to include the community charge in the exempt income for obvious reasons. The introduction of a protected income is essential for those on the lowest incomes or with large financial responsibilities. If there is to be an incentive to work, the protected income needs to include work-related expenses.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
"In fairness to the children, exempt income should only include essential expenditure".—[Official Report, 19/3/91; col. 560.]
Obviously we agree with that statement, but the question of what is essential remains. In our view, if an absent parent is prevented from working because he does not have enough remaining income to cover his work expenses, those expenses must be regarded as essential. A similar argument can be made in relation to access costs and to community charge payments. Those liabilities are all essential and yet without this amendment they will not be covered in primary legislation.
Before I sit down I should say that the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has asked me to move Amendment No. 99 for her. She is not in her place as she has a previous engagement this evening.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too should like to offer support for this group of amendments. They involve what I think is the important general principle that when we talk about rates being proportionate to income we ought to be thinking not about gross income but about disposable income. Two people on the same gross income are not, in fact, equally well off if their circumstances differ widely.
I know this runs against prevailing philosophy which is, on the whole, one gathers, all against the recognition of allowances. That is a mistake. That is not treating like with like. If one does not make allowances for necessary expenses one is treating two people who are not equally well off as if they were.
The point about access is vital. It would certainly defeat the declared object of the White Paper if, by the process of getting maintenance for the child, we were
458
to deprive it of the chance of communication with its father. That would be a very sad result. I should like to ask any of us who attended our party conferences during the past year what sort of sum that cost us. It is the sort of sum that would make a fairly considerable difference to someone who may be, after the deduction that the absent parent is paying under the formula, somewhere fairly near income support. We are dealing with quite considerable sums.
The point about work-related expenses is equally important. Work-related expenses are something which do not fall equally on one profession with another. That view is one in which, in my academic capacity, I ought to declare an interest. I know something about work-related expenses. The extent to which they are reimbursed by employers also varies very sharply from profession to profession. As we are at present living in the most expensive capital city in Europe to travel about, our work expenses tend to be quite considerable.
At the Committee stage I said that I would not dwell on the amendments about the community charge benefit and that I would give the Government the benefit of the doubt. I am glad to find that I was right to do so. The community charge is like King Charles II; it is an unconscionable time dying. We are dealing with something which will be here until 1993, possibly until 1994 because it is more important to get it right than to do it quickly. Therefore, even though the community charge is to disappear, in the interim some hardship may be created if we do not take account of it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I apologise if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, thought I was unsympathetic at Committee stage. I certainly did not intend to be and I hope I will not come over as unsympathetic today. Perhaps I may deal with one specific problem. As I understood from the groupings, originally we were dealing with Amendments Nos. 35 and 96 to 99. I may have misheard the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Did he also intend to take in Amendments Nos. 100 to 102 and 103, and bring in the work-related expenses'?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I think that Amendments Nos. 96 to 99 are in connection with the absent parent and Amendments Nos. 100 to 103 deal with the caring parent. That is the way we grouped them on the list.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord wishes to discuss all those amendments now, even though they have been split from their groupings.
Lord Carter: No, my Lords; I do not wish to do so.
Lord Henley: My Lords, in that case, I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 35 and 96 to 99.
The White Paper made clear that exempt income for both the parent with care and the absent parent represents the income which the parent keeps for his or her own essential expenses and as such has first priority over maintenance. It is deducted from the total of his or her net income—I emphasise the word "net"—before any consideration is given to maintenance. So, in fairness to the children, exempt income

459
should only include essential expenditure. Maintenance payments under the formula will represent only about 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of a parent's net income allowing the parent to make choices about other expenditure, but after maintenance is paid.
We accept that in some cases these expenses may be genuine and heavy but the issue is whether it would be right to give them precedence over the child's right to basic maintenance —I am certainly glad that the noble Lord,:Lord Carter, accepts that point—rather than the parent having to meet them from remaining income. We do not believe that including expenses, such as has been suggested, with or in exempt income is putting the interests of the child first. In the case where the child maintains contact with both parents, the absent parent will normally incur costs in looking after the child during such time as the child is with that parent. We are considering how best to take account of those costs under the provisions of Clause 33, with which we shall deal later, which gives the Secretary of State the power to change the amount of maintenance payable in special cases.
I shell now deal briefly with Amendment No. 99 which i3 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Elles. It seeks to add to the provision for exempt income a parent's "reasonable personal expenses". Exempt income already covers parents' essential personal expenses. Therefore, to add this expenditure would be to double the provision.
We believe that the provisions to be made in exempt income should he restricted to what is essential in order to ensure proper recognition of the needs of the child. Maintenance will form only a third or less of net income and there is the safeguard of the protected level of income.
As noble Lords will know, details of the maintenance calculation are to be set out in regulations. We will reflect on all the points made today and those made in Committee about exempt and protected income when we come to consider the precise definitions of these terms. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I must say that I am most unhappy with that response. I am quite sure that the Minister does not wish to appear unsympathetic; indeed I am certain that he is not. However, it must be said that his words were unsympathetic. I regret that fact. In my view, he and the Government must understand that one of the basic rights of children is access to both parents. That is a most important consideration. It is only right that a child should know his or her father and mother. If we make it very difficult for one parent or the other to obtain access to the children, then the development of the children may be at risk. Indeed, in most cases, it will certainly not help their development.
The Minister must understand that these high costs often, although not always, arise through no fault of the non-resident parent. For example, a wife—or even
a husband—may decide to move to another part of the country which is far away. Indeed the parent concerned may decide to move to another country.
460
There is nothing on God's earth that the non-resident parent can do about such a situation. He or she has to pick up the tab of the visiting costs.
What I am asking for in the amendment is some recognition of that and some sympathy for it. I had hoped the noble Lord, Lord Henley, would have grasped the point between Committee stage and Report. Clearly, he has not; or perhaps other people with whom he is associated have not. I have certainly grasped it, and I hope other noble Lords have done so.
Late and regrettable though it is, I feel I have a duty to test the feeling of the House.
10.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 35) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 25.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Ezra, L.

Mishcon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

McGregor of Durris, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Hesketh, L.

Astor, V.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carnock, L.

Morris, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Reay, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Shrewsbury, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Waddington, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Henley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.9 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Maintenance Assessments]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 30, line 27, at end insert:
("() such further amount or amounts (if any) with respect to a disabled child as may be prescribed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 85. The purpose of the amendments is to provide for the costs of a disabled child in the maintenance arrangements. It is an amendment that we debated in Committee. We received some encouragement from the Minister's response and so we have tabled the amendment again. It seeks to augment the maintenance formula proposed in the Bill to make it sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of disabled children more adequately.
In Committee, the Minister recognised the need to give careful consideration to the complex issues raised in attempting to include in the Bill children with disabilities. At col. 562 of Hansard on 19th March he said:
"We are carefully considering all those views. Our aim is to do what is in the best interests of children while being fair to the parent paying maintenance. We do not wish to exclude

461
disabled children from the improved system of child maintenance but we recognise that there are other complex issues here which may be more appropriate for the courts".
On a different amendment but a related issue at col. 347 on 14th March he said:
"It would undoubtedly be right to recognise in some way the extra costs they may incur because of their disabilities when calculating their ability to pay maintenance, and we are considering how best to do this".
That was in connection with disabled parents, but there is the recognition of the extra costs of disability.
The principle of inclusion is particularly important as this Bill is of special relevance to children with disabilities. First, the OPCS survey showed that they are much more likely than other children to grow up in a single parent family. The OPCS survey found that 19 per cent. of their sample of families with a disabled child were headed by a single parent compared with 13 per cent. of the general population. The same survey confirmed that the parents of disabled children are less likely to be in paid employment than other parents. When they are employed they are lower paid. There are three factors relating to poverty—unemployment, low pay and single parenthood—which are more likely to occur in the families of disabled children and therefore put them at risk of having financial resources which are inadequate for their needs.
I am sure that the Minister will not wish to go over the debate we had on the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill on the extra costs of disability, but there is an agreement. The OPCS surveys revealed the extra costs of disability, and many other organisations have also produced their own evidence of this. There is no doubt that there are extra costs of disability, in particular for disabled children.
It is beyond doubt that these costs are great and have an important bearing on the well-being of a disabled child and on the family, including other children. Because the position is impossible some means have to be found to ensure that adequate maintenance is made available within the framework of the Bill, and that is the suggestion that has been devised in this amendment. The intention has been to use a form of words that ensures a minimum extra amount to be awarded to children with disabilities in all cases without attempting to limit the award to that specific amount, so as to admit a variation in the light of the great differences in need and circumstances that are experienced by disabled children.
In our view the amendment combines the necessary powers of flexibility with the fundamental acknowledgment of the special needs of the disabled child. It potentially transforms the will to include all children within the same legislation and administrative procedures into a reality. There is a flexibility in the amendment which is intended to reduce the likelihood of parents having frequent recourse to any appeals procedure attached to the agency. That in itself will make it a cost-effective measure. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we too would like to support this amendment. It seems to be a simple and commonsense amendment. Disability carries with it extra costs. Those costs need recognition. As
462
technology improves, the number of things that can be done to make it easier for disabled people to live a normal life goes up and up, but of course those things carry costs with them. I think it is in the public interest to incur those costs because it makes it easier for disabled people to live as nearly as possible a normal life in the community, and in the end to work, which is for the benefit of the gross national product and ultimately the Treasury. The OPCS have calculated the costs themselves at £6.54 per child on average, and £12.53 per child in cases of severe disability. As the House knows well, the OPCS figures have been attacked by a great many people with specialist knowledge of the area as being a good deal too low. I shall not go into that; but, one way or another, disability carries costs. If the formula does not recognise that, it is being consistent at the expense of accuracy. That would be a pity.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, rather than dealing directly with the amendment, it might help if I tell my noble kinsman Lord Russell and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, exactly where we are at the moment. I believe that the noble Lord and my noble kinsman will recall that we were not minded, where a child was disabled, to include the available allowances in the maintenance requirement. The White Paper invited comments from all interested parties. We are considering all the views carefully, and particularly the views of my noble kinsman and the noble Lord.
This is an important issue and it is right that careful thought should be given to how best to protect the interests of these children. Officials from the Department of Social Security have met some of the main organisations involved in this field to discuss this issue. That was a constructive and helpful meeting. Our aim is to do what is in the best interests of children while being fair to the parent paying maintenance. We do not wish to exclude disabled children from the improved system of child maintenance. The issues are complex and may require a discretion that, possibly, is more appropriate to the courts. I hope that with that brief resume of the position, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before I withdraw the amendment, will the Minister help the House by telling us what timescale is involved with this issue? Is it possible that by the time the Bill reaches another place, the Government may suggest a provision on this issue?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot promise to produce anything between now and Third Reading. I stress that these are complex issues. It would be rash of me to make promises as one does not know at what speed the Bill will progress through another place. However, one lives in hope in that regard.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is the kind of reply I expected. I also live in hope. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 31, line 32, leave out paragraph 4.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to draw attention to the nature of Schedule 1, which is an extraordinary schedule. It is the very quintessence of bureaucratic legislation. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quite rightly did not table an amendment to delete Schedule 1 as that would clearly have been a wrecking amendment, nor did he seek to speak on the question that Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill. In all the circumstances, it seemed right that speakers on the Cross-Benches and Back-Benches should follow suit. Anyone who is in the position of the noble Lord on this Bil1 has not only the task of leading the critical scrutiny of the Bill but also of pacing the proceedings so far as they relate to that scrutiny.
Therefore, before I tabled this amendment, I obtained the approbation of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, I shall deal with the amendment as briefly as I can although a whole volume could be written on the first schedule. Perhaps I may say by way of introduction that I referred to its incomprehensibility when I spoke on Second Reading. My noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton pointed out rightly that the Renton Committee had approved of the use of this type of fractional formula. So it had, but it added the proviso: so far as they are capable of being understood by those who are affected. It was particularly in the context of revenue statutes that the Renton Committee gave its approval. A revenue statute containing this type of formula would be examined by chartered accountants, solicitors and counsel with special training in such matters. Here, however, the people who are affected are the young couple whose marriage has broken up and, in Scotland, the child—a child over the age of 14 in the case of a male and 12 in the case of a female. My noble and learned friend will correct me if I have the Scottish position wrong.
Looking at Schedule 1 can anyone possibly say that it is capable of being understood by those who are affected. by it? It is and has to be taken on trust by a court. The language is not directed to the public at all. It is directed to the child support officer.
In ancient Rome there was a famous saying, "Lucullus dines with Lucullus". Lucullus was the great sybarite but his choicest of meals were kept for his own consumption, so that "Lucullus dines with Lucullus" was the very height of sybaritism. So we can say of this schedule, "Sir Humphrey writes for Sir Humphrey". It is understandable by nobody except the civil servant who publishes it and the civil servant who administers it. It is too bad if the unfortunate wife or husband cannot understand it. They must take it on trust.
Having said that, I directed the amendment narrowly to a part of the schedule dealing with the alternative formula—lines 38 and 39 of page 31. The formula runs like this (AE being the additional element):
AE (1 - G) x A x R.
That must appear almost as simple as the famous formula in which Einstein encapsulated his theory of
464
special relativity, a most misleading simplicity in both cases because one has to translate the G, the A and the R.
I shall not take your Lordships through all the intermediate steps. However, finally—not finally but I gave up in despair at this point—it works out like this:
1=MR/((N—E)+(M—E))x(0 to 1)
(where (0 to 1) is a figure between zero and one which may be prescribed by the Secretary of State).
My noble and learned friend dwelt on the certainty of the formulaic approach. How much certainty is there when you have a final multiplication factor which can be prescribed by the Secretary of State? However, that is not the end of it because the whole of that fraction must be multiplied by A, which works out
PM/(N—E)+(M—E). as
That formula too is then to be multiplied by (N—E).
Your Lordships might think that that should be the end of the matter, but you would be disappointed; because one must then go on to multiply by R, which is on page 31, line 34, and again that figure is between zero and one as may be prescribed. I have not got anywhere near the end of the possible formulae, but that is already 10 separate symbols, several of them repeated, and that is what is presented to the private citizen whose rights are affected. I can only say that it seems to be absolutely shameless bureaucracy to legislate in that way. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I should make a confession. If a former distinguished President of the Family Division, as it now is, and a very distinguished former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary cannot work out that formula, but the Department of Social Security can, I am beaten on my argument that the courts should take over the whole of the Bill.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I sympathise with my noble friend and everyone else who has to deal with the Bill. It is essential for us to be sure that the Government know what it is all about. I therefore wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who is to reply, can take us through it with one or two examples to show how it would work. I think that that is the only way that someone with my non-mathematical mind will be able to understand the matter. I only understand people on the ground and how it affects them and how much cash they have in their pockets or in the bank. To prove himself and to instil confidence in your Lordships that he knows what he is talking about, perhaps the noble Lord would take us through a couple of examples.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, are the parents to understand this? Who will explain it to them and how will they understand it?
10.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, may we call this "Children's Hour" and seek to make some sense of it? Frankly, we should adjourn now until we can read all this in Hansard. It will take the Hansard

465
writers and producers until tomorrow morning to get it straight and then it might be a little more intelligible. Of all the legislative gibberish, my Lords, I doubt whether there is anything to compare with the speech of my noble and learned friend who sits behind me. It really is incredible. What about the citizen's rights? What about intelligibility? Where do the children come into the issue? Some of them could probably find the answer more quickly than their parents.
What are we expected to do with this formula? If we leave it out—which we could well do—the Bill would be so mutilated that it would have no engine. Alternatively, we can withdraw it which means that we come back to the matter on another day when it can be made more intelligible.
Quite frankly, this is not serious legislation; and this is not a serious hour for it. If we are to stay much longer, we shall want to enjoy the debate, and there will have to be some fun. I have never enjoyed anything more than all-night sittings in the House of Commons—the fun we had during the night, my Lords. We had some star turns. The late Lord Hale was the speediest talker in the House of Commons. He could rise to his feet and keep us in raptures of laughter when reciting a story about Lancashire lads who got into trouble. We were quite sorry when the dawn came. But there is nothing so exciting as that in this Chamber. I have not heard such talents from noble Lords and noble Baronesses present as would give us some entertainment for the remainder of the night—and it is getting on that way.
To conclude on a serious note, what does my noble friend expect us to do? I ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack what he considers we ought to do. What does the Opposition Whip consider we ought to do? It is all very well to have self-regulation but someone has to tell us how we get through this Marshalled List. What hour do we continue until? Do we continue to the end of the sheet? Do we adjourn when we are tired and fed up? Do we stay until somebody says that we can go? We are just working our way through the amendments by putting our noses in the right direction.
I am serious on this point. Next week we shall uphold the reputation of the House of Lords in a very big way. Yet here we are frittering our reputation away in this manner. Thank God the television cameras are not switched on. However, other records are being taken of our proceedings and can be quoted. Earlier today we were talking about children weeping on television. If that is linked with this debate tonight, many people will consider that we are crazy.
I believe that I have said enough to indicate that I am greatly disturbed at the state of affairs in your Lordships' House.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord offers me an interesting challenge: to sit here all night. I certainly would not object to that, although I do not know about other noble Lords. I suspect that the noble Lord himself would not like to sit here all night. I can tell the noble Lord that I believe that there has been some informal understanding that we shall not
466
sit much later. We can probably complete this amendment, and possibly one or two more, depending on the time.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, offered me a very interesting challenge. I am afraid that at this time of night I shall turn it down. It might help if I write to the noble Lord, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, setting out in greater detail some explanation of how the clause works. I do not intend to speak to the merits of the amendment because that was not a matter to which the noble and learned Lord turned his mind.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull was worried that no one would be able to understand the provision. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for agreeing that the department should be managing these affairs because it can understand them—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the Minister should not take me seriously.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take seriously everything that the noble Lord says. There was a time when the Department of Health was known as the Department of Stealth and Total Obscurity, but I hope that we have moved beyond that. I do not accept that the paragraph of the schedule is so complicated. I am sure that we shall be able to write to the noble Lords and explain its meaning—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will write the letter personally; but difficulty may arise if it is sent to only one Member of the House. If we undertook to arrange for a blackboard and easel to be in the Chamber on Monday would the Minister feel it appropriate to take us through the schedule? All noble Lords would then have the benefit of his explanation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the rules of this House preclude the use of exhibits as is the case in another place. The use of a blackboard would not be appropriate in dealing with the problem. I shall write to the noble Lords—
Lord Carter: My Lords, there are 10 equations in the schedule and each is related to the others. Can the Minister produce the full expression in one equation? I believe that it is possible because they are all subsidiary.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that will be difficult if not impossible. It is important to return to the amendment. It deals with the additional element which the noble Lords wish to have explained, and in particular the equations. I have offered to write to the noble and learned Lord, and I shall send copies to the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart, Lord Mishcon and to any other noble Lord.
The intention is to set out the details of the formula in regulations. That will include what should be the appropriate deduction rate and how the additional element might be calculated. The aim is to ensure that children receive a fair and continuing share in parents' prosperity. As a result of the light-hearted remarks made during the debate, I accept that some noble Lords believe that there is some complexity in the

467
paragraph. For that reason, I have offered to write to them. Paragraph 4 sets out the basic principles of the calculation of the additional element. It might be that at this hour of night the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords find it more difficult to grasp the complexities. That is another reason why I shall write to them. The deduction rate will be different from that applying for the maintenance requirement. It will apply to the assessable income left once the maintenance requirement is met. However, the alternative formula described in subparagraph 3 will mean that this will be subject to a maximum and that no extra maintenance will be due under the formula.
It would not be right for me to go further at present. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept the fact that I agreed that the issue is complex. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked that I should write the letter myself—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I had anticipated that the Minister would write the letter only because he has been so clear in his explanation of the schedule.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I realise how difficult this must be for the Minister. Is it not possible for the only mathematician in the House to take us by the hard on Monday and explain the formula to us?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, nothing would give me more pleasure. If we need to have a seminar of that kind, I shall be happy to conduct it. I am sure that my noble friend will be able to provide a worked example with factors in it showing how this can be applied which noble Lords will be able to study at leisure. However, if that fails, I shall be delighted to set up a seminar, although possibly not in the Chamber, having regard to its rules, to work through an example with your Lordships. These calculations are rather simple. It is easy to make them difficult. It is because they are much easier in formula form than in words that, on this occasion, we have chosen to use a formula. I do not believe that the calculations are very difficult.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, Will my noble and learned friend draw up something which parents can read and understand?
Lord Chancellor: My Lords I could apply the formula to a parent's circumstances. That is the purpose of the computer. It is very easy to make calculations on the computer and when one has a computer, it is possible to make far more calculations than we could make in the time available to us in our heads or even on a piece of paper. This formula can embrace so many different circumstances. There must be a degree of structure about it. It is a question of being sufficiently numerate in order to apply the formula. If parents are numerate, they can do that. If they are not, they may not be able to make the calculation themselves but the agency computer will readily give them the information, much more readily, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon said, than a clerk of the court would be able to do.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, although there has been a certain amount of amusement as regards this
468
amendment, we are dealing with a serious subject. How will the father, who has to pay, and the mother, who is expecting the payment, be able to tell from the schedule whether the assessed amount is correct? That is the situation with which we are dealing. We are dealing with little citizens in need of support. The real question is not whether this House can understand the formula or the noble and learned Lord, who has a distinguished past in the area of mathematics, can explain the formula, but whether the recipient and the payer can understand whether or not the amount is correct.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the steps which need to be taken involve multiplication, addition and subtraction of given quantities. Anyone who wishes to take the trouble could follow that through. I anticipate that people will entrust the calculation to the computer. Perhaps your Lordships are not afflicted with overdraft interest on your bank accounts. However, I imagine that although the calculation is understood, not many of your Lordships check it. If it is checked, that is with the help of a calculating machine or other equipment of that kind. The reason that this is an administrative matter is because it is a calculation applied to given facts.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to this discussion. My noble and learned friend, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out, is a famous mathematician. He probably holds this whole series of formulae in his mind. But neither he nor the noble Lord, Lord Henley pretended for a moment that this schedule could be understood by the people who are affected by it. They are typically the people described in Example 3 in the White Paper. It is a young husband whose marriage has broken up and whose income is £160 a week. His wife must manage out of that and out of what she receives from child maintenance.
There is a famous account which, if I have it wrong, will perhaps be corrected by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Marie Antoinette, on hearing a cry for bread said, "Let them eat cake". If Mary, the young wife in Example 3, cries out for bread, the answer that will come from the department will be, "Let her eat formulae".
Finally, it is a disgrace to legislate in this way. It is not parliamentary democracy; it is bureaucratic ukase. Instead of the law regulating these matters it is the agency. The law, as we have seen repeatedly in these discussions, takes primary cognisance of individual rights; bureaucracy takes primary cognisance of social order. Each has its place. If either usurps part of the place of the other, it is very much to our disadvantage socially. That is what is unhappily happening in this Bill in a most grave way.
With regard to the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was quite right in pointing out that it will do no conceivable good simply to remove paragraph 4. The whole of Schedule 1 in its viciousness can remain, and Schedule 4, dealing with

469
the additional element, does not do very much more harm. However, it has drawn attention to the issues with which we are concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, with his usual courtesy, offered to write to me to explain the schedule at greater length. Much as I enjoy receiving letters from him, I am not sure that I am entirely entranced by having Schedule 1 explained at greater length.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene. It was only paragraph 4 that I promised to explain to him. But if he would like me to explain the whole of Schedule 1, I shall undertake to do that.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful, though I believe I can excuse the noble Lord; I am not sure that I am even all that enthusiastic about having paragraph 4 explained at greater length.
In view of what has happened I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment. We shall have to return some time later to pull together all the bureaucratic elements in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, his mathematical wit sharpened by Schedule 1, estimated that there were 94 regulating-making powers in the Bill. Counting again, he told us that only 12 were subject to the affirmative resolution. We shall have to take that and the jurisdiction of the courts into account. We shall have to take into account the massive recruitment of civil servants; that of the inspectors with powers of entry and to levy distress. Those factors are whittling away at the common law safeguards of the law of distress. All those matters will fall for final determination and discussion, no doubt at Third Reading.
In withdrawing my amendment I ask your Lordships to bear in mind what this Bill is doing by way of legislation to people in humble circumstances, not all of whom are of the highest educational standards. A series of formulae are being laid down which they cannot possibly understand and they are being asked to take it or leave it. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, how can they possibly check their rights? But individual rights do not matter in this context. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, no! What does the rule say about "by leave of the House" when the leave of the House is not sought and, as far as I am concerned at this moment, it is not given? I can understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has had enough of this amendment, but I doubt whether the rest of us feel that we are at a suitable stage in the debate on it to let it drop and to go on to something else. Not until we understand more about what we have been discussing for the past 15 minutes shall we be in a fit state to proceed with the Bill.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, agree that none of us is in a fit state to discuss this formula or understand it at this time? Speaking for myself, I would like to go home and to return fresh on Monday when this matter can be explained to me in words of one syllable so that I can understand it. I do not think I can take in anything more tonight.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 94 be agreed to? If the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, does not wish leave to be granted for it to be withdrawn, the Question is that Amendment No. 94 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content".
Noble Lords: Not Content.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that the "Not Contents" have it.
Amendment negatived.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seven minutes before eleven o'clock.

  IRAQI KURDS: INTERNAL DEPORTATIONS
  IRAQI KURDS: INTERNAL DEPORTATIONS
  PALESTINIANS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: UN REPORT
  PALESTINIANS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: UN REPORT
  PALESTINIANS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: DEPORTATIONS
  PALESTINIANS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: DEPORTATIONS
  JORDAN: ARMED INCURSIONS INTO ISRAEL
  JORDAN: ARMED INCURSIONS INTO ISRAEL
  IRAQI KURDS AND SHIAS: PROTECTION
  IRAQI KURDS AND SHIAS: PROTECTION
  WAR CRIMES: EXTRADITION FROM BRITISH TERRITORY
  WAR CRIMES: EXTRADITION FROM BRITISH TERRITORY
  KOLA PENINSULA: SOVIET MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
  KOLA PENINSULA: SOVIET MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
  COMPETITIVE TENDERING: RESEARCH REPORT
  COMPETITIVE TENDERING: RESEARCH REPORT