Sitting of 30 April 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    TAY ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Lords amendment agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Gulf War
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessments have been made of the efficiency of exotic conventional weapons by Britain and coalition forces in the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's question as I do not recognise the term "exotic" conventional weapons. I assure him that all aspects of the Gulf conflict are being investigated and assessed.
    Mr. Flynn: I hope that I can enlighten the right hon. Gentleman. Will he confirm that the fuel air explosive bomb, used for the first time by the Americans in conflict without prior consultation with Britain, has a blast as destructive as a nuclear weapon, is deadlier than chemical weapons, cannot be accurately targeted and was almost certainly responsible for the collateral extermination of thousands of Iraqi conscripts? Will he also confirm that the bomb is already in the possession of Saddam Hussein and other deranged tyrants and that it is on sale in the arms bazaars of the world? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm today——
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
    Mr. Flynn:—that he will press for the 1981 convention on inhumane weapons to be used to control the sale and use of fuel air explosives, daisy-cutter bombs and cluster bombs, which are not conventional weapons but exotic weapons——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is being unfair to his colleagues. That is enough.
    Mr. Flynn rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is disgraceful.
    Mr. Clark: Every single fact that the hon. Gentleman cited was wrong. Fuel air explosives were used by the United States only to clear minefields. I know that a number of Opposition Members, of whom the hon.
    152
    Gentleman is presumably one, would prefer to fight all battles with loudhailers and food parcels, but that attitude is not shared by those who sit on this side of the House. Our purpose was to end the conflict as speedily as possible, with the minimum of British casualties.
    Mr. Sayeed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the troops down there were delighted by just how effective these very modern weapons were? It was a considerable surprise to many that they worked as effectively as they did.
    Mr. Clark: It is perfectly true that the conflict was extremely effective. It provided a determinant test for a whole range of our equipment. The lessons are being assessed and will be of very great value.
    Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Due to the unsatisfactory nature of the answer and the importance of the matter, I give notice that I shall seek to raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimated total cost of (a) the war in the Gulf and (b) his Department's assistance to Kurdish refugees.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): The latest estimate for the additional defence costs of the Gulf conflict, to be spread over several years, is of the order of £2·5 billion. Contributions to these costs already made or pledged by other countries now exceed £2 billion. It is not yet possible to estimate the total cost of helping Kurdish refugees, but the full Ministry of Defence cost of aircraft, helicopters and 3 Commando Brigade, when deployed, will be at least £2 million a week.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the Minister accept that that is a shameful statistic? Why is it that the Government can respond so readily with massive resources for war, yet respond so inadequately to help the tragic Kurdish refugees in Iraq, Turkey and Iran and the Shias in the south?
    Mr. King: The hon. Lady decided on her supplementary question before she listened to the answer. I said that the overwhelming cost of the Gulf conflict is being met by contributions from other nations, for which we are extremely grateful. If she were prepared to speak up for her country occasionally, she would recognise that of all the countries that have responded to the Kurdish problem she need not feel ashamed of or seek to criticise this country, whose contribution, in terms of forces, helicopters and the aid that we have given, compares very favourably with that of any other country.
    Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will agree that the Minister should withdraw that disgraceful remark.
    Mr. Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Lady has once more demonstrated that she is more adept at criticising Britain than supporting it? Does he further agree that Britain has every reason to be proud of its contribution not only to the Gulf war, but to the relief operation for the Kurds? Are not the armed forces doing as much as the relief organisations?
    Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was trying to point out to the hon. Lady, as she would have heard had

    153
    she listened to my answer, that I hoped that she would take pride in the contributions made by our airmen and helicopter pilots instead of leaping up to criticise their efforts. They come from her constituency as well. Why does not she speak up for the efforts that they are making to help alleviate a desperate and tragic situation in which all help is needed? I agree with her about one thing——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but I remind him that he is answering a question from his hon. Friend.
    Mr. King: I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend in reinforcing the point that I was making to the hon. Lady.
    Mr. O'Neill: In the light of the Secretary of State's point that the cost of the Gulf war will be somewhere in the region of £5 billion, why is it taking so long to produce the defence estimates this year? Will they incorporate the long-term costing overruns that have been reported in the press and are widely believed to be £21 billion over the next 10 years?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman is getting a bit muddled. He probably knows that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary has already confirmed that the defence estimate for this year is likely to be about £1·5 billion above its planned level. I have already had discussions with the Treasury about that. I have also made it clear to the House that it is vital that we learn the lessons of the events in the Gulf in carrying forward our plans. Before the summer recess I hope to publish the annual defence White Paper, in which I shall make clear the way ahead for "Options for Change".

    Missiles
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent meetings he has held with the aerospace industry about new generation missiles and on-going research.
    Mr. Alan Clark: My ministerial colleagues and I have regular contacts with the aerospace industry at which a wide range of issues is discussed.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that brief reply. Does he accept that British Aerospace Dynamics has devoted many years and a great deal of money to the advanced short-range air-to-air missile project and makes a major contribution to the research and manufacturing base of our defence industries? Will he ensure that any decision that is likely to be taken by his Department bears that in mind so that the company can continue to make a major contribution to employment and to the health of the economy in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We have corresponded on the subject and I pay tribute to the detailed knowledge with which he expresses his mastery of the topic. It is perfectly true that British Aerospace has done a considerable amount of what will prove to be valuable work on the advanced short-range air-to-air missile, which will be the successor to the Sidewinder missile and which the United Kingdom still judges to be an essential enhancement to our air fighting capability. However, as my hon. Friend also knows, the original collaborative programme formed under a
    154
    memorandum of understanding with the United States has, effectively, collapsed and for that reason we must go through well-established procurement procedures and issue a new invitation to tender which I have done today. We await a response and I assume that British Aerospace will be among those responding.
    Mr. Rogers: I was appalled at Ministers' answers to some of the earlier questions from my hon. Friends. We certainly do not need lessons in patriotism from the Conservative party.
    Is the Minister of State aware of the substantial redundancies taking place in the aerospace industry? Does he realise that unless he stops dithering and makes some choices for "Options for Change", many highly skilled personnel in this country will be out of jobs?
    Mr. Clark: It is, of course, a general truth that the reduction in defence spending worldwide has led to redundancies in certain specialised industries, nowhere more than in the United States. I regret the fact that some skilled craftsmen may face redundancy, but I believe that their skills will be such that they will not be redundant for very long. That has nothing to do with the "Options for Change" exercise, but is British Aerospace anticipating its commercial decisions and programme. In the fullness of time, "Options for Change" will set the pattern for development in future years.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the outstanding importance of the missile industry in this country and bring forward purchase decisions wherever possible?
    Mr. Clark: Bringing forward purchase decisions is subject also to resource and budgetary constraints. I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the importance of the missile industry. I am fully aware of the fact that British Aerospace plays a key role in our indigenous missile capability.

    Tornado F3
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the performance of the Tornado F3 aircraft in the Gulf war.
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the performance of the Foxhunter radar fitted to the Tornado F3 in the Gulf and elsewhere during the last nine months.
    Mr. Alan Clark: During the period of the Gulf crisis, including hostilities, RAF Tornado F3 aircraft flew over 2,000 operational combat air patrol sorties and made a valuable contribution to coalition air defence forces. The performance of all aircraft and equipment used in the Gulf operation, including the F3 and the Foxhunter radar, is being evaluated.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the Minister accept that his comments about the Royal Air Force will be particularly well received at RAF Leuchars in my constituency where 43 Squadron, which served with such distinction in the Gulf, is usually based? Has not the review of the performance of the F3 served only to underline the need for its supplement and eventual replacement by the European fighter aircraft? How confident is the Minister that the European fighter aircraft will reach the production

    155
    stage? Is his confidence dented to any extent by the continuing uncertainty about Germany's participation in the production stage of the programme?
    Mr. Clark: We are currently assessing studies into options for the future of the Tornado F3 and I hope to announce our conclusions shortly. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the House will be debating Royal Air Force matters on Thursday this week. There is a question on the prospects for EFA later on the Order Paper, but I am entirely confident that the aircraft will move into production investment and later into the production stage.
    Mr. Mans: I thank my right hon. Friend for his earlier answer. Does the Foxhunter radar meet the original specification laid down by the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Clark: Yes, the Foxhunter radar has already exceeded the original specification. In fact, there is an enhancement programme, which was originally intended to be complete in October this year, but which has been brought forward in respect of the aircraft operating in the Gulf. For that reason, it has not been uniformly faultless in its implementation, but considerable improvements have been made to the Foxhunter radar fitted to aircraft in the Gulf during the war.
    Mr. Dalyell: Could the House of Commons have a polite answer to a polite question? What is the truth or otherwise of the reports coming out of Washington that the accuracy of the coalition bombing was nothing like what was claimed during the Gulf war? Are they true or false?
    Mr. Clark: I hope that I am always polite to the hon. Gentleman, who is always very polite to me. The under-secretary-general of the United Nations, Mr. Ahtisaari, has conducted an investigation and written a report. The hon. Gentleman will probably not welcome his judgment that the strategic bombing was conducted with the highest accuracy. It was perfectly clear that every effort had been made to avoid civilian casualties.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the clear lessons to emerge from the Gulf war is the urgent need for an agile air superiority aircraft in battlefield conditions? The Royal Air Force has no such aircraft.
    Mr. Clark: I would not go so far as to say that, because in many circumstances the Tornado F3 is an excellent aircraft. As my hon. Friend knows, it was designed to intercept Soviet bombers over the north Norway sea. There are many lessons to be drawn on air superiority, air domination and equipment and, as I have told the House several times, they are all being carefully investigated and assessed.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Having reviewed the performance of Tornados, will the Minister turn his attention to Buccaneer jets? A potentially catastrophic incident took place off the coast of my constituency yesterday, when a Buccaneer jet took evasive action and missed a ferry by only 40 ft. We accept that pilots must train, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is wrong for them to do so along busy ferry lanes?
    Mr. Clark: The hon. Lady is right to make that point on behalf of her constituents. We have the report, but all that I can tell her is that the incident is being looked into.

    European Fighter Aircraft
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest developments for the European fighter aircraft project.
    Mr. Alan Clark: The European fighter aircraft development programme proceeds with the full support of all four partner nations. Work is progressing well on the prototype aircraft, the first of which is scheduled to fly in spring next year. Of the 285 airframe equipments, 235 have been selected on a competitive basis. The development of the engine is also proceeding satisfactorily.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank the Minister for that reply and reassure him that, unlike the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), I shall not use the question to raise matters about the Tornado. I shall concentrate on the EFA. Subject to what my right hon. Friend may say in Thursday's debate, does he agree that the project is on course, that there is no question of the main partners withdrawing and that no fundamental problems remain with ancillary and related equipment?
    Mr. Clark: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. As he rightly said, this will probably be a subject on which further discussion will take place in Thursday's debate.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that, to some extent, his answer is a vindication of the Government's stand on GEC-Ferranti? As time goes on, the Royal Air Force's case for this plane becomes stronger, not weaker. Is not it fair to say that although a decision on ordering the plane will not be taken for some years, we should not assume that we need all the partners on board to make it a success, although that is the favoured option?
    Mr. Clark: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks and for his support in the trying period when we were attempting to put together the GEC-Ferranti deal, with the concept of the EFA radar in the forefront of our minds. With one exception, whom I do not see in the Chamber, all Opposition Members who had a constituency interest were supportive and that played a significant role. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about proceeding even if all the other partners drop out. That would certainly be my instinct, but there is no denying that it would be extremely expensive. I do not think, I am glad to say, that there is any prospect of that having to be considered.

    Wroughton Airfield
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future use by his Department of Wroughton airfield.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): The greater part of Wroughton airfield is owned by the Department of the Environment and occupied by the Science museum. On the Ministry of Defence-owned land around the perimeter, various support activities are undertaken by all three services and we have no present plans to change them.
    Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that a recent survey conducted by Swindon chamber of industry and

    157
    commerce showed widespread support for the development of a civilian air facility somewhere in the area? Will he bear that in mind when, with the Secretary of State for the Environment, he considers the future of Wroughton?
    Mr. Carlisle: As I said, at present we have no plans to move any of our activities from the land that we still own around the perimeter at Wroughton. My hon. Friend has always argued that if we should ever leave, we should fully consult local interests about the best use of the land and we would, of course, do that.

    The Gulf
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many units are currently engaged in the Gulf area; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Tom King: There are now some 6,000 service personnel in the Gulf area. An infantry battlegroup with supporting armour is in Kuwait. Further Army units in Saudi Arabia provide its support while organising the return of our equipment to Europe. A squadron of Tornado aircraft is currently based in Bahrain and one destroyer and two frigates continue to patrol the Gulf. Three Royal Navy mine counter-measures vessels and the Royal Engineers are continuing to participate in the international mine clearance operations in the northern Gulf and Kuwait itself. In addition, 20 British officers are serving with the United Nations observation mission, which will take full control of the demilitarised zone along the Iraq-Kuwait border tomorrow.
    Mr. Brown: There is a problem about the new imperialism. Why should British troops remain in that part of the world? We must remember that the Security Council has not endorsed that action and that the lives of British troops are being put at risk. Surely the Kurdish problem should be resolved by all the countries in that area, because it goes wider than Iraq. This issue should be resolved through negotiation rather than confrontation. There must—I hope that there will—be a peaceful way out. What will the Minister and the Government do to achieve that aim? Previous Tory Governments have been involved in all sorts of problems in the Gulf area. It is about time that the issue of the Kurdish people was resolved because they have a right to independence.
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman is now talking about something that was not in his original question. We have no wish to keep British troops in the Gulf in the long term. At the moment, we are there to ensure a safe handover to the United Nations observation mission which, as the hon. Gentleman would know if he had listened to my answer, is due to take over tomorrow. Soon after that, I hope to see the withdrawal from Kuwait of both the American and our own forces.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the major British contributions to the Gulf campaign was the tri-service co-operation, which was for the good of everybody in the area? Were not regulars, reservists and the Territorial Army able to work together with considerable force for the good of the area both now and in the future?
    Mr. King: I certainly endorse that. The reservists, including my hon. Friend, played a valuable part. I need
    158
    to check the figure, but I believe that some reservists are there at the moment, helping with the withdrawal and recovery of equipment from the Gulf and especially with transport.
    Dr. Reid: Will the Secretary of State confirm that British soldiers of the Royal Engineers are to be effectively hired out to a private British company, putting their lives at risk in the dangerous task of locating minefields in Kuwait? Will he further confirm that in that cosy deal both the Royal Ordnance company and the MOD will receive substantial payments for the work, but that none of it will be passed on to the soldiers involved? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that we are disgracefully misusing our young soldiers if we subcontract them out as cheap labour—and perhaps as cheap lives—to a private, profit-making concern? Does he further realise that that shabby treatment in privatising the operations of our armed forces can do nothing but undermine the morale of our troops after their splendid and courageous efforts in the Gulf war?
    Mr. King: That is a disgraceful distortion of what the Corps of Royal Engineers has been doing in Kuwait. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that since the recovery and liberation of Kuwait, the Corps of Royal Engineers has done excellent work in giving humanitarian relief and in helping the Kuwaiti Government to make it possible for fuel, water and power supplies to be restored, and to remove booby traps from the plants involved. We thought, and the Kuwaiti Government thought it right, that if we were to continue this work, which we have been doing free of charge in a humanitarian cause, they should now pay for the services being provided. Royal Ordnance will be directly responsible for minefield clearance and our engineers will be involved only in locating, surveying and marking minefields. We have said that they will continue that work to enable Royal Ordnance to build up its team to take over. I have specifically insisted that the commander of the 21 EOD squadron should have sole responsibility for deciding on the spot what work shall or shall not be done.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern among the Gulf units because the £30 water allowance has been stopped? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) tells me that that was in the personal gift of the King of Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend agree to consider the problem as temperatures soar, to ensure that the troops have the water supplies that they need?
    Mr. King: A problem arose in the first deployment of troops, but I was not aware that it had arisen more recently. However, I shall consider the issue to see whether it has arisen again.

    Royal Naval Bases
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the numbers currently employed at the royal naval bases.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: There are currently about 26,000 service personnel and 16,000 civilian personnel employed at Her Majesty's naval bases. Those figures include

    159
    personnel serving afloat in ships base ported at the naval bases and support units directly connected with the work of the bases.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister acknowledge that, while "Options for Change" will involve reductions in defence employment generally, and those reductions might be compensated by the private sector, any reductions in employment in the dockyards will be a matter for which his Ministry will be directly responsible? If Ministers make statements—albeit in their constituency capacity—that one naval base will not close, the repercussions on morale in other areas will be severe. Will he confirm that there will be no reduction in employment at Rosyth naval base without prior consultation with, and the approval of, the Scottish Office?
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman has confused two different operations. There is a dockyard at Rosyth, which he mentioned in the first part of his question, and there is a naval base, which he mentioned in the second part. As we have said many times, no decisions have been taken on naval bases and we are considering the future of them all. In view of the smaller Navy envisaged under "Options for Change", it would be wrong not to do so. We shall consider all the relevant factors in reaching a decision.
    Mr. David Martin: As my hon. Friend knows, when naval bases are mentioned, people think of Portsmouth. Will he assure me that the contribution made by the work force at the naval base in Portsmouth will be taken into account at all times and that there are no plans to shut the base, because there are rumours, which are sometimes stirred up by the Opposition?
    Mr. Carlisle: As my hon. Friend will realise, under "Options for Change", the number of frigates and destroyers is being reduced from 50 to about 40. It would be a dereliction of duty if we did not seek savings at least as great on the support side. We are examining all naval bases, but I confirm that we have no plans to close the base in Portsmouth. As Devonport has also been mentioned, I must say that I deplore attempts by the Opposition to spread as much alarm and fright as possible about that, for purely political reasons. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has made the position absolutely clear: there are no plans to close Devonport.
    Mr. Duffy: In any post-Gulf review of the fleet and corresponding support in the dockyards, whether that be achieved in the context of "Options for Change" or as a result of Treasury pressure, will the Minister and the Minister of State for Defence Procurement bear in mind that the last time such a review was undertaken, 10 years ago, it was necessary within a year or so to set in hand a most significant revision? Let us not get it wrong again.
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is right. We have to take very grave decisions. We shall consider all the factors most carefully.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement was able to say, without the benefit of a study, that Devonport was not to close? Can my hon. Friend the Minister today set at rest the minds of my constituents in Portland, who have had the benefit of a study which shows that trying to move the
    160
    facilities elsewhere would be too expensive? Can he announce today that there will be no closure at Portland naval base?
    Mr. Carlisle: As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), under "Options for Change" we have to consider all the options open to us. No decisions have yet been taken and we have no plans to close the base at Portland.
    Mr. O'Neill: Will the Under-Secretary confirm for the benefit of the House that no decisions have been taken to close Rosyth, Devonport or Portland? Therefore, what the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said yesterday is worthless and was simply an electioneering gimmick to try to hold on to Plymouth council for the Tories.
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is making a false allegation. We were dealing with unfounded rumours and scaremongering. As I said, we are considering all the options. No decisions have yet been made and we shall take those decisions with the greatest care.

    Arms Trading
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his Department's role in the trading of arms.
    Mr. Alan Clark: The Department will continue to support the sales of British defence equipment and services overseas provided that they are compatible with our own security and broader political and humanitarian considerations.
    Ms. Ruddock: Learning from the consequences of arming Saddam Hussein, will the Minister instruct the Defence Export Services Organisation to stop promoting sales among other Saddam Husseins around the world? Will he change his Department's policy and make clear what is lethal and non-lethal equipment and support the proposed United Nations arms transfer register? Finally——
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly please. This is wide of the original question.
    Ms. Ruddock: Finally, will the Minister accept from me that, given continuing oppression in the Gulf, there is considerable revulsion among the British people about the staging of an international arms sale in Birmingham next month? Will he withdraw the Government's support for that event?
    Mr. Clark: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in Luxembourg his full support for a United Nations arms transfer register. That is being pursued rigorously within the United Nations. To be fully effective, such a register would have to be universal and undiscriminatory. However, I remind the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) that the United Kingdom chairs the experts group in the United Nations, the purpose of which is to measure and to increase transparency in arms transfers. If the hon. Lady reflects on that, she will realise that considerable progress is being made.
    Mr. Brazier: Is it not an uncomfortable fact that many extreme and unpleasant third-world regimes have enormous stocks of weaponry, and will continue to

    161
    acquire them from the Soviet Union and from other sources over which we have no control? Would it not be a grave dereliction of duty if this country, or other western countries, were to cut off the supply of weapons to our allies, who may need them on occasion to defend themselves from those countries?
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right. The basis of Britain's role is the right to self-defence, and that right is enshrined in article 51 of the United Nations charter.
    Mr. Clelland: Is the Minister aware that our trade in arms will be severely and adversely affected if he does not order Challenger 2, as it is now clear that there are friendly nations who are interested in the equipment and are waiting to see what the British Government are going to do? Will he stop the unnecessary dithering and delay over the issue and tell us what his intentions are now?
    Mr. Clark: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's attitude. I hope that, in the fullness of time, he will have a quiet word with the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford. I am certainly well aware of all the factors that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and they will be borne in mind as we consider the many different elements to which we must pay attention in coming to a decision on the future tank of the British Army.

    New Zealand
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet the New Zealand Minister of Defence to discuss closer co-operation between the two countries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Tom King: I was in contact with the New Zealand Minister of Defence, Mr. Cooper, about his country's excellent contribution to allied efforts in the Gulf, but we have no early plans to meet. I had a meeting last week with Mr. McKinnon, the New Zealand deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs.
    Mr. Amos: In view of the extremely close historical and cultural links between the two countries, and given the change of Government in New Zealand last October, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the United Kingdom plays an active part in maintaining the essential defence link with that country, which has only 3 million people?
    Mr. King: I recognise the close relationship that we have had with New Zealand and continue to have in many aspects of defence. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces is with the New Zealand Defence Minister at this moment at the five power defence arrangements conference in Malaysia. We shall certainly seek to develop our defence arrangements.

    United Nations Forces
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost to his Department of the British contribution to the United Nations forces.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: The cost of United Kingdom support for United Nations forces is met by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by payment to the Ministry of Defence for the assistance provided.
    Mr. Hughes: Many people will welcome the announcement that British forces are to be replaced by United
    162
    Nations forces in Iraq. Does the Minister agree that the most effective use of British forces abroad is under the United Nations flag?
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We can all welcome the Prime Minister's brave initiative in northern Iraq. The sending of United Nations troops there is under discussion in the United Nations.

    Gulf War
    Mr. Trotter: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the extent to which the future procurement of equipment for the armed forces will be affected by the experience of the Gulf war.
    Mr. Alan Clark: We are considering the outcome of the campaign and the conclusions to be drawn from it in this as in other areas.
    Mr. Trotter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the detailed lessons to be learnt from the Gulf campaign may be, there can be no doubt that we still need tanks for the British Army? Does he agree also that there is no reason why we should not proceed with placing a new order and that that order should be for the successful Challenger?
    Mr. Clark: I agree with the general lesson that my hon. Friend has drawn. As I have said, we are considering all the elements that we need to consider in coming to a decision on the winner of the competition, and I hope that the decision will not be delayed too long.
    Mr. Nellist: Should not one of the lessons of the Gulf war—about the availability of equipment—be absorbed not only within the right hon. Gentleman's Department but commercially? For example, the Birmingham arms fair will open two weeks from today. What is the difference between General Pinochet and Saddam Hussein? Why is the Department laying out the red-carpet treatment for the Butcher of Santiago to come to this country, go to Royal Ordnance plc, go to British Aerospace, and, in two weeks today, go to Birmingham? Has the Department learnt nothing at all from the Gulf?
    Mr. Clark: Neither General Pinochet nor Saddam Hussein has ever been, or ever will be, an official guest of the British Government.

    Horseshoe Barracks, Shoeburyness
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the future of the Horseshoe barracks at Shoeburyness, Essex; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: We aim to sell Horseshoe barracks as soon as it is financially viable for us to move out. We hope to apply for outline planning consent later this year.
    Mr. Taylor: As this superb site of 22 acres has been virtually surplus to requirements for several years, does the Minister agree that it is time that the Government made up their mind what to do with it? Will he consider the possibility of turning it into a study centre for a university or other institution of learning?
    Mr. Carlisle: I understand my hon. Friend's wish to see this site put to a beneficial purpose. The Government are anxious to help, provided that we can afford to move and that we have the support of the local authority for a sensitive development.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Prime Minister recall that when he was a parliamentary candidate in 1983 he gave a commitment, on the questionnaire he returned to the World Development Movement, that he would want to see British aid increased, over a period of five years, to the official United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of the country's national wealth? Will he confirm that the level of official aid is now running at well under half that target figure, at a time when 27 million people on the continent of Africa face the prospect of imminent starvation? Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his credibility as Prime Minister is at stake? If he does not find the money to meet the commitment that he made in 1983, his credibility will be severely dented.
    The Prime Minister: The important point is that our aid programme is both effective and growing. Where necessary, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen in the case of the Kurds, we provide extra and well-targeted aid. For example, we have now provided more than £60 million to aid the Kurds, and the amount is rising each week. We still accept the principle of the 0·7 per cent. aid target, and like other donors, we shall move to it as and when economic circumstances permit.
    Mr. Dunn: Can the Prime Minister give a guarantee that the advanced level examination will be maintained, and not diluted or weakened in any way whatsoever?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will shortly announce comprehensive proposals for 16 to 19-year-olds. I agree with the point that my hon. Friend has made so clearly—that the Opposition's proposals for slimmed-down A-levels are likely to mean more certificates, but certificates of less value.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to reject the view of his Secretary of State for Health, who says that cuts in the numbers of doctors and nurses and cuts in patient care in opted-out hospitals are nothing to do with him?
    The Prime Minister: There are two things that I hope that the right hon. Gentleman knows about the health service-first, the vast increases that there have been in the numbers of doctors, nurses and other people in the service and, secondly, that the purpose of the reforms is to make sure that the management of the service becomes as efficient as its medical delivery.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us where he thinks responsibility lies? The managers of the the Guy's and Lewisham opted-out hospitals have said that there will be
    "substantial and inevitable reductions in direct patient care."
    How can the Prime Minister justify turning his back on the consequences of his own policies? Does not he think that he has a moral obligation to ensure that the loss of vital patient care services at Guy's and Lewisham is not repeated anywhere else? Will he ensure that opting out is stopped right away?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman were really concerned about matters like hospital doctors, he might perhaps have looked at their pay record and have seen a real terms increase of 37 per cent. under this Government and nothing remotely like that increase under the Labour Government, for doctors' pay fell under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is not it clear from the Prime Minister's answers that when it comes to the national health service and patient care, he, like his predecessor, could not care less?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should know that I am personally committed to the national health service, and that I want the management of the service to be as efficient as the medical care in the service. Unless and until it is, we shall not deliver the level or amount of patient care that we need.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: If my right hon. Friend has read the latest Labour party document——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Even if he has, would the hon. and learned Gentleman please ask a question relating to the Prime Minister's responsibility?
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: To the extent that it is readable, will my hon. Friend endorse the fact that the poorest in the country will be poorer and the part of——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman please ask a question relating to the Prime Minister's responsibility? He may not ask the Prime Minister directly about the Opposition's policy.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend, as a matter of his responsibility, having read that document, ensure that a Labour Government never return, so that the poor do not get poorer? The part of the country that would get poorest would be Scotland.
    The Prime Minister: In answer to my hon. and learned Friend's direct question; willingly I will make sure that a Labour Government are never returned to power. I think that Labour's policies will be of some assistance in that, for the electorate know that it has no fresh policies and no fresh ideas and that many of its policies, like renationalisation of British Telecom, it fails to put in its policy documents.
    Mr. Archer: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time to recognise in some way that today is the anniversary of the

    165
    completion in 1821 of the first iron steamship, all the components of which were completed in one factory in the industrial black country, launching an industry which over the years offered employment to millions? Since over the past 12 months the numbers employed in manufacturing industry have fallen by 178,000, does the Prime Minister wish to remember our industrial history, or does he agree with his Secretary of State for Education and Science that history is unnecessary and perhaps better forgotten—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are taking a long time over this history lesson.
    Mr. Archer:—or does he find it hard to make up his mind?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, apart from misquoting my right hon. and learned Friend, has picked an odd day to raise that point because, as the Confederation of British Industry business agenda brochure shows, manufacturing output has just risen to new record heights, and in the last quarter of 1990 it stood 50 per cent. higher than in the first quarter of 1981.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread support for his personal vision of a first-class education for everyone? To that end, will not the promised pay review body for teachers bring better professional status for them without the strikes that have so damaged education? Does not that mean a better deal for teachers all round, for children and in the end for the prosperity of the country?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that it does. I believe that the introduction of a pay review body for teachers will be warmly welcomed. The House will have noticed that at the end of a six-hour debate yesterday, no one was clear whether the Opposition were for or against the pay review body, because the National Union of Teachers had not yet told them.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ross: Can the Prime Minister confirm that when Peter Griffiths was given the job of running the opted-out Guy's Hospital, the salary for that post was doubled to £90,000 a year, and both he and his wife were given cars? What possible justification for this scandalous misuse of public money can there be when much-needed doctors and nurses at the same hospital are facing the sack?
    The Prime Minister: Peter Griffiths has the job of ensuring the adequate and proper delivery of services and he is committed to achieving that. What has so frequently damaged services in the national health service is that whenever there has been a move towards natural and necessary rationalisation, the Opposition have turned it into a political football.
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Colvin: If one man's pay rise is another man's job loss, how many jobs does my right hon. Friend think are being lost in Britain this year as a result of the astronomic pay rises which Britain's top business men awarded themselves last year? Is it not the duty of leaders to give a lead on pay restraint?
    The Prime Minister: Pay must always reflect both performance and responsibility. In many countries, pay already includes a large performance element and I thoroughly welcome that. In the difficult months that we have recently seen many top managers have held or cut their pay, and that is an excellent example.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that many in our country will feel pride at the role that he and Britain have played in relieving the suffering of the Kurds? However, many will have felt dismay at the complacent answer which he has just given on the African famine. Does he not realise the scale of that disaster, in which not 1 million but more than 20 million lives are now at risk? Will he assure the House and the nation that he will apply the same determination to making sure that we play our part in relieving that towering tragedy that he applied to assisting the Kurds?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his first remark. As to his latter remarks, I would remind him that this country has committed something over £4 billion to Africa in the past decade and that we invariably play a significant part in dealing with the tragedies that occasionally occur, not only in Africa but elsewhere. Even as the right hon. Gentleman asks his question, we are examining what assistance might be given to Bangladesh in the aftermath of the cyclone.
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Viggers: In the difficult international climate for business expansion and employment, is it not clear that the countries that will benefit first from a renewal of confidence will be those with flexible work practices? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the worst that could happen would be for us to adopt the statutory pay and training schemes advocated by the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The greatest danger, of course, would be to adopt the Labour party's minimum wage plans which, were the right hon. Gentleman to implement them, would inflict not the 750,000 to 1 million job losses that we thought they would but between 1 million and 2 million job losses.
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to read early-day motion 747, which has been signed by

    167
    148 Members who are worried about the proposed takeover of the Tootal Group plc by Coats Viyella plc and the impact on jobs in the textile industry? Is he aware that 540 workers at the Tootal Slimma works in St. Helens fear that they will face the sack if that unnecessary bid succeeds? Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the
    168
    Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to change his mind and refer this unnecessary bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
    The Prime Minister: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are in no position to talk about unemployment while they hold to their minimum wage proposals.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This morning, the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that he would uphold the appeal by Nirex against the refusal to grant planning permission for test boring in Caithness. As you will appreciate, this is a matter of great concern and controversy in Scotland. People are afraid that the decision will allow Nirex to go ahead with any scheme it has to build a deep depository for nuclear waste in Caithness.
In a debate last Thursday led by the Scottish Office, there was broad agreement among almost every party that contributed and among all hon. Members, whether for or against the nuclear industry, that Caithness was not a preferred option for such a scheme. In those circumstances, may I ask whether the Government have said that they will make a statement or offer an explanation about a matter that clearly will be of great interest to the people of Scotland?
Mr. Speaker: I take it that that matter arose after 12 o'clock, when I consider such matters?
Mr. Dewar: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member's comments are correct, I am sure that they will have been heard by the Government Front Benchers who are responsible for these matters?
Mr. James Wallace: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does it concern a matter raised today?
Mr. Wallace: The point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is valid, but the Secretary of State for the Environment is ultimately responsible for Nirex and the policy which it is pursuing. Although the Secretary of State for Scotland could have denied planning permission, the Secretary of State for the Environment can clear up this matter and take away this blight from the north of Scotland if he instructs Nirex to get packing and leave Caithness.
Mr. Speaker: That is as may be, but that matter should be raised at another time.

Points of Order
  BILLS PRESENTED
    BAN OF IMPORTS (CHILD LABOUR)
    Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, supported by Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. George Galloway, Mr. Keith Vaz and Mr. Mike Watson, presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of imported goods, the manufacture of which has involved child labour: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 May and to be printed. [Bill 148.]

    GAMING MACHINES (PROHIBITION ON USE BY PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN)
    Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, supported by Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. John Hughes, Dr. John Reid, Mr. David Marshall, Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mr. Michael J.
    170
    Martin, Mr. Robert Litherland, Mr. Stanley Orme and Mr. Thomas Graham, presented a Bill to prohibit the use of gaming machines in cafeterias, small shops, amusement arcades, snack bars, fairgrounds and other places by persons under the age of eighteen: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 May and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
Mrs. Alice Mahon rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must see that I am on my feet.
By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the Estate Agents (Specified Offences) (No. 2) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1091) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Estate Agents (Undesirable Practices) (No. 2) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1032) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Employment Codes of Practice (Revocation) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Veterinary Surgeons Qualifications (EEC Recognition) (German Democratic Republic Qualifications) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]
Mr. Speaker: Now, what point of order can arise out of that matter?
Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you examine the Official Report? When you have done so, will you instruct the Secretary of State for Defence to issue an apology to me? He gravely impugned my character. He suggested that I was in some way unpatriotic, which is not true. I was criticising the Government—not the country, not the generosity of the British people and certainly not the bravery of our troops.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one matter at a time, please. I must say to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that I am sure that the Secretary of State would not make that allegation against any hon. Member. Many rough things are said in the Chamber. I am not responsible for answers or for questions, provided they are in order.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would give further consideration to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). I take exactly the opposite view to her on the Gulf war, but she is an hon. Member of the utmost integrity. It would be extremely unfortunate if people gained a different impression from the Secretary of State. An apology is due to her.
Mr. Speaker: I say again, rough things are said here. I am sure that what the hon. Lady has alleged will be reported to the Secretary of State for Defence, and that if he has impugned the hon. Lady's honour, he will apologise to her.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Goodness me. We have a very busy day ahead of us.
Mr. Dalyell: It is true, Mr. Speaker, that many rough things are said in this Chamber, but what is entirely new is calculated rudeness in the answers that Ministers give to questions.
Mr. Speaker: As we approach an election—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—it is probably true that the temperature rises a bit in this place. Ten-minute Bill—Mr. Banks.
Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Defence questions, certain questions were asked of the Secretary of Stale, and answered by the Under- Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, about the future of naval bases. The Prime Minister is in his place now, and has an opportunity to consider the co-ordination of policy in respect of that matter. It is extremely disturbing when Ministers make statements——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is clearly attempting a continuation of Question Time under the guise of a point of order. We cannot deal with his point now.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did I hear you say, "As we approach an election"? If so, can you give us a date?
Mr. Speaker: It was unwise of me to express an opinion. Mr. Tony Banks.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Tony Banks: Mine will soon be a five-minute Bill.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order for me, or about me?
Mr. Ewing: I always try to clear up misunderstandings, Mr. Speaker. When you referred to the onset of an election, did you have in mind a general election, or the election of a new Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: They are synonymous.

Abolition of Political Honours
3.36 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I now realise, Mr. Speaker, that this might be a touchy subject.
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish political honours; and for connected purposes.
Some argue that the honours system should be abolished altogether—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Obviously a number of my colleagues have no expectation of honours to come, and agree that the honours system should be abolished lock, stock and barrel-—or rather, coronet, garter and gong.
I suspect that such a proposal would not be universally popular in the House or in the country as a whole. Most people seem to agree that a country should maintain an honours system that enables the community to express its gratitude to those who have rendered a signal service. I refer to acts of bravery or heroism involving the saving of life; people who have dedicated their lives to the service of others without expectation of preferment or advantage; and those who have enhanced, beautified, or enriched our lives through their contribution to science, the arts, sport or entertainment.
Society will always want to acknowledge such contributions in some fashion, and an honours system is one way. Of course, one cannot beat decent wages and conditions, but the honours system can be an acceptable way of saying thank you. It pleases the recipient, and does not cost the rest of us an arm and a leg.
Unfortunately, the honours system has always been wholly or partially corrupt. Large numbers of those who regard themselves members of today's so-called nobility are nothing more than latter-day beneficiaries of past political, financial, or sexual favours rendered unto past kings, queens and prime ministers. The mind boggles at that latter category.
One recalls the famous quotation of the Rev. John Ball:
"When Adam dolve, and Eve span,
Who was then the gentleman?"
That puts the entire concept of class and nobility into perspective.
In the modern age, Lloyd George blew the gaff on the whole system by playing the part of the honest crook and openly selling honours. The scandal broke with the publication of the 1922 honours list and resulted in the establishment of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in 1924 to ensure that the most obviously corrupt nominees for honours were weeded out.
That task has proved difficult for the Committee, which has enjoyed a rather patchy record since 1924. Notwithstanding all its efforts, a large number of honoured individuals have turned out to be traitors, crooks and miscreants.
At present, the noble Lords Shackleton, Pym and Grimond are doing the laundering, and they have a great problem on their hands. However, my Bill—if it were allowed to be introduced—would replace the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee with a joint Select Committee of both Houses.
The honours system undoubtedly continues to give pleasure to recipients, but there is a growing awareness among the public that the system is fixed and decidedly tacky. Indeed, the honours system might better be

173
described in certain vital respects as the kickback or pay-off system. The time has come to make some fundamental and cleansing changes to the entire system.
Many of today's awards do not fall into the categories that I listed. They are not honours bestowed for conspicuous bravery or service but rather the routine gongs handed out in the civil service and military forces on the less than distinguished basis of Buggins' turn. The honours go according to rank in those services and are allocated in a ratio of honours to post holders.
There is a wide range of honours to choose from, since they consist of five degrees of the peerage; one of baronets; 14 knighthoods or orders comprising 11 different methods of securing a knighthood—28 ranks in all, excluding the two Indian and one Irish order which have now lapsed since independence, which account for another seven ranks, plus 27 medals or decorations.
The entire edifice reeks of snobbery and class division. If the Prime Minister meant what he said about a classless society, he could do a lot worse than start on the honours system and eliminate some of those preposterous awards. We know that there are class divisions galore in the civil service and the armed forces. Routine awarding of honours to those people simply reinforces and reflects that class system.
Honours given to civil servants and senior military officers as a matter of course, accompanying their not insubstantial pay and rations, are not worthy of being described as honours. Thus, the next recommendation in my Bill would be to exclude all civil servants and military personnel from receiving routine honours.
The next category of people who should normally be precluded from receiving honours are politicans—[Interruption.] I expected that to go down a lot worse. Since politicians and civil servants decide who is to be recommended for honours, it is no mere coincidence that so many civil servants and politicians receive honours.
In 1979, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) revised the practice of awarding party political honours. Those honours are used by party Whips and Prime Ministers as a way to exercise control. Honours are employed as an integral and important part of the patronage system, which is so debilitating of principle and integrity in politics today.
Both the right hon. Member for Finchley and her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), justified their use of party political honours on the basis that political parties were integral to the democratic process. One accepts that, but, that being so, why do we not publicly fund political parties and cease the use of the honours system as a way of rewarding time servers in this House and corporate financiers outside it?
Having said that my Bill would normally preclude honours for Members of Parliament, there must still be room for the appointment of working peers to the House of Lords while it exists in its present form—we saw the announcement that was made today.
I now come to the most venal and cynical use of the honours system—as a way of rewarding business men who give money and newspaper editors who give unstinting support to the Conservative party. That practice represents the selling of honours by any other name.
174
I asked the Labour Research Department—an independent body which is not connected to the Labour party—to collate the money provided by big business to the Tory party since 1979, with the honours received by the chairmen and managing directors of those same companies. I refer only to peerages and knighthoods, and where the company was mentioned in the citation. The statistics show that over £12 million was received by the Tory party from those companies. In return, their chairmen and managing directors received a total of 75 peerages and knighthoods. It works out at a going rate of around £160,000 an honour, a sum which would have pleased Maundy Gregory, Lloyd George's hawker of titles, but which is unlikely to enhance the integrity of the honours system today. My Bill would preclude anyone at board or executive level from accepting an honour if their company has made a donation to a political party, whether Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour, so I am being wholly impartial.
The Bill would also exclude working journalists from receiving honours. The recent honouring of the editors of the Daily Express a and the Daily Star by the last Prime Minister was revolting. It was obviously their pay-off for being loyal Tory hacks. Democracy needs impartial and objective media. No self-respecting journalist should ever accept a party political honour. Politicians using the honours system to buy the media is even more dangerous than selling peerages on a street corner.
In short, the honours system has been hijacked by the party political machines, particularly that of the Tory party which shamelessly exploits the system for its own base purposes. If we are to retain an honours system, it should be based on criteria that are publicly known and approved of. It should be restricted to those persons whose services to the community are acknowledged by common consent to be worthy of reward. Excluding time-serving civil servants, politicians, brass hats, Tory business men and hack journalists would be widely welcomed in the country. I seek the leave of the House to introduce my Bill and begin the cleansing process.
3.46 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor rose——
Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Taylor: Yes, I want to oppose it.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn rose——[Interruption.]
Mr. Taylor: I hope that the House—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has the right to oppose the Bill.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: What possible point of order can arise on my having called the hon. Member for Southend, East to oppose this ten-minute Bill?
Mr. Canavan: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is quite admissible. Does not a knight take precedence over a mere commoner?
Mr. Speaker: As the House knows, I need give no reasons for my decision.
Mr. Taylor: After that typical cross comment, I appeal to the House to reject this absurd Bill. I ought to say straight away that I have no personal interest whatsoever in it. Even if the Prime Minister were to offer me a political honour, my wife would stop me taking it because she is more of a democrat than I.
I want to make it abundantly clear that at this stage we must not abolish political honours. By so doing, we should abolish about the only remaining power of a British Prime Minister. Nothing would be worse for the status and morale of our revered Prime Minister and those who may follow him if we took away the one thing that he can do himself.
I shall give three examples. First, this morning in the Court of Appeal, our Sunday trading laws were effectively wrecked, on the basis of an application by some stores which said that our laws were contrary to the treaty of Rome. They won their case. Even if the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister, the Liberals and all the other political parties want Sunday trading laws, we cannot have them. The decision has been made to dump them, because of the treaty of Rome.
Secondly, we are now all talking about lotteries. We used to be opposed to lotteries, but now we find that Ministers are suddenly thinking that they are a great idea. We have to ask ourselves why. The only reason is that a case is being pursued through the courts by German lottery salesmen who say that it is illegal for us under the treaty of Rome to stop lottery tickets being sold. We know that, and the power has already gone.
Thirdly, there is the potato crisps issue. Surely, if one issue should still be for the House of Commons and the Prime Minister to decide, it is what potato crisps we can produce in Britain. This week, not because the European Parliament or our Parliament wanted it, but simply because Mr. Bangemann had had a bad breakfast, he said that certain potato crisps could not be produced in Britain.
Our glorious Prime Ministers used to make treaties and laws, and Members of Parliament thought they had some meaningful role to play in making laws, spending money and keeping control of it, so for goodness' sake let us retain for our Prime Minister the only effective power that Jacques Delors is willing to let him have—the award of political honours. Let those who want them have them, and let the Prime Minister sit down at his breakfast table and say, "Who will I give this to and who will I give that to?" Quite frankly, there is precious little that a Prime Minister can do. The House should reject the Bill, save the Prime Minister's freedom and integrity and at least let him have something still to do.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 90.

Division No. 131]

(3.50 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Allen, Graham

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

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Boyes, Roland

Ashton, Joe

Bradley, Keith

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Barron, Kevin

Buckley, George J.

Battle, John

Caborn, Richard

Beckett, Margaret

Callaghan, Jim

Beith, A. J.

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

176

Canavan, Dennis

McNamara, Kevin

Cartwright, John

Madden, Max

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Clelland, David

Marek, Dr John

Cohen, Harry

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Cryer, Bob

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Dalyell, Tarn

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Darling, Alistair

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Morgan, Rhodri

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

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Dixon, Don

Nellist, Dave

Doran, Frank

O'Neill, Martin

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Parry, Robert

Eadie, Alexander

Patchett, Terry

Eastham, Ken

Pendry, Tom

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Primarolo, Dawn

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Radice, Giles

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Redmond, Martin

Fatchett, Derek

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Fearn, Ronald

Richardson, Jo

Flannery, Martin

Rogers, Allan

Flynn, Paul

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Rost, Peter

Foulkes, George

Rowlands, Ted

Fyfe, Maria

Sedgemore, Brian

Galbraith, Sam

Sheerman, Barry

Golding, Mrs Llin

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Gordon, Mildred

Short, Clare

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Skinner, Dennis

Grocott, Bruce

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

Hain, Peter

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

Hardy, Peter

Spearing, Nigel

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Hinchliffe, David

Steinberg, Gerry

Hood, Jimmy

Strang, Gavin

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Hoyle, Doug

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Turner, Dennis

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Vaz, Keith

Illsley, Eric

Wallace, James

Kennedy, Charles

Walley, Joan

Kirkwood, Archy

Wareing, Robert N.

Leighton, Ron

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Wigley, Dafydd

Loyden, Eddie

Winnick, David

McAllion, John

Wray, Jimmy

McCartney, Ian

McFall, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Ms. Diane Abbott and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

McKelvey, William

NOES

Arbuthnot, James

Fox, Sir Marcus

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Ashby, David

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Atkinson, David

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Batiste, Spencer

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Grist, Ian

Bevan, David Gilroy

Grylls, Michael

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Harris, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Haselhurst, Alan

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hayward, Robert

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Brazier, Julian

Holt, Richard

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

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hunter, Andrew

Buck, Sir Antony

Jessel, Toby

Butterfill, John

King, Roger (B'ham N'thtield)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Lawrence, Ivan

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Cormack, Patrick

McCrindle, Sir Robert

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Marlow, Tony

Durant, Sir Anthony

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Dykes, Hugh

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Evennett, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

177

Monro, Sir Hector

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Nelson, Anthony

Speed, Keith

Neubert, Sir Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Nicholls, Patrick

Stokes, Sir John

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Page, Richard

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

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Thornton, Malcolm

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Powell, William (Corby)

Tracey, Richard

Price, Sir David

Tredinnick, David

Rattan, Keith

Ward, John

Riddick, Graham

Warren, Kenneth

Roe, Mrs Marion

Watts, John

Rowe, Andrew

Wheeler, Sir John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Tellers for the Noes:

Shersby, Michael

Mr. Teddy Taylor and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. David Winnick, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Martin Redmond, Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Harry Cohen.

Abolition of Political Honours
  ABOLITION OF POLITICAL HONOURS
  Mr. Tony Banks accordingly presented a Bill to abolish political honours; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 May and to be printed. [Bill 150.]
Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  [Relevant document: Second Report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of Session 1990–91 on the 1991 Budget ( HC289)]
  4.1 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill implements the measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. As background to today's debate, the House has the benefit of the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on the Budget—a thoughtful and thorough document. I am glad that so many members of the Select Committee are here for the debate. I hope that its Chairman and others will succeed in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker.
  We are studying its recommendations carefully and will respond fully in due course. This is not the place to comment in detail, but perhaps I might briefly address one point made by the Committee. It was apprehensive in its report about the pace and strength of recovery. It is always difficult to forecast a turning point, but there is now accumulating evidence of one. Retail prices index inflation has fallen 2·7 points from its peak in 1990. Recent surveys show a rise in business and consumer confidence. Only this morning the CBI's quarterly trends survey showed a marked increase in optimism and output expectations. In the three months to February, private housing orders were up 12 per cent. over the previous three and exports, excluding oil and so-called erratic items, grew 2 per cent. in the year to March. That is firm evidence of the underlying strength and competitiveness of British business.
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The engineering employers association for Sheffield has just published its April quarterly survey of its members. It is as contemporary as the report that the Chief Secretary is quoting in his aid. It offers no support for his view about a recovery in business confidence among engineering employers in south Yorkshire.
  Mr. Mellor: If that is the case, I regret it. We can rely only on the national survey that was published today and on other evidence from which it is clear that there is a recovery of confidence. We are confident that that will lead to an increase in activity. All the business organisations have stated that the growth in the strength of so many companies in many different areas of economic activity during the 1980s means that the British economy is now far better equipped to come out of a recession than it was during the previous recession. I appreciate that that fact does not suit the Labour party's case, but it is what all the business organisations are saying and it is a matter of fundamental significance to this debate.
  Mr. Giles Radice: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have noted that the chairman of the CBI said today, when commenting on the report:
  "We should not underestimate the severity of the current recession and its impact on industry."

  179
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to listen to those words.
  Mr. Mellor: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman is referring to a quotation from Sir Brian Corby—
  Mr. Radice: From Mr. David Wigglesworth, the chairman of the CBI's economic situation committee.
  Mr. Mellor: Well, the president of the CBI, Sir Brian Corby, said this very month:
  "Underlying confidence in the strength of British industry and commerce is much stronger than in the early 80s—quite rightly in the light of the improvements in productivity and profitability that we have seen over the past decade … This is a better picture than is currently believed to be the case. Indeed, part of the problem that manufacturing industry faces in the UK today is that perceptions lag behind reality."
  That is the crucial point.
  Mr. David Winnick rose——
  Mr. Mellor: I have already given way twice and so that I do not unnecessarily detain the House, I shall continue for a while and then give way.
  Mr. Winnick: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on this particular point?
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is extremely persistent. I hope that he will appreciate that it will not be evasion if I do not give way so many times later in my speech, but I shall give way to him now.
  Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the Chief Secretary. Was he in his place during Prime Minister's Question Time when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) referred to what is happening in the black country and throughout the west midlands? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that hardly a single day goes by in my region without some news of further redundancies or closures? The west midlands fears that it will go through the same sort of thing under this Government as in the early 1980s. Will that be the case?
  Mr. Mellor: I have said that many companies are passing through difficult times, but I have also said that it is undeniably true that the exports figures to the end of the first quarter of this year show an increase over the preceding year of 2 per cent. Once again, that pays tribute to the underlying strength of the economy. If, as Sir Brian Corby said, perception is lagging behind reality, some Opposition Members must take their share of responsibility for any perception of gloom, given their enthusiasm for talking down the British economy.
  Mr. John Watts: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the recovery will very much depend on a revival of confidence and that Opposition Members who seek to talk down the economy and to pour gloom and despondency on the country are doing nothing either to aid the recovery or to further the interests of their constituents, not least their prospects of better jobs?
  Mr. Mellor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. His point is even more relevant when one considers what Opposition Members would try to do if they were ever elected to Government. They would make whatever situation they inherited far worse, but I have no doubt that we shall come to that later in the debate.
  Mr. Roger King rose——
  Mr. Mellor: I give way to my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I have already given way to three Opposition Members. This is only the second intervention from a Conservative Member. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will keep to that ratio in his speech.
  Mr. King: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way and will seek to press the problems of the British car industry at a later stage. However, is he aware that in the first few months of this year, its production is already running at 6 per cent. more than in the first quarter of 1990, which in itself was level with the record production of 1989? In terms of exports, therefore, the British car industry is doing better than ever before.
  Mr. Mellor: I was glad to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and I was even more glad to hear the point that he made. He is exactly right. If one industry has shown more clearly than almost any other what happened to the British economy in the 1980s as opposed to the 1960s and 1970s, it is the car industry, its rebuilding and its record of export achievement. In the 1960s and 1970s, nothing exhibited more clearly the folly of the fudge and mudge of corporatism under a Labour Government than what happened to the car industry, which is now recovering.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Mellor: The blood pressure of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East would not stand my giving way to anyone else. He is always passing responsibility to others, but I shall shoulder the burden of refusing to give way to my hon. Friends. I wish to press on.
  We were discussing the underlying strength of the British economy, which I assert and on which my hon. Friends agree. More significantly, hosts of business organisations also agree, notwithstanding the difficult times through which we are passing. It may be worth dwelling for a few moments more on the transformation of the British economy in recent years.
  Before plunging into the thicket of detail rightly contained in the Finance Bill, we must remember how far we have come from the stagnant economy over which the previous Labour Government presided. Lest I be accused of excessive partiality and as we have already heard the Opposition cite one CBI officer, let me remind the House of a striking passage in a recent publication by the CBI which was called "Business Agenda for the 1990s". It states:
  "It is all too easy to forget what the situation was like in the late 1970s. Industrial disputes, apparently regarded as inevitable, were exacerbated, if not caused by wage and price controls and over regulation. Tax avoidance and 'grantsmanship' were growth industries. Wealth was being destroyed rather than created, with negative real returns in many businesses. Investment in all its forms—new plant, innovation and skills—fell back. Britain's share of world trade was declining, seemingly inexorably. Failure was almost expected, success a surprise."
  That is the CBI's comment on what happened in the 1970s and that was what we inherited.
  The strength of the British economy since then has surprised many people because, despite the current recession, the past 10 years have been a success story. We have cut through the tangle of unnecessary controls which immobilised industry. We have reformed the tax regime

  181
  for business and for individuals and that process is taken a stage further in the Finance Bill. Tax rates, which were punitively high under Labour, have been reduced and we have already done away completely with six taxes. We have made far-reaching changes to trade union law, while keeping a firm grip on expenditure. As a result, the nation's finances have been transformed and the budget brought back into balance, far from the days when the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) might have echoed the words of President Hoover: "Blessed are the young for they shall inherit the national debt."
  The results were dramatic by any standards. For eight years, the United Kingdom economy grew by an average of 3 per cent. a year.
  Dr. Lewis Moonie rose——
  Mr. Mellor: I shall finish this point. [Interruption.] I was saying that President Hoover would have lined up with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East in his addiction to the national debt and its growth and to saddling future generations with the cost of borrowing to sustain unsustainable public expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government in 1975 when the public sector borrowing requirement was—in today's cash terms—£60 billion. It is against that background that we might find ironic criticism of the limited PSBR that we shall be running this year.
  Mr. John Smith: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been claiming that the Government have been successful during their period in office, will he comment on an answer given by one of his colleagues? When asked what was the annual average economic growth for 1979 to the end of 1981, the answer was 1¾ per cent. Is that a creditable record?
  Mr. Mellor: In the first two years, we dealt with the recession caused by the economic mayhem of the previous Labour Government. The question that perhaps should be asked is about the position since 1982, as the benefits of our policies came into effect.
  Mr. Smith: That is ridiculous.
  Mr. Mellor: The right hon. and learned Gentleman would say that. However, when did a Labour Government last give us eight years or even five years of sustained growth of more than 3 per cent. with investment, much of of it in productive capacity, at 80 per cent.? When did a Labour Government last give us that kind of record on productivity, output and on all the indicators in which we used to be bottom of the league during the 1970s, but in which we have been top of the league during the 1980s? When, under a Labour Government, did the British economy grow faster than the economies of the majority of the G7 countries? The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East would be hard pressed to find a precedent.
  Mr. David Shaw: Has my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary had time to consider the latest Labour party document and the costings carried out by people in the City of the Labour party's programme showing a total of £50 billion? Are there any Treasury
  182
  estimates of the level of interest rates required if the public sector borrowing requirement was increased by £50 billion a year?
  Mr. Mellor: A very interesting story will be told quite soon about the cost of Labour's programme. That story will be a revelation. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) referred to Labour's policies. In their enthusiasm, for electoral or other reasons, to ditch the neo-Trotskyists of the early 1980s who dominated so much of Labour's thinking we are back—in the words of Sam Brittan upon which I cannot improve—to the soft collectivism of the 1960s and 1970s which failed under Wilson and Callaghan. That involved national assessments, interference, quangos, the things that were solemn and binding and the minimum wage. Although all those matters are probably more properly the subject for another debate, Tory Members approach them with some relish. There is precious little evidence that Labour Members can say anything about the state of the economy today that would in any way be improved by the remedies that they propose. Indeed, it is hard to think of a remedy that was not tried in the 1960s and 1970s which did not fail catastrophically.
  In the 1980s the United Kingdom's GDP, investment and manufacturing productivity grew faster than that of Germany or France. Our ability to compete was restored internationally. Profitability reached a peak in the late 1980s and was at its highest level since 1973 living down the problems of the late 1970s. Combined with dramatic improvements in capital productivity, there is clear evidence of the higher quality of investments as well as of higher levels. That basic underlying strength is pulling the British economy through this recession.
  I wish to consider the Bill against that background. I recall that happy phrase, "To govern is to choose." The Budget is full of wise choices. The Budget's first priority is to help businesses of all sizes both immediately and as they plan for future recovery.
  Clauses 22 to 24 deal with corporation tax.
  Mr. Michael Grylls: There is a very imaginative proposal in the Budget about carrying back corporation tax from losses against profits in earlier years—from one year to three years. That is very helpful because it gives a cash injection at a time of recession. We all welcome it because it will help companies in a difficult position. Obviously my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will not be able to answer my question now. However, will he consider putting that date back further because the date of 31 March 1991 announced in the Budget would mean that the cash injection for those companies would not arrive until 1992? One needs a lifeboat when one needs it, not when the storm is over. If that date could be brought back to 31 March 1990, companies would receive the cash this year when they most need it.
  Mr. Mellor: I shall certainly reflect on what my hon. Friend said, knowing that few hon. Members have more knowledge of what is happening with business, particularly small business, than he has.
  I now refer to the principal clauses, 22 to 24, on corporation tax. Clause 22 cuts the main rate of corporation tax for 1990 to 34 per cent. That allows companies to keep £380 million in profits which they were expecting to pay in tax. Clause 23 goes a step further by

  183
  cutting the rate for 1991 to 33 per cent. That double cut will benefit 80,000 companies to the tune of £830 million in 1992–93. That will increase the reward to profitable investment without subsidising uneconomic investment. It represents what I hope the House will consider to be a worthy further step along a road on which we so dramatically set out in 1984 when the main rate of corporation tax was cut from 52 per cent. to 35 per cent. Of course, that gave us the lowest taxes on companies of any economy in the industrialised world. Other countries then followed our example. Now we are setting the pace again. That is a worthy point with which to start our detailed consideration of the Bill.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The Chief Secretary will set the matter in context, will he not, and compare the gains from that useful measure with the £1·6 billion additional spending by business on the uniform business rate, which has gone up by an amount much higher than the actual rate of inflation?
  Mr. Mellor: That is not a fair statistic. The hon. Gentleman knows that what we have done for business is to remove the vagaries of local government decision-taking that we can see in London. Perhaps it resulted in booms in business in sensibly run areas such as Wandsworth, where I have my constituency, but it left large swathes of London denuded of industrial investment. People were not prepared to invest because of the increase in business rates imposed by left-wing authorities. The hon. Gentleman will know also that, although there is a difficult transitional period—there was bound to be—the maximum increase for the business rate is tied to the rate of inflation. That is the maximum. Over the past decade, the actual increase in business rates was 40 per cent. above the rise in inflation. We know that, in 1978, in boroughs such as Ealing and Waltham Forest, rates were put up 50 per cent. overnight. That was the reason. It is worth noting that the policies of the Labour party are to give back to councils that power to raise taxes locally from business. I am sure that that point will not be lost on the business community.
  Clause 24 raises profit limits for small companies and, of course, the limit for marginal relief both by 25 per cent. That will benefit about 30,000 companies. It means that the limit for small companies rate has now been raised by 150 per cent. in the past three years—a real help to small companies. Of course, as well as rewarding success and allowing companies to keep more of their profits, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) pointed out, we have made arrangements so that those who temporarily make a loss can recover back taxes paid in the three previous years.
  It is worth noting also that all levels of business are important and that all levels of business require assistance. That is why, in clause 64, my right hon. Friend helps small firms as well as larger ones with losses by allowing unincorporated businesses to set off trading losses against capital gains, just as companies may already do. That is a help.
  The total value to British industry and commerce of this package of measures relating to company taxes is £1·1 billion next year—money that can be used for productive investment. Of course, we have gone beyond that and
  184
  made other efforts to change the way in which the tax system works when those in business who have to operate it told us ways in which it could work better.
  Sir Robert McCrindle: In directing his attention not only to small companies that need assistance but to large companies, will my right hon. and learned Friend include building societies? If that is the case, will he be prepared to look again at clause 50? People are saying to me and, I suspect, to other hon. Members that that clause is a vehicle not only for retrospective legislation but for double taxation. As this stems from a court victory by one building society, would not it be extremely unfair that it should result in the Government's gaining about £250 million in taxation? That would represent a reduction in the capacity of the building societies to lend, just at a time when we hope that the housing market is beginning to prosper again, and it would have an adverse effect on investment.
  Mr. Mellor: As the immortal Jim Hacker would have said, I am glad that my hon. Friend asked me that question. It gives me an opportunity to deal with a point that is giving rise to concern among a number of hon. Members. I shall deal with clause 50 as thoroughly as I can. As my hon. Friend knows, the Finance Act 1985 made changes in the manner in which building societies pay tax on the interest paid to their investors. Previously those money had been rendered up in one lump sum on 1 January each year. The change meant that, from the tax year beginning in April 1986, those moneys had to be rendered up quarterly, as had been done for some time in the case of banks and other financial institutions.
  Regulations to deal with a problem that was very openly signposted at that time were laid before the House. Building societies have different year ends, and we needed to cover the period between the end of their 1985–86 year and the beginning of April 1986, when the new arrangements were to come into force. The regulations charged building societies at the 1985–86 rate of tax. One case went all the way to the House of Lords, which determined that, while it was lawful for the Government to make arrangements for those moneys to be liable to tax, it was ultra vires that we should apply, by way of the regulations, the rate that prevailed in 1985–86. It was only right that tax should be rendered up on moneys withheld from interest payments to investors. The court's determination was that it was lawful—of course, it must be—for tax to be paid, but not lawful for a rate to be applied. That is the present position.
  The Bill will put us in the situation in which we understood ourselves to be before the House of Lords gave its judgment, and will apply the 1985–86 tax rate. Without it, a number of building societies would make windfall profits, as the moneys that they had withheld—perfectly properly-from interest payments to their depositors would not then be liable to be rendered up. The moneys would not go to depositors. There is no question of double taxation; the issue is whether there should be taxation at all. The amount involved is £250 million. This is the basis of clause 50.
  Sir Robert McCrindle: I followed with great interest the technical explanation that my right hon. and learned Friend offered, and I accept at least a goodly part of it. Irrespective of the position for investors, it is extremely difficult to deny that if this £250 million ends up under

  185
  Government control, money that would have been available for future mortgages, at a time when, we hope, the housing market is beginning to move, will be in the coffers not of the building society but of my right hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. Mellor: With great respect to my hon. Friend, whose return to vigour and effectiveness in the House all of his hon. Friends welcome so much—I say that genuinely as someone who has admired and respected him throughout my time in Parliament—I cannot agree with his point. The money was interest due to depositors with building societies. If it were not for the fact that there was a tax liability, all that money would have had to be paid to investors. Moneys were withheld on the basis that they would have to be rendered up to the tax authorities. But for the fact that a change was made from annual to quarterly payment, those moneys would have been paid to the Government without argument.
  In making the change, there was a transitional period for which we thought provision had been made, between the end of the financial year of the building society through to the beginning of the financial year in which the new arrangement would come into effect, in which the tax rates prevailing for 1985–86 would apply. The only consequence of no tax being applied would be that moneys had been deducted by building societies from interest properly due to their investors which, because they were not rendered up to the taxation authorities, would go, in my judgment quite undeservedly, into the coffers of the building societies themselves. That is the position. All that we are doing is restoring the position to what everyone understood it to be until it was subject to legal challenge.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Mellor: I will give way once more. The fact that so many hon. Members want to make points is precisely the reason why we have a Committee stage, which will give hon. Members a chance to explore the matter further.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I try to help my right hon. and learned Friend? Is not the position that the money which was withheld from depositors would have been paid in tax in a subsequent year because the tax to be paid in the actual year had already been paid? Is not it also the position that people who had mortgages with the Woolwich or who had lent money to the Woolwich—I do both—have got their £90 million, and that all other building societies have been treated differently? Was it not the House of Lords' judgment that it was restrospective and double taxation, which the House had authorised, without knowing that it had done so? Would not it be better for the Government to think again and drop clause 50?
  Mr. Mellor: Plainly there will be plenty of opportunity in Committee to explore the matter. The position is that but for the action which the Government are taking, no tax whatsoever would be levied on a substantial sum that fell due between the end of the financial year 1985–86—whatever month that was for the building society concerned—and 6 April 1986. I take the view that that would not be acceptable. I am sorry if it is held against us, but we are expecting the normal rules of the game in regard to the Woolwich. If the Revenue loses a case, it does not
  186
  seek to take back from the litigant the benefit that has been gained. When one is dealing with £250 million, which, but for this, should have been in the pockets of depositors, there is no reason why other building societies should gain the benefit.
  I appreciate that others take a different view on the matter. One reason for Committee stages is that people apart from me will be able to justify the policy in Committee. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, a man of infinite resource, is ready and available, as is the Economic Secretary. They will be willing to entertain the Standing Committee at whatever hour of the night appears appropriate to deal with the matter.
  I shall deal briefly with some other major points in the Budget. VAT relief on bad debts was widely welcomed when the scheme came into operation in April. It is worth noting that clause 14 will halve the waiting period to one year. That will boost cash flow by some £340 million—a vital way to help growing firms on whom the burden of bad debt can be particularly heavy.
  On the serious misdeclaration penalty, clause 17 responds to widespread representations about the VAT penalty regime. I hope that it shows the value to the House of the detailed representations that hon. Members make on behalf of the business community.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: May I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend, and indeed to the Financial Secretary, that there is likely to be a good deal more bad debt in VAT if nothing is done to help the racing industry? Will he, in the course of this Finance Bill, perhaps in Committee, give the Minister of State an opportunity to report to the House on how she is getting on in her search for a solution to a problem that is seriously damaging an important industry?
  Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend the Minister of State will meet representatives of the industry next week to discuss this very point. I understand that it is because the great town of Newmarket is within my hon. Friend's constituency that he speaks as he does.
  I am anxious not to detain the House for too long, so I shall pass over a number of items in the Bill to which I might otherwise have drawn attention.
  On vocational training relief, I think that it has been widely welcomed that those who wish to improve themselves by financing training out of their own pockets will now get tax relief for it. I believe that that is a help to the work force.
  I should just pause over the policy for the family which is furthered in this Budget. Although business was the central theme of the Budget, my right hon. Friend made room for measures to benefit families. The rise in child benefit is already well known and I need say no more about it. It deals with an issue that has caused a great deal of interest in the House in recent years. I hope that this sets us on a course which the whole House will appreciate as being wise and necessary.
  There are also, of course, measures for the elderly. Clause 21 provides for the married couple's allowance generally to be unchanged, but the normal indexation provisions will continue to apply to the married couple's allowance for the elderly. For a couple over 75 the increase this year could be worth up to £4
  47 a week.
  With regard to health and the environment, I am personally pleased that in the Budget we recognise the

  187
  need to make further substantial increases in the taxes on tobacco. Clause 2 raises the duty on tobacco products by 15 per cent. That puts an extra 16p on a packet of 20 king-size cigarettes—in itself the biggest cash increase in taxes on tobacco since 1981. This, with the VAT increase, makes the total additional tax burden on 20 cigarettes about 22p. I believe that in raising the real level of total taxes on tobacco to the highest since the mid-1960s we have done the right thing for the future health of the nation.
  The duties on alcohol are increased in line with inflation. There are changes in clause 6 to the way in which we tax beer. The new system will be simpler and fairer, because the duty will be related more precisely than it is at present to alcoholic strength, so some strong beers and lagers will bear more duty. I believe that that is right, and anyone who is concerned about the problems of lager louts, particularly the extent to which strong lagers have come into fashion among youngsters today, might think that this a step in the right direction which is capable of being built on in the future.
  On the environment, this was not the year to burden industry with a tax on carbon. It was certainly not the year for the Government to strike out or take unilateral action to put our businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Nor, I thought, was it the year to introduce new complexities, such as different rates of car tax, graduated vehicle excise duty, and so on. But we have put up the cost of car use in what I believe is an acceptable way but which nevertheless leans in the direction of a policy that deals with some of the problems of pollution. The increase in fuel duties offers all of us a choice: pay more and forget about it, or think more carefully about our use of vehicles and cut costs. Of course, it adds to the incentive to buy a more fuel-efficient car, which I think is a responsible stance for us to take.
  One of the successes of the use of tax incentives to environmental ends has been the growth in the use of unleaded petrol. Four years ago the share of unleaded petrol in the United Kingdom market was negligible. A gallon of unleaded cost more than a gallon of leaded.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) introduced a tax differential to offset the cost disadvantage. Then he widened it to give motorists a positive incentive to convert to unleaded fuel. In last year's Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor widened it still further. Now, just a few years later, unleaded takes 39 per cent. of the market. This year's proposal will widen the tax differential again. It now stands at 4p a litre.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Bearing in mind my right hon. and learned Friend's comments about unleaded petrol, does he believe that there should be a move in the direction of diesel, which is also environmentally friendly, and that we should encourage its use as much as possible?
  Mr. Mellor: We always consider such issues at the time of the Budget. I know that my hon. Friend appreciates that others argue against that approach, but I shall certainly have regard to his points.
  I should not end my comments on the Budget's effects on families without mentioning the relief that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave community charge payers. We have already enacted legislation to give effect to that. There cannot be a free lunch. The Bill implements the other parts of the switch from local to central
  188
  Government taxation. Clause 12 raises the rate of VAT to 17·5 per cent. In the circumstances in which we found ourselves, that was an appropriate step to take.
  VAT is a proportionate tax—the more we spend, the more we pay. Our zero-rated range is wider than that of any other European Community country. When we buy zero-rated items, we pay no tax. On average, half our spending on goods and services is on zero-rated items. Those are weighted heavily towards the necessities of life. I cannot improve on the comment in The Guardian after the Budget:
  "Using VAT to pay for the reduction in the poll tax was thus a broadly progressive measure."
  On that occasion at least, The Guardian was right.
  Mr. John Battle rose——
  Mr. Mellor: With respect, I have given way a lot. I have probably more than outstayed my welcome and I must conclude. If one gives way, one always faces the danger that people will say, "He spoke for far too long."
  Mr. John Smith: No, carry on.
  Mr. Mellor: I wish to draw attention to two points. Despite the injunction of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East for me to carry on, I shall resist temptation. On fairness, clause 26, which limits mortgage interest relief to the basic rate of tax, means that the same mortgage now receives the same relief, irrespective of the home buyer's income. That is fair. It has been compensated for in clause 20 by raising the basic rate limit to take account of most of it.
  I am grateful to those in the press who drew attention to the problems of non-resident trusts. We have devised an effective way of dealing with them so that they cannot be used unfairly to avoid tax. That provision is made in clauses 71 to 80.
  Fairness, families and business were the themes of the Budget introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. They are faithfully given effect to in the Finance Bill. I hope that we can fully discuss any problems in Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.43 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: For the past year or more, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have spent a great deal of time not just talking to people in industry and commerce but listening to them speak about the specific measures that they argue would promote success. One of the most noticeable features, especially in the past few months, is that, as those conversations develop, certain questions keep emerging—questions which came into my mind when I listened to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
  I find that I am continually being asked, "Do the Government really believe what they are saying about the state of the economy? If they do, why do they believe it? If they do not, why do they keep saying it?" I can answer the last question. It is clear that the Government keep saying it because they hope that, if they do, someone else will believe it. It appears from the Finance Bill that perhaps the Government believe what they are saying—that there is little need for action by them.
  The Government claimed in grandiose terms that this was a Budget for business. However, the Institute of Fiscal Studies and one of the advisers to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee suggested that that was

  189
  overstating the consequences for business. S. G. Warburg said that it was difficult to find a list of positives for business in the Budget, although it had no difficulty finding a list of negatives.
  The measures in the Budget that alleviate business costs through the reduction in the rate of corporation tax are almost offset by the introduction of national insurance contributions on company cars. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, those measures must be set against the decision to increase the business rate by 10·9 per cent., the decision to increase business costs by reducing the share of statutory sick pay that the Government are prepared to fund—quite apart from the administrative charges incurred—and the charges on mobile telephones, which the Chief Secretary did not mention.
  We welcome some of the help that is given in the Finance Bill to small businesses. We particularly welcome the bad debt provisions, which we proposed in the debate on last year's Finance Bill, and the measures that include some movement to deal with the loophole involving offshore trusts. We give a whole-hearted welcome to the ending of the freeze on child benefit, even if we have reservations about the way in which the Government have done that. We welcome these and other measures for which we called either in debates on previous Finance Bills or in our proposals.
  We note the rejection of the argument, widely made by industry, that the most effective help for investment would have been to improve investment allowances. We note also—the Chief Secretary touched on this point—the minuscule help given in the Budget for training. That is particularly astonishing if both those measures are set against the considerable and continuing cuts in Government support for industry and training in this year of recession.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Would not the Labour party's proposal to put a payroll tax of 1·25 billion on industry to help pay for training be disastrous at a time when employers are trying to reduce costs?
  Mrs. Beckett: As we have no such proposal, I do not propose to dwell on that intervention. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) may be referring to another proposal—that those who do not train at all and make no contribution, other than to poach on those who train, would have to contribute through training or through a contribution to a training fund. That is eminently sensible. Competitor countries have similar policies, which they have no difficulty in policing. We believe that that proposal will strengthen training and the position of the many people, to whom clearly the Government did not listen, who desperately resent the fact that while they invest in training, their competitors poach from them. The evidence of the Bill, and what it would do, must be examined in the context of what the Government say about the state of the economy.
  At long last, the Government have been forced, by a rising tide of incredulity, to admit that we are in recession, although they continue to claim that this recession will not be as bad as their last one in the early 1980s. They argue that not only we but many other countries are in recession
  190
  and that our recession is caused by the problems of excessive success, and we are on the way towards recovery. I believe that yesterday the Chancellor said that recovery was "around the corner".
  The argument about recession being caused by the problems of success is particularly hard to follow, especially as the Government contend that other countries are in a recession that is not as deep as ours. They argue that we have had such wild success that we found ourselves in recession and that other countries are in not as bad a recession because they have not been as successful as us. That is a peculiar argument, even for the Government. As to recovery being "around the corner", I share the view recently expressed by chambers of commerce that the Government were "over-optimistic" in their belief that inflation has been beaten and that the end to the recession is in sight. The Chief Secretary today made the same comment about cumulative evidence. I refer him to a Greenwell Montagu bulletin that states that it can find
  "few convincing signs that the recovery has yet begun."
  The Chief Secretary said that many organisations had claimed otherwise. Perhaps whichever Minister winds up will identify them.
  In an address recently to the Institute of Directors, the Chancellor of the Exchequer drew attention—this was very honest of him—to his 12 years' continuous service in Government, five of them as a Treasury Minister. It is a welcome change for a member of the Government to admit some responsibility for the state of the economy. He also made interesting remarks about the difficulty of forecasting when recovery will come. He spoke of his sceptical attitude towards forecasts, and, with his experience, who can blame him? However, he admitted to having a lot of respect for data, and made particular reference to surveys of business and consumer attitudes.
  It may have struck the Chancellor that there was a problem with that observation, and that perhaps he had launched yet another boomerang, because he hastily added that such surveys and data must be carefully interpreted. Although I read the Chancellor's speech with care, it was difficult to make out the points that he was trying to convey, but I will attempt to summarise them. The Chancellor said:
  "Lagging indicators will go on signalling recession when the economy has begun to recover … Once these points are understood, it is possible to reconcile the notion that recovery is on the way with a continuing flow of gloomy statistics."
  He went on to comment on unemployment. It is increasingly clear that the Chancellor is arguing that forecasts are okay as long as they are favourable, but not if they are gloomy, and that the same is true of results. Apparently, therefore, we should ignore unemployment figures, but believe forecasts of recovery.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer decided yet again to fiddle with our inflationary expectations by making changes to value added tax. Only a few short weeks ago, Ministers stood at the Dispatch Box, one after the other, to tell the House that what mattered was not the headline rate of inflation but the underlying rate, leaving out mortgages and the poll tax. Now the Chancellor argues that the underlying rate is "utterly meaningless". Under pressure, he promised—in Committee, I believe—to take the underlying rate into account, along with a range of other indicators. But if he thinks that the underlying rate is fairly meaningless, it is also fairly meaningless for him to say that he will take it into account. He means that he will

  191
  ignore it because it might reveal the risks that he has been running with the underlying rate of inflation while talking loudly about his great concern for it.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the hon. Lady deny that unemployment is a lagging indicator, that it increases after falls in output, and that increases or reductions in unemployment follow, but do not precede, a revival in output?
  Mrs. Beckett: There is something in what i:he hon. Gentleman says, but I do not recall him making the same point in 1979, when unemployment stood at 1 million. Today, the figure is 2 million, even after 30 changes to the way in which it is calculated. Nor did the hon. Gentleman make that comment when unemployment was falling.
  The Chancellor wants to assume that Britain is enjoying a recovery, no matter what the indicators suggest. He cites unemployment precisely because he expects it to go on rising, but for how long? Perhaps the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) can tell the House. Will unemployment continue to increase for a year, or longer? It will certainly rise for some time to come, and at considerable cost to many of our constituents.
  The Government's partial, self-selection of statistics created the problem in the first place. Just before the Budget, an economist with S.G. Warburg Securities, commenting on Government statistics produced at the time, said that the economy was
  "much weaker than the Government thought at the time".
  That cast doubt on the policy of keeping interest rates so high for so long. Another indicator of the economy is the 70 per cent. increase in business failures in the first quarter of this year, which is the highest level for many years. Unemployment has shown a cumulative rise of almost half a million over the past year, and the figure for last month was the highest since the second world war. The Government will not listen to any point of view that they do not share. In the words of the song, they are not listening still; perhaps they never will.
  Whatever the Government choose to hear, the people of this country have a right to learn some of the alarming evidence that Ministers discount. A recent analysis by Midland Montagu contrasted the comparisons that are continually being made between the current recession and that of the early 1980s. The actual results, which the Chancellor prefers, that are contributing to the developing economic pattern parallel exactly the downturn of the early 1980s. Sadly, the improvement is all in the forecasts. Perhaps it was after examining the same evidence that the chambers of commerce made their comment about the Government being over-optimistic, said that they do not expect a recovery until 1992, and warned that Britain is in a "deep recession" that no amount of talking will lead us out of.
  The Engineering Employers Federation drew attention to the increased investment in manufacturing needed for a sustainable recovery, and to the requirement for a higher level of skills in the existing work force and among potential recruits. The federation asserts that, even in a recession, skills shortages are a matter of continuing concern.
  Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Lady accept that if there is to be industrial investment, there must be savers whose money can be made available for such investment? If so, is it not curious that Labour proposes a tax on savings?
  Mrs. Beckett: Our proposal is only to treat unearned income in the same way as earned income, which seems a fair change. Our intention is to impose a 9 per cent. charge, equivalent to that made in respect of national insurance contributions. For that reason, it will not be applied to the incomes of those who have retired—to pensioners.
  Sir William Clark: I well understand the difference between earned income and unearned income—[Laughter.] I understand that the 9 per cent. charge will apply to salaried persons, but will someone who is well over the existing £3,000 on investment limit and earning a large salary also have to pay 9 per cent. on any excess income?
  Mrs. Beckett: Indeed. On income from investments of about £30,000—which would result in income that exceeded £3,000—they would pay a charge of 9 per cent. on the extra income in just the same way as someone who earns that extra money would pay that charge. However, that does not arise from the case that I seek to make in this debate and so, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall not pursue it. The position is quite clear.
  Sir William Clark: Does that mean that the highest rate of tax that can be levied on an individual is not 59 per cent. but 68 per cent. if that person has additional investment income?
  Mrs. Beckett: That is ingenious, but no.
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose——
  Mrs. Beckett: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman as I have already given way once to him.
  Like the chambers of commerce, the Engineering Employers Federation suggests that there is unlikely to be any real recovery until at least mid-1992. The CBI's forecast some little time ago, with which I think that all the House is familiar, of a fall in investment of about 16 per cent., would take the level of manufacturing investment below the level that the Government inherited in 1979. Despite the background of the Government's claims for the economy, the Treasury Select Committee expressed the view that
  "adverse international factors have been relatively unimportant in"
  shaping the recession. The Governor of the Bank of England said in evidence to the Committee that the recession is "somewhat homegrown". Whatever the Prime Minister may argue, the Chancellor said in evidence to the Select Committee that there is not a worldwide recession as there was the first time round.
  Against the background of those comments, I shall examine some of the evidence that those learned commentators may well have had in mind, especially since the Chancellor said in his speech to the Institute of Directors that we need to see our current difficulties in the context of what has been achieved since 1979—a view with which I whole-heartedly agree.
  The Government make many extravagant claims for the growth that has been enjoyed in the 1980s, as if peak growth were enjoyed in every year of that decade. However, a quick canter through the results—the Chancellor has told us that he gives great credence to results—of what happened between 1979 and 1991 does not give quite the picture that the Government paint,

  193
  especially if their claim is that Britain had a better performance in the 1980s relative to that of our competitors, which is what they said the other day.
  Let us consider the rate of growth of gross domestic product per head between 1979 and 1991. In the European big four—Italy, Germany, France and the United Kingdom—we came fourth; in the Group of Seven, we came seventh; in the European Community 12, we came 10th, as we beat the Netherlands and Greece; in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in Europe, we came 16 out of 19; and in the OECD 24, we came 20th, and this time we managed to beat Iceland and New Zealand as well as the Netherlands and Greece. So much for our claims to startling relative success in the 1980s, during which—as the Economic Secretary admitted the other day—our growth rate was below the rate that we enjoyed in the much-abused 1970s, when we lacked the advantage of North sea oil.
  Let us look a little nearer to the present day—at last year's results and at the signs of recession, although I think that the Prime Minister would prefer to call it weakening activity. There are some signs of recession in other English-speaking economies—in the United States, Canada and Australia—but not among our colleagues in the European Community, with whom we have to compete most directly after 1992. There are increasing signs of unemployment among those other economies but not among those with whom we must compete directly in Europe. In 1990, Britain had the slowest growth in GDP of all the OECD countries except Iceland. That shows our success in that decade and in the last year for which we have figures.
  However, there must be something in the Government's optimism. I decided that I had better turn to the forecasts because the Chancellor said that sometimes it was all right to look at forecasts. Midland Montagu point out that the forecasts for 1991 which were given in the Budget
  "represent a complete reversal of those given only four months ago in the Autumn Statement."
  The Budget Red Book shows a fall in total investment and the Government usually prefer that figure to the figure for manufacturing investment.
  In terms of total investment, the Red Book shows the largest year-on-year decline in total investment in the economy since the year of the great depression in 1931–32—which is as revealing as it is alarming. That takes account of the measures in the Budget which are supposed to have done so much to improve our position.
  The forecast shows that we shall have the slowest growth in GDP in 1991 of all OECD countries and the greatest decline in business investment, to which the Government are normally so wedded, in the OECD. The International Monetary Fund forecasts that the United Kingdom will have the lowest growth of all G7 economies for 1989, 1990 and 1991 and that, along with Canada, we are forecast to have a decline in growth in 1991.
  What is especially worrying is that, apart from that forecast of decline in investment in the Red Book—10 per cent., which is bad enough—the results so far, taking the year from the first half of 1990 to the first half of 1991, are greater than the Red Book forecast, at more than 12 per cent.
  194
  That brings me to today's survey results from the CBI, to which the Chief Secretary referred. [Interruption.] I am not surprised that Treasury Ministers do not want to listen; I would not want to if I were them. Let us set the CBI's survey results in context. There is a slight increase in optimism. In other words, people are not quite as pessimistic as they were in January. That might have a little to do with the Gulf war, but let us be generous and say that it is all to do with the signs of recovery that the Government detect. Whatever the levels of overall optimism, the survey shows that indications for investment, training, innovation and employment are still deeply alarming. Expectations for investment are worse than they were when the last survey was published in January. Expectations for training and innovation are no better than they were when the last survey was published—in other words, a continuing, although not worsening, decline in investment in training and innovation is expected. The expectations of unemployment are worse than they were in January. Orders and industrial output are expected to fall.
  In that context, it is especially alarming to note that the CBI tells us that the survey in January, although it was bad, understated the case and was too optimistic compared to the fall in orders that took place. No wonder that the CBI says—whatever the Chief Secretary says—that although the trend in output appears to be levelling out it is
  "too early to speak of recovery"
  and it will take a long time
  "to recover this lost ground."
  That is what the Chief Secretary called firm evidence of a recovery. Let me remind the House that these are forecasts. Somewhere in all these figures for outturn, figures for results and the figures that I have just given for a variety of people's forecasts, the Government are finding the source of optimism that they so repeatedly preach to us all in the House.
  Ms. Diane Abbott: They make it up.
  Mrs. Beckett: I think that my hon. Friend is right.
  It is hard to see what, other than a desperate attempt to obscure responsibility for the recession, fuels the optimism to which the Government lay claim. Since they admitted the existence of recession, late and grudgingly, they have been saying that it is nearly over. I shall consider the pattern of the Government's observations—one might call it the seven ages of a Treasury Minister.
  First, the Government said that there was no recession and they got very shirty with people who said that there was, claiming that they were trying to talk us into one. That was the first stage, although the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor, said that things would not be easy. In the second stage the Government began to admit to a weakening of activity around the time of the autumn statement. The third stage was when they admitted that the recession had arrived but that they hoped that it would be, in the Chancellor's words, "shallow and short-lived." The fourth stage came with the recent admissions that the recession has turned out to be deeper than the Government thought. I regard it as the fifth stage that the Prime Minister identifies the fact that other people are on their way into recession because they have not been as successful as we have for as long as we have, so they were not so lucky as we were to get into the recession as fast as

  195
  we did. That bears no relation to any facts that I can discover. The sixth stage is that recovery is "around the corner", as the Chancellor says.
  The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee says that it detects at present
  "the absence of any firm evidence that recovery is taking place."
  It is also concerned that recovery is so heavily dependent upon a revival of consumer confidence and consumer expenditure, which may falter if unemployment continues to rise. That is borne out by other comments. Midland Montagu says that the onus of proof lies on those who see signs of recovery and that the prime risk is on the other side. There is also a seventh stage, the other side of the hurricane—all the winds diminished, blissful calm beginning to appear but, on the other side of the eye, the winds beginning to rise again.
  I have no doubt that the forecasts that the Government would most prefer to discount are those that suggest that after a time, with inflation low and interest rates lower than they have been, once the recovery is under way the balance of payments deficit will begin to deteriorate, inflation may well begin to deteriorate and pressure will come on interest rates again. The tragedy of all this is that even the recovery that the Government suggest, delicate though it is, is not a recovery led by investment or exports. The danger is that that recovery may well be shallow and short-lived, as the balance of payments constraint re-emerges.
  Perhaps the most revealing as well as the most notable aspect of the Budget was the decision to raise between £4·5 billion and £5 billion through the increase in value added tax—revealing because it was a decision that had nothing whatever to do with long-term planning for the structure of local government, and nothing to do with long-term planning about what the balance should be between the moneys raised from local resources and from central Government, but everything to do with the timing of the election and the Government's desperate need to defuse the unpopularity of the poll tax. Between £4·5 billion and £5 billion is to be raised by means of this surcharge, but there will not be a single teacher, home help, cleaner or caretaker to show for it. On the debit side, yet again there is the risk of more inflationary own goals.
  With this Finance Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is treading water. The only suggestion in the Bill that there is a long-term strategy behind what the Government are doing is their choice, when they decided to give some help to business, to focus on the rate of corporation tax rather than on allowances of one sort or another. It highlights the long-term direction set out by the Chancellor in his speech to the Adam Smith Institute—the long-term direction called for by bodies such as the Institute of Directors, which asked for cuts in the rate of taxes in order gradually to erode and allow for the disappearance of the welfare state. In that speech the Chancellor said:
  "The need to reduce the size of the public sector remains at the top of the Government's agenda. It is only by keeping spending under control that we will be able to deliver the income tax cuts to which we are committed."
  Yet again I am pleased to see that Conservative Members share that view whole-heartedly, and yet again, as throughout the Government's period in office, we see their determination to use the resources that become available to cut the rate of income tax, although that distributes resources most heavily to those who need them least. I am mindful that the cumulative cuts that the Government
  196
  have made in income tax mean that someone whose earnings amount to £70,000 a year has made £34,000 out of those cumulative income tax changes.
  The pursuance of that policy and the increases in VAT and national insurance contributions have already led to an increase during this Government's period in office in the overall tax burden for an average family, with one wage earner and two children. The income tax cuts that they have made have been almost outweighed to a penny—certainly to a couple of pounds—by the increases in national insurance contributions and the effect of the freezing of child benefit. On top of that, we have had not only the increase in VAT but also the poll tax.
  The Finance Bill will not do a great deal of harm, but it will not do much good, either. During the past few years, our economy has fallen into the hands of a group of joyriders. Like most joyriders, they grew more and more reckless as time went on and, as the excitement mounted, more and more convinced of their own skill and infallibility. Like so many joyriders, they have ended up in the ditch. Some of the casualties will never be the same again.
  It is evident, from both the Budget and the Finance Bill, that to us will fall the task of getting the vehicle out of the ditch and back on the road. That job will have to be done before we can even assess the full extent of the damage. The Finance Bill shows that it will not be done by this Government. The sooner they move out of the driving seat and let us get on with the job, the better.
  Several Hon. Members rose
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. A great many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so brief speeches would be very much appreciated.
  5.15 pm
  Sir William Clark: Following the speech of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) one thing has been made quite clear—that the Labour party's top rate of tax would not exceed 59 per cent. for any individual. I am delighted that she confirmed that fact.
  This was a good Budget. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary was right to draw attention to the fact that, during the last few months, interest rates have come down from 15 to 12 per cent. Some of the forecasts—whether from the Confederation of British Industry or the various chambers of commerce—have overdone it. I do not know whether that was in an effort to stampede my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer into a precipitate reduction of interest rates. I am absolutely convinced that he is right to take the reduction of interest rates step by step and to do nothing drastic, which would set off a consumer boom and put us back to square one. The CBI has said today that the recession is flattening out. I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, after the second quarter of this year, we shall probably come out of it. Come the autumn and next year, the economy will be in very good shape.
  Before I come to the points that I really want to make, there is one small question that I ought to raise. At the moment, farmers are having a fairly hard time. I cannot understand why the vehicle excise duty on tractors has been increased from £16 to £30. That increase is mistimed for the farming industry.

  197
  In an otherwise excellent Finance Bill, I believe that clause 29 is petty. I do not know whether my colleagues on the Treasury Bench realise that mobile telephones are now a business tool. Particularly those people who work away from head office find that they are essential. I am the chairman of a company that insists that those of its employees who do not work at head office should have a mobile telephone so that we can get hold of them.
  I was encouraged by the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he opened a factory in Worksop the week before last. Somebody tackled him about the value of mobile telephones. My right hon. Friend turned round to him and said, "I couldn't do my business without them." He is not alone. A lot of people in business need a mobile telephone, so this clause is very petty. It will produce £10 million, yet one is talking about a Budget amounting to well over £200 billion.
  We are playing around with a business tool. Let us not forget that the United Kingdom leads the world in mobile communications. It would be wrong to tax it. If the employee repays the employer for any private use of the mobile telephone, the employee becomes exempt from the tax. How will employers check on how many private telephone calls have been made on a mobile telephone? If that is the logic used by the Government, why are they stopping there? Why not surcharge private calls made by people who work at desks? I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will look again at the tax, because it really is nonsense.
  If it were a matter of saving face, we could introduce self-certification. We have introduced it for the taxation of married couples. One's wife can certify that she is not liable to tax, and consequently the bank or building society must pay her interest gross. We have a precedent, so an employee could certify that he or she did not use the mobile telephone for more than 1 per cent. of phone calls.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: Having read the clause dealing with mobile telephones, it is not clear that avoidance of the charge will be the easiest thing in the world, and does that not make it likely that £10 million could be an overestimate of the revenue to be raised?
  Sir William Clark: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Although the Exchequer might raise £10 million in revenue, the tax puts a burden on business by making it necessary to check whether an employee is using a mobile telephone for private calls. If we must tax mobile telephones, we might as well tax private calls made by people who work at desks.
  I was interested in the exchanges between my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle). The Government must look again at clause 50. Despite the Government's statements, there is no question but that it is double taxation. If one has paid one's assessment for 1985–86, no more tax is payable for that year. However, more tax could be paid depending on the accounting date of the building society. If the building society's accounting year ends on 31 March, there is no tax to be paid, but if it ends on 30 September, tax would be charged not only on the full year 1985–86 but on another
  198
  six months' interest. If the building society accounting year ended in May, there would be considerable extra tax to pay.
  I have nothing to do with the Woolwich, but that building society won its case in the High Court in July 1986. The case went to the Court of Appeal in April 1988, and the Woolwich lost. Last October, the case was taken to the House of Lords, and the Woolwich won. If my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench cannot convince the highest court in the land that there is anything wrong, why was the Woolwich repaid £44 million? The money was repaid simply because the Law Lords said that it was double taxation and therefore should be repaid. An example of the anomalies and unfairnesses concerns the Leeds building society. Again I stress that I have no connection whatsoever with the Leeds. The Leeds and the Woolwich were working in harness, although the Woolwich brought the test case. Any lawyers in the House will know that, when there is a test case, anyone in similar circumstances benefits from that judgment. The Woolwich was repaid £44 million, but the Leeds remains £57 million out of pocket. That must be wrong, and the Government must look again at the matter.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary said that it would be a windfall for the building society but would not affect its members. I should have thought that, if the Leeds building society were to receive £57 million tomorrow, that money would go into its reserves. Those reserves do not stand idle; they are invested. All the money in a building society belongs to the 30 million investors, so there is no difference between the building society and the investors; they are one and the same, and all the money belongs to them.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I agree with virtually everything that my hon. Friend has said, but he should make it clear that the House of Lords said that the subsequent regulations allowed for retrospection and therefore legalised the double taxation. The relief to the Woolwich turned on the rate of taxation, but the real issue is that Parliament did not expect to be imposing double taxation, yet the House of Lords said that it was double taxation. That is why the House of Commons has a rightful grumble, and that is why we want Treasury Ministers to think again.
  Sir William Clark: I remind the House that counsel for the Government said in the House of Lords:
  "Even if this amendment does impose double taxation, that is nothing to do with you because Parliament has willed it."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is quite right. Parliament willed it, but it did so on the understanding that there was no double taxation. That is why we must go back and think again.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when the Income Tax (Building Societies) Regulations 1986 that were made under the 1985 Finance Act were challenged by the Woolwich building society, the Government introduced a new clause at the Report stage of the 1986 Finance Bill. The matter was fully discussed and the Government said that it was not intended that there should be double taxation. The House of Lords has now found that Parliament approved double taxation by

  199
  agreeing to that new clause, so we approved something that we understood would not arise. That is the cause of the present difficulties.
  Sir William Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point so clearly.
  The philosophy of the Conservative party has always been against retrospection. It is a one-off case, so it cannot be said that we thought the law applied in a certain way and we are now putting it right. Since the House of Lords said that the Woolwich must get its money back, I am absolutely certain that the Leeds and every other building society will do the same. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary will realise that I am not in favour of wasting Exchequer money, but when unfairness has cost £250 million, we must do something about it.
  I regret this note of discord, but we should not be petty about mobile telephones or abandon the Conservative party's anathema to retrospective legislation. We have a strong economy and we must do all that we can to help businesses, both small and large, but we must always be fair to the taxpayer.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) spoke about mobile telephones. It is rare that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but he made an important point. It will be a difficult tax to collect and, as one can see from reading the clause, it will be easy to avoid.
  The Treasury and Civil Service Committee has again produced its report, and the House is grateful. I have just one comment on the unanimity of the Committee, which I welcome. The Committee can be powerful or influential only when it looks at the facts and comes to a decision based upon them. I am pleased to see that it has achieved nearly new records of unanimity, and I welcome that. It is important, and I look forward to that standard continuing.
  On the Chief Secretary's arguments, I have been reading some of the economic debates of the 1920s and 1930s. They are remarkably similar to the arguments heard from the Treasury Bench today. There are many selective statistics, lots of clutching at straws and lots of hopes for recovery. That went on year after year. The Treasury Bench should look at those debates to see how the Government are copying so many of the errors of the past.
  In his Budget speech, the Chancellor said:
  "My central economic aim is to bring inflation down and keep it down."—[Official Report, 19 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 163]
  I have heard that before. I went back to my valued Red Book of 1980. The medium-term financial strategy for that year said:
  "The Government's objectives for the medium-term are to bring down the rate of inflation and to create conditions for a sustainable growth of output and employment."
  The only difference is that the events are separated by 12 years. That was why we had three years of unparalleled austerity. We assumed that that phase of the operation to reduce inflation had finished. We thought that the Government had won that limited objective. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) told us of those three years of unparalleled austerity. I wonder
  200
  whether anybody in the present Government will be equally straightforward and candid and tell us how many years of austerity we shall have to endure this time.
  In 1979, the Government were confident that monetarism would solve the problem. They believed that that nonsense would be the solution. They were going to reduce public expenditure and so on. In fact, North sea oil provided the Government with their real assistance to overcome the problems of those years. As a result of their policy, the country suffered. Thirty per cent. of my industrial firms closed and many others suffered as well.
  Twelve years later, the same problem confronts the Government as confronted them when they set out. Why is that? Inflation is still with us, but it is more severe in one respect. We may be in a slump rather than a recession. We are still not in balance in our external payments. Despite the enormous downturn the external payments position is still a major indictment of economic policy. What is to happen when there is some sort of recovery? If we cannot achieve balance of payments equilibrium now, when will we achieve it?
  Some say that this is a slump. If it is not a slump, what are the circumstances in which one uses that word, or should it be excised from the English language? I speak to many industrialists, and their major concerns are credit control, insolvencies and so on. They are all increasing their employment in those areas and are watching carefully. They have daily figures to show how many people make payments and how long the payments are being delayed. The old certainty of payments, even from respectable firms, is no longer with us.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) pointed out, it is easy to reduce inflation if there is a single target. One can deflate the economy by high interest rates and, for good measure, add a high exchange rate. One then reduces consumption and companies are destroyed indiscriminately, good and bad. Exports are hard to get with a high exchange rate and imports take advantage of that to compete with our own industries. However, inflation does come down as high interest rates restrict some forms of spending, although not all. Some individuals with high levels of savings profit from high interest rates.
  What will happen when there is an upturn? What happens to our balance of payments? There will be an £8 billion deficit next year, and we must wonder where the exports will come from when manufacturers have been so badly damaged by a Government who gave them little consideration and even less assistance. The problem is compounded because, far from the boom being investment-led, as some unwise commentators and Treasury Ministers affirmed, it was consumption-led. The boom was in finance, credit and consumption, none of which helped our long-term trading performance.
  The trouble with relying on interest rates is that some people gain and some lose. It is much harder to control the economy through interest rates alone now that so many people have such a high collateral in the houses that they occupy. So, in the middle of a slump, banks and finance houses are still anxiously trying to lend money to those with secure assets. We are paying the penalty of a housing boom fuelled and ignited by the former Prime Minister's dedication to absurdly lavish incentives to home ownership.
  Coupled with that, the Conservative party's attitude to pay claims has been farcical. First, the Government said

  201
  that it did not matter. They said that sterling M3 would take care of it and that controlling the money supply would remove money that might be used for pay increases. If companies paid high claims, they would be squeezed, and if they persisted, they would be eliminated by the operation of the iron hand of monetarism. So far did they believe that nonsense that they thought that they could raise VAT from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent. without affecting inflation. It is absurd even to consider that today, but those were the arguments used then. A year after coming to office, without the external trauma provoked by the oil price rises of 1973–74, the Government produced the self-inflicted retail prices index rate of 21·9 per cent. in May 1980.
  Eventually, all Governments learn something, and monetarism dropped out of their agenda. They then resorted to exhortation—pleading with industry to restrain pay increases. Their friends in the City responded by awarding themselves the £1 million salaries that have been a feature of this Government. Finally, the Government took refuge in the embrace of the exchange rate mechanism. They are now seeking to discipline employees by threatening them with a fixed and unalterable exchange rate. As if that were not enough, some people are producing the bogey of an independent Bank of England.
  I am not against fixed exchange rates. In the past few weeks, we have seen currencies varying by up to 15 per cent. and more, which can play havoc with a company's trading arrangements. When we had a fixed exchange rate up to the early 1970s, such a movement was considered catastrophic—a major devaluation, with all that that implied then. Now, I would wish to see fixed exchange rates that could be changed when the disparities were clear and consistent. I wish to see what I would call fixed but not immutable rates, as was the position in the late 1960s.
  The Government made the country pay a terrible price by reducing inflation by a means that caused great unnecessary damage to our economy. Having done that, why did they squander the one gain that they had achieved? After three years of unparalleled austerity and the seven fat years of North sea oil, why did they not look to the industrial investment which could alone prepare us for the rigours of the seven lean years?
  The truth is that they thought that our economic salvation lay in the City and its financial organisations. They are only dimly beginning to perceive that financial centres follow wealth creation, which comes mainly from manufacturing. That is why London became such a prominent financial centre; it rose on the backs of Manchester cotton and Birmingham metal industries. The enormous production of the United States created New York's financial centre, and Frankfurt and Tokyo have risen to challenge both older financial centres because of the dominance of manufacturing.
  Financial skills are more easily transferable than manufacturing skills. That, more than any of the market operations, threatens the valuable role that is still played by our City institutions. The lesson is that manufacturing industry is the principal begetter of financial institutions. To assume that finance can exist on its own is a folly that only the Government have entertained.
  202
  What are the Government doing to help our industries? They have made some concessions in corporation tax. I remind them that, in many cases, the reduced tax does not compensate for the tax paid on inflationary profits. If inflation is 10 per cent., companies are taxed at 3·3 per cent. of the stock that they held at the end of their financial year. Inflation on corporation tax extracts that wrongful penalty from them. For many companies, the reduction in corporation tax, although welcome, will not compensate them for the tax imposed on them because of the Government's failure to control inflation.
  The further failure of the Government has been to deal with the drying up of investment. There is no question but that investment is drying up—we can forget the past and the uncertain forms of investment that we had—because the Government did not raise capital allowances. Depreciation of 25 per cent. in the first year is nonsense for many forms of investment, and at a time of stringency they should have been increased. I should have wished capital allowances to be better targeted to manufacturing industry.
  I should raise the difficulty of ensuring that people pay the correct amount of tax. The Treasury, quite rightly, and the Inland Revenue certainly, used to oppose the claiming of expenses incurred at work because they thought that it would open the floodgates. I understood that and defended it many times, but now the costs of travelling to and being in work are higher than before and are growing fast.
  It would have been absurd for me, 20 or 30 years ago, to say that transport was a major cost of employment. Workers walked up the road to the mill or factory and that was it. They wore the same clothes and slipped back home for lunch. Many of my constituents travel 30 or 40 miles to work but receive no allowances for that. The clothes they wear must be a little better than in the past. They must eat in the canteen, and even a sandwich costs quite a lot. Women particularly, but many men as well, must consider the care of young children. Those major costs must be deducted from take-home pay. It is a serious matter and is becoming more so.
  We used to tax investment income from capital at a higher rate. It was argued that it was right to do so, because it was a more secure form of income than earning a living by taking a job. The problem today is not the investment income surcharge but the charge on the individual who must travel to work. Somebody who has investment income pays only for the journey to deposit his money at the bank. The case for an investment income surcharge is made stronger today by the many expenses that are incurred in earning a living.
  I welcome the changes in the Bill to excise duties. The retail prices index has been too prominent in keeping down duties on tobacco and alcohol. I would have preferred annual increases, at least to take account of inflation, rather than the Government, quite rightly, having now to try to make good those past lapses. An amendment like the Rooker-Wise amendment for personal allowances would be sensible for excise duties.
  I am happy, too, about the move to tax car benefits in kind, but I find the mobile phone tax hard to understand. The wording of the Bill is quite peculiar, but the Standing Committee will have to unravel that.
  A higher VAT rate of 17·5 per cent. means that the importance of the anomalies in the boundaries between 17·5 per cent. and zero rate will increase. There were

  203
  problems when VAT was 8 per cent., such as the size of the hem of a skirt for clothing allowances. Such anomalies will increase, and the Minister responsible for VAT will be heavily occupied trying to defend them.
  I welcome the provisions on mortgage interest relief and the PAYE quarterly payments scheme. VAT bad debt relief and the recognition of the role of child benefit are a move in the right direction.
  The Government started with a plan for inflation, and they will end with a plan for inflation. In the meantime, they will regret those years when they fooled around. The next Government, which I hope will be a Labour Government, will look to industry, which will be the only wealth creator. That is the only way of sustaining a prosperous and thriving economy.
  5.46 pm
  Sir Peter Tapsell: I agreed with the emphasis that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) placed on the importance of wealth creation. Having spent most of my working life in the City, I also agreed that in the long term the City will not maintain its important place in international finance unless we improve our wealth creation. We must create more capital more rapidly and spread it more widely.
  In my lifetime, there has been an enormous improvement in our standard of living. Many more people own their own homes or are in the process of doing so and many more either have an occupational pension or are gaining entitlement to one than when I was young. Beyond that, amazingly few people have much disposable capital. Their capital is mainly locked up in their house or pension fund. It is extremely difficult, even with the considerable tax reductions made by the Government, for people who start without any money, as I did, to acquire capital.
  One of the main differences between this country and the United States is that it is easier to acquire capital in the United States. Someone can arrive in the United States from a third-world country with no English or qualifications, but after 20 years will have acquired a certain amount of disposable capital. One meets such people all over the United States. We do not have nearly such a dynamic economy. One reason for that, apart from the national temperament, is capital gains tax.
  I shall confine my brief remarks entirely to the capital gains tax aspect of the Finance Bill. I argue, as I have for a great many years, that we should abolish capital gains tax in the long term, although it may be necessary to have a short-term capital gains tax for, say, six or 12 months to make income tax avoidance difficult. People often forget that we have had a capital gains tax for only a short period of our fiscal history. Even Sir Stafford Cripps did not introduce a capital gains tax.
  I was in at the start of it in a funny way because, when he was Chancellor, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd asked me to talk to him about bond washing. I was a stockbroker and he assumed that I would understand how bond washing was done although my firm never did it. He told me that he wanted to stop it. I went along to the Treasury and tried to explain how bond washing was carried out although, as I was cross-questioned by Selwyn Lloyd and his senior civil servants, it became clear to me that I did not really understand how it was done. Selwyn Lloyd introduced a short-term capital gains tax in the 1962 Budget—primarily to stop bond washing.
  204
  In 1960–61, Britain had just had a mini-boom. It was nothing like as big as the boom of 1987–88, but it was a mini-boom with a certain amount of speculative land activity and a good deal of bond washing, out of which some people were making large sums at the expense of the general taxpayer. That was why a Conservative Government introduced a short-term capital gains tax. It was not intended as a general tax; it was a special tax to clobber the spivs, which is why it was supported by the Conservative parliamentary party at the time, but with some misgivings. In 1965, the Labour Government turned it into a permanent capital gains tax, although Selwyn Lloyd's short-term capital gains tax was not repealed until the 1971 Budget. This country has had a permanent capital gains tax of 30 per cent. since 1965 and I have always though it a bad thing.
  About 20 years ago, I remember asking Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister of Singapore, how he accounted for the fact that his country, which had such an interventionist industrial policy and such high rates of income tax, had such a dynamic economy. He said that it was because Singapore did not have a capital gains tax. Last year in his economic report to Congress, President George Bush sent the same message—that if he was to make the United States economy more dynamic, he would like to see the CGT rate in the United States reduced from its present level of 28 per cent. He expressed the hope that he could get rid of it altogether.
  I do not think that anybody who has ever considered capital gains tax in any advanced country has denied that it has a bad effect on entrepreneurial activity. It distorts all sorts of markets. It dissuades people from selling shares and other things in an attempt to avoid capital gains tax when, on normal economic criteria, they would think that it was right to do so. A great many people nowadays have second homes, but because the principal home is excluded from capital gains tax, elderly people defer selling their second home, thinking, "When I die, the second home will not attract any capital gains tax." Capital gains tax means that, over a huge range of activity, people take decisions on disposals not on the merits of the disposal or its timing, but primarily because of the tax considerations.
  However, worse than all that is the appalling complexity of the tax which has worsened with every passing Budget. Governments are always tinkering with it. I have not checked, but I doubt whether there has been a single spring Finance Bill since 1965 in which capital gains tax has not been amended in an attempt to remove the anomalies that were created by previous amendments. This Finance Bill is no exception. The country's accountancy industry and tax lawyers spend a disproportionate amount of their time on capital gains tax. This Bill, for example, refers to overseas trusts, which have been legislated on in previous Finance Bills. People who become involved with overseas trusts do so primarily to avoid CGT.
  The return to the Revenue in the yield from capital gains tax is wholly inadequate when compared with the damage that it does to the economy and with the amount of time that some of our top professional brains spend on it. According to this year's Red Book, the yield for the current financial year is expected to be £1·4 billion. That is quite a large sum, but only a small element in the Budget. Last year, the yield was £.1·9 billion. The yield has been decreasing steeply since CGT was indexed. The indexation of capital gains tax removed some of its considerable

  205
  injustices because until the introduction of the 1982 and 1985 provisions, people were paying tax not on any real gain, but on the nominal gain of inflation. With inflation at 10 per cent. last year, one must deduct 10 per cent. from the rate of CGT. Obviously, therefore, the CGT yield is likely to come down unless capital values keep pace with the RPI.
  When the Tory party was in opposition and I was a Front-Bench Opposition spokesman——
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: And a very good one.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: The right hon. Gentleman and I had many debates then.
  At that time, the Tory team all agreed to get rid of capital gains tax. I was the only member of the team who thought that we should keep even a short-term capital gains tax. My right hon. Friends the Members for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) and all the subsequent Chancellors of Conservative Administrations thought that it should be completely abolished. I am amazed that after 11 years of Conservative Government we have still not got rid of CGT. Since 1979, I have written to every Financial Secretary to the Treasury well before each Budget urging that we should get rid of it. They have always written back most sympathetically and taken me to one side in a corridor or bar and said, "Yes, what a good idea, but the Inland Revenue does not want to get rid of it." The Revenue does not want to get rid of it because CGT is regarded by it as an essential means of preventing people from turning income into capital and thus avoiding income tax.
  Mr. Mellor ind indicated assent.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: I am glad that the Chief Secretary is confirming that. No doubt the Inland Revenue is still saying the same thing to him——
  Mr. Mellor: At least it is consistent.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Yes, consistently wrong. There may be considerable strength in its argument that, without any capital gains tax, rich people with good professional advisers would try to avoid paying so much income tax and would try to turn as much as possible of their income into capital gains. Even if that is true—and it is true, up to a point—the fact is that capital gains tax has not done the prevention job for the Inland Revenue. If it had, it would not be necessary in Finance Bill after Finance Bill to pass special provisions that are separate from CGT to deal with the loopholes by which people seek to avoid income tax by turning income into capital gains and then seek to avoid that capital gains tax by moving into overseas trusts and other devices.
  I hope that CGT will be abolished. As a result of my conversations with successive Financial Secretaries I thought that it would eventually be abolished, so I was astonished and dismayed to find that instead of the reduction to a rate of 20 per cent. which I urged, or abolition, in the Budget of 1988 my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby increased the rate from 30 per cent. to
  206
  40 per cent. to link it to the top band of income tax. He thus introduced an entirely new principle into our fiscal system.
  It had always been accepted by all Governments—going back to the time of Sir Stafford Northcote when we began discussing such matters—that income and capital were different and should be treated and taxed differently. With the apparent support of all members of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby introduced the concept of treating capital and income in the same way and he increased the rate of CGT from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. Given that we had earlier reduced the rate of income tax from 83 per cent. to 25 per cent., and 40 per cent., and indexed the CGT structure, that move to 40 per cent. would not have been so bad were it not for the establishment of that dangerous principle. Even in opposition, Labour Members now say openly that were they to take office they would increase the top rate of income tax to 50 per cent. and add a national insurance surcharge—as it were—9 per cent. So the top rate of tax would go straight from 40 per cent. to 59 per cent. We have not heard about it from them today or in their document, but I hope that we shall be told whether they would do the same with CGT.
  Once we have accepted the principle that the rate of CGT is linked to the top income tax rate, there is a tremendous danger that, if income tax rates are increased to, say, 50 per cent., Labour would say that when the Conservative Government were in power they accepted the principle of parity between the two, so they have automatically increased CGT to the same level. If the rate of CGT was 50 per cent. or 59 per cent., we should have one of the highest—if not the highest—rate in the advanced world.
  I cannot understand why my right hon. and hon. Friends are prepared to accept this situation. Many of them are far more enthusiastic than I about the wholly free operation of markets—it has always been my experience that the people who are most enthusiastic about the free operation of markets are those who have least practical experience of operating in them. I am a capitalist and I believe in free enterprise and in private savings. Over a 40-year period I managed, with the greatest difficulty, to acquire some savings and I should like other people to have the opportunity to do the same, but rather more quickly. If one believes in a free-enterprise capitalist economy, one must be hostile to CGT. I hope that on Report the Government will decide to abolish at least a long-term capital gains tax. If they are not prepared to do so, I hope that, for the political reasons that I have given, they will at least detach the rate of CGT from the rate of income tax and levy it at, say, 20 per cent. and make it clear that, as in the past, capital and income are different and must be treated separately.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: In his opening remarks, the Chief Secretary rightly said that there is an economic context for the debate, although his use of quotations to describe that context is slightly different from mine. I hope that we can reach agreement on the basic proposition that we are in the middle—or in the course—of a serious recession. I had better not say "middle" because that presumes that we know when the end will be. The recession is more serious than the

  207
  Government predicted, but as serious as the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee predicted. Getting out of the recession will be a difficult task and will not necessarily be achieved quickly.
  Paragraph 6 of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's report states:
  "Taking a longer period, the Treasury are now forecasting two half years of falling output; and output will now be 4·5 per cent. lower in the second half of 1991 than forecast for the same period just four months earlier. Clearly this is more than a relatively short-lived and shallow recession."
  The Government should stop pretending otherwise. They are in danger of being deceived by their own rhetoric. I understand why Governments confronted with elections try to make a story sound better than it is, but there are disadvantages to that. It has the effect of leading people to misunderstand the measures that might be needed and of making it more difficult for the Government to take those measures. For the Government to take some of the steps that we are urging on them might appear to be an admission of guilt on their part and an admission that things are worse than they have said. I should not want to put them in such a difficult position.
  I make the same argument about inflation. As long as the Government pretend that it is not as bad as it is, they make it hard to persuade people of the importance of the measures necessary to deal with it. I shall return to that issue later.
  The Chief Secretary quoted from the CBI survey and from the CBI's comments on the survey. I shall quote more fully the comments made by Mr. Wigglesworth, the chairman of the CBI's economic committee, which is responsible for the report. He said:
  "Although the trend in output appears to be levelling out it is too early to speak of recovery."
  That is quite different from what the Chancellor has said. Mr. Wigglesworth continued:
  "The survey shows that the intensity of the downturn is slackening and we may be approaching the turning point."
  The Government can reasonably claim that there is light at the end of the tunnel, but not that we have reached the turning point or that we have turned the corner.
  All this language about turning the corner makes me think that what is at the back of the Chancellor's mind is the Noel Coward song which states:
  "There are bad times just around the corner,
  There are dark clouds hurtling through the sky.,
  And it's no good whining
  About a silver lining
  For we know from experience that they won't roll by."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Sing it!"] If there are any more requests, I might sing. What we do know from experience is that the Government's forecasts about the recession and about inflation tend to be inadequate. They are repeatedly inadequate and the Select Committee's report contains some useful tables showing how far that is so.
  I shall now deal with inflation. Language such as that used by the Prime Minister, who said that we have inflation "by the throat", also has a self-deceiving quality. We have not got inflation by the throat. The Government are making progress with headline inflation, but admit in their own forecast that underlying inflation will remain high and will be more than 7 per cent. even at the end of the year. I have listened to many lectures from Treasury Ministers about how deceptive the headline inflation figure is, especially with all the jiggery-pokery of the poll tax.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): If the hon. Gentleman is right and we are less
  208
  successful in reducing inflation than we believe, why did he recommend this morning that we should loosen monetary policy by reducing interest rates?
  Mr. Beith: Given the discipline of the exchange rate mechanism, I believe that it is now possible further to reduce interest rates while having an anti-inflationary policy. The Government also believe that, which is why they have made careful reductions of 0·5 per cent. at a time. I believe that they will make another reduction within the next three or four weeks.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: At the Scottish Tory party conference.
  Mr. Beith: Most reductions in interest rates coincide with events such as debates in the House of Commons or party conferences, and the Scottish Conservative party conference seems a likely place.
  It is possible to reduce interest rates now without threatening the anti-inflationary policy. It would not have been sensible to make a large and sudden reduction of, say, 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. in the weeks when our position in the ERM was uncertain. However, I am sure that Ministers will agree that the circumstances are now favourable for a reduction that would help us to deal with inflation.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we can succeed by cutting interest rates and that inflation will still fall? He has just complained that underlying inflation is going to remain stubbornly high. Is he now saying that it will fall even if we cut interest rates?
  Mr. Beith: The present level of interest rates is not necessary to assist in the battle against inflation. There will come a time when the Government will need to look to interest rate policy because of further inflationary pressures in the system. I am not sure whether the Government have recognised how difficult the situation might be when recovery begins. At the point of recovery it is difficult to maintain anti-inflationary policies and that is why we argued that it would be better to place responsibility for interest rate policy in the hands of a central bank with responsibility for price stability.
  I was interested in the different responses of two Ministers on that subject. When I engaged in a discussion on the radio at lunchtime with the Secretary of State for Employment, he tried to dismiss the idea as ludicrous and one which no civilised country would adopt. Obviously he was totally unaware of the way in which Germany has operated for many years. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, he was at pains not to take that view. He took what I can only describe as a holding position.
  The Chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee put the remarks of the Governor to the Chancellor, who responded to the Governor's view that a more independent role for the central bank would help in the battle against inflation by saying that countries differ in their practices in that respect. Some countries, he said, use a more independent central bank while others do not. Some have found that helpful in fighting inflation while others do not appear to need it. That was a perfectly respectable reply and one which is consistent with the Government in due course moving towards us on this policy, as they have with regard to several other policies, such as membership of the exchange rate mechanism. I

  209
  suspect that there may be a rethink in the Treasury which has not been communicated to the Secretary of State for Employment, who does not seem to get on very well with the Treasury anyway. He was not very successful in getting a decent training programme out of the Treasury, so it would not be surprising if the Treasury had not told him about its thinking with regard to central bank independence.
  It is striking that inflation is always reduced in advance of an election and that is clear if we consider the statistics over several years. However, it is not consistent with a sound anti-inflationary policy. Ministers have often told us that underlying inflation is important and that the headline figure is misleading. I cannot think of a better moment for the Government to act on their suggestion that we should have a new index of inflation. What better time could there be to devise a new index that took proper account of housing costs? It would have to do that; it could not omit all references to the effect of mortgage interest. If the Government were now to introduce such a new index, no one could accuse them of deliberately distorting the statistics in order to obtain a more favourable figure. The time is right for the Government to make an objective improvement in the way in which inflation is measured.
  The time is also right for the Government to take steps to help the country with the consequences of the recession which they have caused and which stems from the mismanagement of the credit boom. The Government could invest in a significant training programme, and by that I do not mean the training relief to which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury referred. How he can possibly advance that as significant in the present context, I just do not know. It does not happen until 1992–93; it applies only to people who finance their own training; and it represents only £15 million of public investment in training. It has absolutely nothing to do with the scale of skills shortages which industry is now experiencing and the contribution that training could make to solving that problem.
  I am surprised that the Government's traditional desire to see the unemployment statistics improved has not led to more expenditure on training. When budgets for training were first cut significantly and Ministers were asked in the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee to explain why that had happened, we were told that it was because unemployment had fallen. That was a strange view of training, which is necessary whether people are employed or unemployed. The recession calls for a major improvement in training.
  Fiscal policy must also play a more important part in dealing with the recession. The Government have accepted in the Budget and in what they have told the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee that automatic stabilisers are an important way in which fiscal policy contributes to handling a recession. The Select Committee records its appreciation that the Government made that point clear because it has tended to be obscured in the past. However, there is further scope in the measures, that I have described for a policy actively to encourage the country out of recession without taking inflationary measures, and training and investment in transport are part of those
  210
  measures. Present circumstances also allow a further interest rate cut, which would help to handle the problems of the recession.
  Why do we not have a draft Finance Bill? Would not it be more sensible for measures of this detail to be produced in draft form for widespread discussion instead of being pushed into a concentrated process that does not permit anything like the detailed consideration that it deserves? The Government tested the waters on this with a number of tax measures in last year's Finance Bill and that of the previous year. Why not introduce a draft Finance Bill system? Why not have a draft Budget? There are relatively few Budget measures which cannot be discussed over a period of time and which are so market-sensitive that they can be announced only overnight in a dramatic Budget day announcement. Much of the Bill's contents could have been discussed over a longer period.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury made great play of the fact that the Government have abolished six taxes. He was going for the George Bush award for how well one can stick to one's promise of no new taxes. The Government who claim that they are abolishing taxes have also raised VAT by 2·5 per cent. They also gave us the poll tax, they hope to give us the council tax after three more years of the poll tax and they have also introduced the 50 per cent. port privatisation tax. That is a long string of new taxes for a Government who claim not to like taxes.
  I liked the way in which the Chief Secretary introduced the VAT increase. He said that it was a reasonable step to take in the circumstances "in which we found ourselves"—circumstances in which they found themselves? The Government created the circumstances. They invented the poll tax and they created the mess. They then found themselves, as though by accident, in circumstances from which the only escape from the catastrophe wished upon them from somewhere else was to slap 2·5 per cent. on VAT with all the consequences for families, charities, businesses and the retail trade. What a hopeless alibi. The Chief Secretary would have demolished that alibi in his Bar days if it had been advanced by a common pickpocket.
  There were some simple alternatives. The Government were right to conclude that they had to do something about the ludicrously high rates of poll tax, but they had left it too late even to introduce the relatively straightforward mechanism of local income tax for the coming year. They could have transferred the cost to national income tax which would have been a fairer way of raising the money. I am surprised that the Government did not do that. Indeed, some Conservative Members would have preferred that step. As it is, the Government have left charities with an extra burden of £33 million a year in additional VAT. The Chief Secretary refers to the reliefs for charities in the Bill. There are some reliefs, but when the Bill was drafted no one thought that an extra £33 million would be taken from charities as a result of a separate increase in VAT. The Chief Secretary must reconsider the treatment of charities in the Bill and attempt to compensate for that serious increase.
  I remind Treasury Ministers that they have a responsibility for the Inland Revenue. While we are talking about new taxes and the administration of taxes, perhaps we should bear in mind the fact that one of the problems that they will have with the council tax will lie with the Inland Revenue. Ministers have been saying that there will not be many appeals under the procedures recommended for the council tax and that everybody will

  211
  be happy with the band into which they are put. I do not think that that is true at all. Indeed, doubts about it are already apparent in the hasty but now abandoned reconsideration of whether to have nine bands instead of seven.
  I hope that Ministers will remember that there are now 650,000 outstanding appeals on business rates with which the system has not yet been able to cope. There are even 30,000 appeals arising from the old rating system with which valuation officers and the appeals machinery have still not been able to deal. That is more than a year after we have finished with the rating system, and there are 30,000 outstanding appeals. The Inland Revenue is in for a very interesting time if the council tax ever sees the light of day.
  Mr. Roger King: The hon. Gentleman has criticised the new system of council tax, the valuation of properties and the appeals procedure. His party wants to introduce a local income tax. As he will appreciate, incomes are often not strictly related to the year that has just passed or to the year that will come, because of various claims and other incomes that must be assessed. How many appeals does the hon. Gentleman think a local income tax would create?
  Mr. Beith: The local income tax system would not create any more appeals than income tax itself creates, because appeals do not arise over the level of the tax. They arise over the liability of the individual. Appeals would therefore arise from the basic national income tax that an individual was paying, whether or not a local income tax figure was added to that. It would make no difference to the appeals machinery.
  I challenged the Chief Secretary on the uniform business rate and the enormous additional burden on business. In reply, he said that it is much better than having a lot of local councils, some of which imposed high increases in rates which hit the business community in their areas. He has imposed on business across the whole country from Bath to Berwick-upon-Tweed—it is noticed in both places, particularly the former—an increase in the business rate which is more than twice the level of inflation which he now says we shall experience this year. He complained about local authorities charging 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. more than inflation. He will charge more than twice what he now believes inflation will be, and significantly more than he was predicting it would be when the rate was fixed at 10·9 per cent., which is the highest level by which the Government were permitted to increase the business rate.
  Mr. Watts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Beith: I shall not give way any more because time is running out and I was hoping to make some brief comments before concluding my remarks.
  As hon. Members have said, another matter of concern is clause 50. The retrospective and double taxation aspects of it are of such concern that they should have been discussed on the Floor of the House and not upstairs in Committee, and I shall vote accordingly. Nobody consulted us on whether clause 50 should be taken on the Floor of the House or in Committee. I hope that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) will insist on his motion that it be taken on the Floor of the House and the Government could still easily concede that.
  212
  There are omissions from the Bill too numerous to mention. For example, I refer to the environmental taxes, which were hinted at in the White Paper; the relief for child care, about which there was much discussion before the Budget and for which we pressed when we discussed the two previous Finance Bills; and the abolition of tax relief for private medical insurance, which would have enabled at least some funds to go indirectly into a health service in which job losses are taking place. These would have been welcome features of the Bill.
  There are useful matters in the Bill—for example, the restriction of mortgage interest relief to the basic rate, the action on company cars and the VAT threshold increase. They are welcome features. However, I have the feeling that the Bill was conceived as one which contained a great many matters that could easily be dropped at the last minute if there were to be a sudden general election and an agreed version of the Bill could have been quickly brought forward. I should have welcomed that. I would much rather go round the country in the June sunshine, urging people to vote Liberal Democrat, than sit in a Committee Room considering the details of the Bill, as we are now certain to do. I see no sign of that June election taking place.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) may have an opportunity to go around in the June sunshine during a general election, but it will be in June next year rather than in June this year.
  Traditionally, the Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill is wide ranging. It always presents the Chief Secretary of the day with a difficult task because he has an obligation to refer in some detail to the individual provisions of the Bill while setting the framework within which the Bill is introduced. My right hon. and learned Friend hit a good balance, and showed a remarkable grasp in response to the detailed interventions to which he was subjected. The House should be grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for the situation described in paragraph 92 of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee report, which brings up to date the contributions that have been received by the Government or have been promised to the Government in response to the appeal for other countries to help to finance the war in the Gulf and the efforts that we made there. To a considerable extent, that is a reflection of the effort that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary has put into those difficult negotiations. I am grateful also for his kind remarks about the Committee's report, which helped to put some of the press comments about it into perspective.
  The centrepiece of the Budget is the increase in VAT, with the corresponding decrease in the community charge—the switch from local to central Government taxation. The House will know from my speech in the debate on the Budget that I should have liked to go further and abolish local taxation altogether. However, that is clearly a move in the right direction. The community charge was an improvement on the rates and, in turn, the council tax will be an improvement on the community charge. We are going in the right direction. Therefore, I very much welcome the proposals. Nonetheless, the measure will raise only about I I per cent. of local government finance. At

  213
  some stage, we must consider whether the task that that tax will perform is sensible. Nonetheless, the central part of the Budget in that respect is right, and I welcome it.
  The Treasury Select Committee report puts the Finance Bill in perspective. Of course, as we rightly point out, we have a recession which is more serious than the Treasury anticipated. We want to be quite clear about the causes of the recession. As the evidence from the Governor of the Bank of England makes clear, it is a reflection of the action that the Government have needed to take because inflation took off following the stock exchange crash of 1987. It is common ground that there was a misjudgment at that time. The present Prime Minister and the present Chancellor accept that there was an error of judgment at that time, against a background of very faulty statistics.
  he point that must be made strongly is that inflation and the subsequent recession would have been a great deal worse if the Government had accepted the views that the Opposition put forward at that time. I have looked carefully at the record. It is quite apparent from the speeches by the shadow Chancellor—the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), and a number of others that they were advocating a massive fiscal stimulus on the one hand and reductions in interest rates on the other hand. Having gone through that record, I was rather surprised only a few weeks ago to hear, on the Walden programme, the shadow Chancellor say:
  "There was a problem following the crash. The great error of the Conservative party was not having lower interest rates at that time."
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman still does not understand that he was wrong then, that he is wrong now, and that, if we had done what he suggested, the recession would be a great deal worse. I do not know whether it is a Scottish legal expression—it is a legal expression otherwise—but the shadow Chancellor is estopped from the kind of criticism that he has made. He should recognise that and come clean.
  I now refer to the report of the Treasury Select Committee. I was somewhat surprised by the headlines that accompanied some press reports on it because it was mixed up with the conference of the Institute of Directors and some comments that were made there. The report contains a number of criticisms, to which I shall refer in a moment. The Institute of Directors was being a little unfair in some respects. In his conference speech, which I thought was very good, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor pointed out that he had accepted virtually every recommendation that the institute had made in its Budget representations. That being the case, the criticism was rather surprising.
  The Treasury Select Committee is particularly critical about forecasts. We point out that, at this time last year, we drew attention to the fact that the history of these matters shows that it is always difficult to detect turning points in the economy. The figures show that the effect, whether downward or upward, has always been under-estimated in the official forecasts. The Committee says that the errors in the forecasts have become worse and worse in successive economic cycles. At the time of the autumn statement, we said that, in our opinion, the
  214
  Treasury forecasts were wrong. That view has certainly been vindicated by subsequent events, as is evidenced by the facts set out in the Red Book.
  The Chancellor and his team are working under a severe handicap with forecasts. As to whether there is a Budget surplus or a Budget deficit, leading to either a public sector debt repayment or a public sector borrowing requirement, the official forecast, based on experience, is that the margin of error will be £5·75 million in either direction. That is an enormous margin of error. Repeating the corny analogy that I used the other day, I shall say simply that the Chancellor is trying to drive a car with an enormous amount of play in the steering—verging on one side to inflation and on the other side to unemployment. There is little clear guidance as to what is happening. The Committee is right to suggest that there should be an inquiry into the forecasting processes, in addition to the existing one concerning the improvement of statistics. We have a difficult and dangerous situation. In the context of the economic cost of the problems of managing the economy on the basis of the present forecasts, the cost of such an inquiry would be insignificant. The Opposition would simply veer off in the direction of inflation. They would drive straight off the road at an accelerating pace. We, on the other hand, say that we have got to get the steering right.
  We need quarterly, rather than half-yearly, forecasts. Everyone else produces quarterly forecasts. Indeed, for some it is a monthly process. Given the variation between the situation of last autumn and the current situation, we ought to have had an interim forecast. The expenditure that the production of such forecasts would involve would be worthwhile. The Committee has been addressing this real problem.
  The Government's overall strategy operates within the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. The Chancellor is reducing interest rates as inflation comes down. In our report, we point out that the RPI forecast may well prove to be pessimistic. In other words, the rate may well come down even faster than the Government are forecasting, and, at any rate, to 4 per cent. by the end of the year. Of course, the underlying rate is a more difficult matter. It is particularly dependent on wage settlements, and here the public sector has an important role to play in bringing down the general level. We are not keen on staged settlements, which may well turn out to be examples of putting off the evil day. In this connection, the Institute of Directors has an important role to play. We do not know whether the foreign exchange markets will put more emphasis on the RPI or on the underlying rate of inflation, but I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is right to say that we do not want interest rates to be cut prematurely, and then raised again. That would be the worst possible course for business confidence. Thus, my right hon. Friend must be cautious.
  I welcome the fact that, in response to the Committee's earlier reports, the Treasury has said categorically that it accepts the role of the automatic stabilisers. If, as a result of increased unemployment benefit during a recession, or falling revenue and smaller profits, the deficit increases or the surplus decreases, the Government will not now take that into account. In other words, they will allow the stabilisers to work. A few days ago, there were press reports to the effect that if expenditure on unemployment

  215
  benefit would increase, there would have to be corresponding savings elswhere. That is not my understanding of Government policy.
  Mr. Mellor indicated assent.
  Mr. Higgins: I am glad to see that my right hon. and learned Friend agrees. I presume that the writer of the press article was living in the past. Automatic stabilisers have an important role to play. The Committee makes some specific remarks about whether the automatic effect is at the desirable level. In paragraph 26, we suggest that some modification might be appropriate.
  It is clear that the Government's objective is to achieve a balanced budget over the medium term. However, they fully accept that, over the cycle, there may well have to be a surplus in some years and a deficit in others. That is entirely appropriate. The Government's policy on interest rates, combined with the effects of the stabilisers and of fiscal policy, which has shown a substantial move into deficit I believe—that the foreign exchange markets realise that, as the Treasury Select Committee says, this is a sensible reaction to the present economic situation—gives us reason to believe that we may look for an upturn.
  The Committee's report is, of course, based on the evidence that it received. That is the purpose of Committees of this House. Reflection on the facts is an important component of the influence on our report, as is the evidence that we received. Clearly, we do not yet see clear evidence of an upturn. As has been pointed out, the unemployment figures are a lagging indicator. The policy as now enunciated is significantly different from the policy of six or nine months ago. That applies both to fiscal policy and to interest rates. I believe that the Government are now on the right course. If we can achieve some improvement in forecasting and in a number of other factors, the Committee will have fulfilled a useful function by keeping the Government on the right lines and ensuring that the recession is shorter than would otherwise have been the case. I welcomed the Government's acceptance of a number of the Committee's recommendations, and I look forward to their accepting even more in the future.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The unpopularity of the poll tax has diverted attention from the Government's failure with the economy. No hon. Member, recalling to what extent the Government were responsible for the 1980–81 recession, could really have expected that the country would ever again be called upon to go through all that. Then there was great talk about the need to shake out surplus labour in order to produce a leaner and fitter industry. That recession cleared my constituency of its industry. When I became the constituency's Member of Parliament, it was regarded as the most industrial area in western Europe. Now it has only one firm of any size and several smaller single entrepreneurial ventures-to become businesses, we hope, but that is a matter about which I shall say something in a few minutes.
  We are now doing it all over again, and it is still not working. Manufacturing output is plummeting, investment is collapsing and unemployment registered a record rise last month. But, disturbingly—here I reflect the experience of my own constituents—by comparison with
  216
  1980–81, more of the assets that are now being brought into receivership appear to have real value, as distinct from a scrap value. Again, I shall say more later.
  Although cuts in corporation tax will undoubtedly produce an increase in investment by the mid-1990s, could not the Chancellor have chosen other measures-such as investment allowances—if he wished to produce a surge in investment in the short term? Surely that is what hon. Members on both sides of the House see as our greatest need. The Retail Consortium welcomes the downward trend in interest costs but believes that further sustained cuts are needed.
  How fragile demand has become was brought home to us yesterday by the shock announcement of layoffs by Marks and Spencer. Some hon. Gentlemen from both sides of the House—I was one of them—visited the corporate headquarters of Marks and Spencer in Baker street only last week. We know what its problem is—lack of demand.
  The Budget decision to finance a reduction in poll tax bills by increasing VAT to 17·5 per cent. was clearly done with a cynical eye on the RPI, but that political manipulation of VAT will have far-reaching consequences and will place, for example, those involved in the bloodstock industry in the United Kingdom, following the arrival of the single market in 1993, at a tremendous disadvantage with their European partners, and in particular with the Irish and the French. It is an important matter which will need to be pursued in Committee, presumably on the Floor of the House. The increase in VAT presents the most serious threat to racecourse revenues and to thoroughbred breeding, and even calls into question the future of Tattersalls and Doncaster bloodstock sales. The Chief Secretary's confirmation that the Minister of State will receive a deputation early next week is very welcome.
  Despite the findings of the latest CBI survey, to which the Chief Secretary referred, Britain's business leaders have severely criticised the Government's economic record. Although a handful of companies in specialist or niche markets are doing well, the majority of members of the engineering employers' association of Sheffield, as I reminded the House earlier this afternoon, according to its April quarterly business trends survey, distributed only yesterday, arc finding the recession worse than that of the early 1980s. Last week, the president of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce publicly declared the Chancellor to be too optimistic. The Chancellor himself may now be of the same mind in view of recent utterances.
  As for inflation, according to almost every ministerial speech, it is being sent packing. On the short-term outlook for the headline inflation rate, Ministers must be on fairly solid ground, but the broadest inflation measure, the gross domestic product deflator, is another matter. Falling it certainly is, but, in the words of the chairman of the Conservative party, it is not "plummeting like a stone". Nor do the latest producer-price figures support the Prime Minister's claim that the Government have inflation "by the throat".
  Indeed, the Nomura Research Institute, in a new analysis, suggests that economic recovery will bring with it the speedy return of Britain's inflation and current account problems. It will not be easy for the Government to stimulate the economy at home on the one hand and on the other achieve purchasing power parity abroad, while at the same time arriving at a convenient election date.

  217
  Nowadays, however, it is no longer possible to blame the trade unions for most of that. Strikes remain at a very low level, and the number of days lost in January was the lowest for any month in 41 years.
  Nor is it hard to see who the pacemakers in the pay league have been in recent years. A recent survey for the CBI found that directors' salaries are rising by an average of 14 per cent. and have outstripped those of other employees for more than five years.
  The Association of British Chambers of Commerce has conducted a survey of 7,000 businesses in 15 regions. It finds that all regions are suffering, with London, the west midlands and Yorkshire and Humberside being the worst hit. With the permission of hon. Members, I should like to dwell on my own region of Yorkshire and Humberside. The recession is tightening its grip on the region, despite its contribution to Britain's export drive—27·9 per cent. of its GDP, as recognised last week in the Queen's birthday accolade to industry. The 1980s saw the loss of almost a quarter of Yorkshire's manufacturing jobs, yet Government preferential aid to the region's industry is less than 6 per cent. of the total for the entire United Kingdom. EC funding in 1987–88 was eight times domestic funding.
  As Yorkshire industry struggles to haul itself out of the pre-war era—its prime task now—thousands of small businesses are threatened by insolvency, according to the chairman of Sheffield enterprise agency. The old staples in Yorkshire, part of the cradle of our industrial society, are bent on the vital task of regeneration. Small businesses have been set up by skilled engineers and ex-coal miners in south Yorkshire and by Asian entrepreneurs elsewhere in the region, notably in Bradford and Kirklees. All promise to make substantial contributions to the local economies. However, interest rates are the trigger that have produced the slide into recession and that are pushing them into insolvency, thus threatening the existence of that fertile seedbed which is so vital to our future.
  In Sheffield, it has been evident for some time that there is a clear need for a strong proactive policy to regenerate the local economy. That is the city's main task. Thus, it has diversified from its steel-producing roots to adapt to changing times and technology.
  The city has also entered into a unique partnership between business and the community. Instead of rebuilding the past, the city is concentrating on using Sheffield's strengths to create a new culture, but it is choking in the present business climate. Its £2 billion redevelopment programme is being hit harder and harder by the recession. The number of projects delayed and abandoned is rising, piling on the misery for firms involved in the construction and development industries.
  Sheffield is within the major conurbation of South Yorkshire, along with Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham. The area may still be regarded by those who have not visited it in recent years as a traditional manufacturing region, but it is increasingly attractive as a cost-effective location for service, financial and administrative business. But it needs a different financial regime from that set out in the Bill.
  Mr. Mans: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the effect of the unified business rate is on his city?
  Mr. Duffy: Of course, that is one problem that small businesses are trying to shoulder. I receive more complaints about that than about most problems now facing small business men.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: It is not as bad as it was.
  Mr. Duffy: It is still burdensome. I have found in reaction to the Budget that there is still the same concern not only about the uniform business rate but about corporation tax, despite the changes. There will be no flags out in Sheffield on those two counts.
  We all appreciate the need to control inflation. We do not minimise the task facing the Government, and we wish them well. It has to be mastered, but is it enough to rely solely on narrow, deflationary policies and to put the whole burden on the unemployed and the small business man? We need a broader range of policies: credit controls as well as lower interest rates, a greater emphasis on education and training, a modernisation of our infrastructure and greater investment in manufacturing. Above all, we need the involvement of both sides of industry if we are to make any headway towards low inflation and also a low unemployment society.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I quite often follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), usually in shipping debates, which is one of the subjects that he did not mention today. I hope to be allowed to remedy that situation and that he will be able to support my words. However, I would like to pick up one thing that the hon. Gentleman said. My understanding was that in Sheffield the uniform business rate had meant a reduction in costs from the old rating system. Of course, as we all know, corporation tax has gone down dramatically. We are delighted to ensure that rates and costs to businesses continue to fall.
  There is much to commend in this Finance Bill: lower corporation tax, relief on bad debts, help for charities, a boost for training, increased benefits for the needy and, above all, the continuation of a move from direct to indirect taxation. That is what encourages us all to plan for the future; that promotes investment, effort, thrift and enterprise and discourages conspicuous consumption. After all, we all want a nation that thinks of its future, and it is about the future, in particular the future of the British shipping industry, that I intend to speak today.
  Shipping is one of the major invisible earners in the country. It contributes, together with other maritime-related industries, more than £5 billion a year to our balance of payments. It provides training and skilled employment and is essential for the defence of the realm.
  These facts are accepted by the Government. It was, after all, the Government who set up the joint working party of the industry, together with the Ministries of Transport and Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury. It was this group which categorised British shipping as "a vital national asset" in economic and in defence terms.
  Nor is that point lost on the House. My early-day motion 500, entitled "Merchant Navy", called upon the Government

  219
  "to take immediate and positive action to first ensure that the British fleet is strengthened by appropriate stimulation of investment in modern tonnage and second encourage the recruitment, training and employment of British seafarers."
  It attracted 356 signatures, 166 of which came from the Conservative Benches, and with very good reason. The United Kingdom-based fleet has declined by 90 per cent. in the past 10 years; it is one tenth of what it was a decade ago and the average age of what is left is greater than the world average. At the same time and within the same period, just 10 years, the number of British seafarers has fallen by two thirds.
  The continued contraction of the British fleet is a direct result of the nature of the competition that it faces-a competition which enjoys special advantages beyond normal commercial competitiveness. The two most important of these special advantages, those which are pertinent to today's debate, are the cost of investment and the cost of employing British crews.
  Major competitors—Germany, Denmark, Norway and many others—employ schemes to encourage investment in ships. Direct investment grants, soft loans, accelerated depreciation arrangements, special tax breaks, low or nil corporation tax—these and others all make the capital costs of France, Norway, Liberia, Denmark, Greece, Germany, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands lower than ours. Nor can we match their crew costs. While the greatest competition inevitably comes from countries where labour is cheaper than in western Europe, other western nations—Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands and Portugal—have acted. They have introduced schemes, including exempting seafarers from income tax and national insurance payments, to reduce the disincentive of employing their own nationals.
  None of this is new. The industry, employers and employees, and many on both sides of the House, have expressed their concern over many years. What is new is the way in which the joint working party has given new urgency to the central question—what is to be done?
  The answer has been identified by the industry. It has proposed specific fiscal measures which would, first, stimulate investment and fleet renewal and, secondly, encourage the continued employment of British seamen.
  One conclusion of the joint working party was the following:
  "The UK's fleet is ageing…The overall level of investment by British companies is below that necessary to maintain the fleet at present levels."
  With 75 per cent. of our ships requiring replacement by the year 2000, a major programme of fleet renewal is urgently necessary. First-year allowances on a temporary basis for, say, five years would meet that objective; and the cost would be nothing unless there were new investment, and then it would be only in terms of the deferment of corporation tax on profitable enterprises.
  The benefit to British ship-owning companies would be considerable. By improving cash flow in the early years of acquisition when the financial burden is at its heaviest, this, allied to other measures, would turn a declining industry into one which within 10 years could contribute £10 billion a year to our balance of payments.
  The other prerequisite for reversing our maritime decline is the need to remove the disincentive to employ British seafarers. In his Budget speech my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said:
  "I recognise that there is a strategic case for measures to encourage shipping companies to draw their crews from
  220
  seamen in the United Kingdom, who would be willing and able to serve in time of war."—[Official Report, 19 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 173.]
  Regrettably, and I believe inadvertently, the only measure that was introduced, clause 43, will do nothing of the sort. It will not reduce the cost of employing British crews; it will harm British companies which employ the two thirds of British seafarers who will not benefit and who will therefore be tempted away from their current employment to serve in deep-sea ships which, given the decline of our own fleet, are likely to be foreign-owned and operated.
  In order that the objectives that my right hon. Friend has enunciated may be fulfilled, it is essential that the cost of employing British seafarers be reduced. Merchant seamen should be afforded relief from income tax in a way that enables the employer to retain the earnings which would otherwise be remitted to the Inland Revenue.
  What would that cost be? It would be some £30 million in a full year in the short term, but the benefits in training, employment and the security of our nation would undoubtedly be considerable. There are precedents for these measures in the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium and Greece.
  I believe that not to follow such precedents would demonstrate a shortsighted, short-term, blinkered approach which would be uncharacteristic of a Conservative Chancellor. We have seen that, as the upper bands of personal tax are reduced, tax revenues from the same percentile increase. Similarly, more ships and more men paying less will produce more revenue than fewer ships and fewer men paying more. The precedent and the principle are clear.
  Some hon. Members may ask what is so special about British shipping that it needs and deserves special assistance. Others may suggest that we should reduce the intervention of other countries which places us at such a disadvantage. That is a fair question and an understandable comment to which I shall endeavour to give a clear answer and response.
  What makes British shipping unique is its importance to this nation's wealth and security, allied to the fact that ships, by their nature, are mobile and will seek out the most favourable fiscal and commercial environment.
  These measures are not without precedent in Britain. Some hon. Members may remember that companies in enterprise zones have enjoyed such first-year allowance provisions for some years. The Government have been prepared to take action to safeguard other major generators of invisibles, such as the stock exchange, which last year was exempted from stamp duty on paperless share transactions at a cost of some £800 million in a full year.
  As for subsidies enjoyed by our competitors, the Government and industry joint working party concluded:
  "The prospects for eliminating subsidies in other countries in the near future are not encouraging."
  As every hon. Member will understand, that is Ministry-speak for, "By the time it happens—if it happens—there will be no British ships or British seafarers."
  An ancestor of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was Arthur Anderson, who founded P and.O With his Shetland ancestry, my right hon. Friend should understand the importance of the sea to this nation. He must know that the country faces the risk of the near-total loss of the United Kingdom-registered fleet. Other countries that share our free market philosophy have

  221
  decided that it is not a risk that they can afford and have taken remedial action. Their fleets are reviving and beginning to prosper. Unless the Government reach the same conclusions, we shall rue the day that we stood idle and watched our maritime heritage, power and commerce disappear before our eyes.
  Over the past 10 years, the British Merchant Navy has declined by 9 per cent. a year—there is only 10 per cent. left. The industry's needs are clear. The palliatives of Government have failed. The early-day motion has made clear the will of the House. It is time for the Government to act as the industry proposes and as the House requires.
  7.3 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) makes a powerful case for British merchant shipping with which most of us would agree, as the early-day motion shows. Unfortunately, the Conservative Government will not listen to him. This is another great British industry that has been run down by the right-wing market philosophy of the past 12 years.
  The Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill is unusual because it combines a debate on the clauses and a general economic debate on the development of the economy from the presentation of the Budget until now. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury spent most of his speech on economic matters.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) referred to clause 12. Like many Labour Members, I deplore the increase in VAT to 17·5 per cent. I do so for many reasons. It reduces the local element in local taxation to 11 or 12 per cent. That makes a mockery of local democracy. It creates a "gearing" problem—to use the vogue word—and gives the Government an excuse to maintain capping on local government expenditure.
  There is also a central Government problem. I do not wish to indulge in the debate about hypothecation. Clearly this is not strictly hypothecation. It seems that the 2·5 per cent. proceeds on VAT are almost like the judge's salary and the European Community's budget expenditure—a charge on the Consolidated Fund. I do not know how Governments will deal with it and whether it will reduce their flexibility.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that 17·5 per cent. was too high. We should move to more positive rates of VAT. A single positive rate of about 14 per cent.—even 15 per cent. was too high—could be justified. A rate of 17·5 per cent. falls heavily on many disadvantaged groups, including charities, disabled people and churches. I remember as a Treasury Minister, when the rate was lower, replying to letter after letter about the problem of repairing church roofs. Churches collect considerable amounts to repair church roofs, but then face VAT bills. If we move to higher rates, we must have an intermediate rate between zero and 17·5 per cent.
  The Government are attempting to convince people that things are getting better. We had the usual bluster from the Chief Secretary. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor try to put a brave face on matters. We hear about lights at the end of tunnels, corners being turned, bottoming-out and turning points—various clichés are
  222
  trotted out. They are a sure sign that the Government are not sure of themselves and are not confident about their assertions.
  After 12 years of Tory Government, the underlying state of the economy is dire. A few percentage points off the retail prices index and a few percentage points off interest rates—although welcome—will not make much difference to the problems facing the British economy. Over the past 12 years, Britain has become a nation of consumers. The Government have never worried about production. Their philosophy is consumption. Goods must be bought—it does not matter where they come from. The drug must be found—it does not matter who the maker or the pusher is. It does not matter what it costs—it must be paid for.
  The best sign of the dire state of our economy remains the balance of payments—not the fact that the Government do not like the state of the economy. There are those, like Conservative Members, who do not want to hear about the balance of payments. As Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) told us year in, year out, from one debate to another, that it did not matter. When eventually it mattered, he said, "It matters only if we cannot finance it." The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to finance it with high interest rates and the consequent recession from which we suffer now.
  Devotees of the Samuel Brittan column in the Financial Times will have noticed that from week to week the respected writer hankers for a common European currency. One reason is that, as he tells us, the balance of payments figures will completely disappear—like the bits of paper that went down the tube in George Orwell's "1984". The figure may disappear, but the underlying causes will remain. South Dakota and California have a common currency. They do not issue balance of payments figures, but South Dakota is probably the poorest state in the Union and California the richest—and any balance of payments figures that they issued would reflect that. Whether or not such figures are produced, nothing changes.
  Over the past 10 years, the Tory culture has been that consumers and consumerism are king. That was brought home to me when I re-read an article in the Financial Times, published a day after the latest trade figures were released, under the byline of a Mr. Peter Marsh, who is a member of the paper's economic staff. The headline was: "Trade gap may be start of recovery." I found that strange, but thought that it might be deliberate. The article began: "Britain's current account deficit widened last month,"—which was correct—"which is a sign that the country's battered economy may soon begin a recovery." I thought how odd that statement was. I would have said the opposite and that it was a sign of the country's battered economy becoming more battered. I do not blame Mr. Marsh. He is probably a child of the 80s and of Thatcherism and consumerism—under which, if consumption increases, it is thought that the economy improves, and if consumption falls, the economy is battered. For those who hold that belief, it does not matter whether the goods come from Pwllheli, Ashton-under-Lyne, Sheffield, or from abroad—to them, that is a secondary consideration.
  The Treasury forecast a £6 billion trade deficit in manufactured goods in The coming year which is half the figure for last year. The Red Book makes it clear that that is only because there is a recession. Otherwise, I suspect

  223
  that the deficit would be nearer £12 billion. As interest rates fall again, as apparently they will, the deficit will increase, growing nearer to £12 billion.
  Britain cannot call itself an industrial nation any longer. It is a service nation. Britain's percentage share of total EC manufacturing output is down to 15 per cent., lower than France and Italy—which are both of comparable size but without our industrial manufacturing tradition—and substantially lower than Germany, whose share is about 50 per cent.
  Consumption is not the only reason for the state of the British economy. This country has many efficient industries, and several have grown more efficient over the past 10 years, but there are not enough of them and Britain cannot simply up production when demand requires, so it is met from abroad.
  The problem lies not only with manufacturing industry. Britain's balance of trade deficit in food has doubled over the last 12 years of Conservative government. Last year, the figure was £6 billion, and because demand for food is probably less elastic, it is likely to be the same for the coming year. There was a time when that would not matter, because we could just about cover our food trade deficit with our surplus in manufacturing industry—as we did in 1979. But those days have gone, and I do not expect that we shall see another surplus for at least 10 years.
  It is a sad commentary on 12 years of Conservative government that we enter the 1990s with a substantial trade deficit in not only manufactured goods but food, and unable fully to produce all the food that we need to come anywhere near satisfying the demands of the British population.
  From 1985 onwards, Britain's trade deficits were masked by its energy surplus which, in 1985, reached a high point of £8 billion. Effectively, it was an oil surplus. It has fallen year by year, and I doubt whether there will be an energy surplus this year, any more than there was last. It has been lost for reasons that we all understand.
  Britain already has substantial manufacturing and food trade deficits, and there is a possibility that it will incur an energy deficit, too. The situation in respect of oil will be neutral, one way or another. Britain cannot look forward to the surpluses that it has enjoyed over the past few years. There may be a coal deficit because pit closures may make it necessary to import more coal. The existing small gas deficit may increase as other countries export their product to Britain to break its monopoly, and the French will no doubt be pouring their nuclear-generated electricity into the national grid, as they do already and are entitled to do. As French capacity increases, they will drive down the price to take an even larger share of the British market. We may therefore have an energy trade deficit of any thing from £2 billion to £4 billion over the next 10 years.
  Britain enters the 1990s with a potential trade deficit of £20 billion in respect of manufactured goods, food and energy. Who will pay for it? As the right hon. Member for Blaby said, if the deficit can be paid for, all will be well. Where are Britain's invisible exports? We found them again last year, when they were valued at about £5 billion, and took the form of interest, profits and dividends. However, that revenue is subject to the vagaries of the market, interest rates, and other factors. Let us not forget the payment that we make to the EC and to what used to be called the British Army of the Rhine. We could still be left with an annual deficit of about £16 billion over the next four or five years.
  224
  The service industries cannot cover that deficit, because they are consumers. Nor can property companies, which put up the marvellous buildings and shopping malls that have mushroomed all round the country over the past 10 years. Will the distribution industry, which puts all the foreign goods into those shopping malls, pay for that deficit? Of course not—it is concerned with increasing consumerism. Nor will pension funds pay, because they spend most of their time trying to beat inflation, and they are concerned with consumerism, too.
  The City does not contribute very much, despite the fact that it likes to think that it does. Stockbrokers and banks contribute very little to Britain's balance of payments. There is a powerful lobby to persuade the central European bank, which the Liberals love so much, to make its base in London. I do not know why. We already have plenty of banks. There are far too many of them, and another one will not produce anything, or help to reduce Britain's balance of payments deficit.
  If the Government look to the future, perhaps they can explain how Britain will pay for the enormous deficits in manufacturing goods, food, and energy that I mentioned. Those deficits will partly be met by invisibles, but the balance will be paid for, if "paid" is the right word, by low growth and high unemployment, interest rates, and inflation. I suggest to the House that an economy that cannot produce is prone to high inflation, as different groups try to get as much as they can and to beat the system because production is not up to it. That will be paid for by cuts in public expenditure and a rundown in welfare services as more and more has to be spent on unemployment and debt repayments as a result of high interest rates.
  That is the distressing scenario for Britain in the 1990s unless something drastic is done immediately. The Government cannot do anything about it as they have created the problem. Only a Labour Government can make a start on that difficult task.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. John Watts: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) for expressing so clearly his opposition to the measures taken in the Budget to reduce the burden on local taxpayers. I believe that he said that it made a mockery of local government to raise such a small proportion of the cost from local taxation. I am also grateful to him because he helped to dispel some of the cloud of confusion left by the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).
  The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) criticised two of the ways in which taxes are raised to pay for local government—the uniform business rate and the decision to put an extra 2·5 per cent. on VAT to shift the burden. Their accord on such matters must have brought back fond memories of the halcyon days of the Lib-Lab pact, when a lame duck Labour Government looked to cuckoos in the nest for support.
  It is perfectly reasonable for members of Opposition parties to criticise Government measures. However, at the end of the remarks of the hon. Member for Derby, South I was left unclear as to what proportion of the cost of local services she thought should fall on business rate payers. I assume that, if she is critical of the level of the uniform business rate now, she is hinting to the House that it is

  225
  Labour party policy that a smaller proportion of the cost of local services should be borne by business rates. However, at the end of her speech she was running short of time and was unable to give way to me when I sought to intervene. Perhaps one of her colleagues could clarify that matter now or in the winding-up speech, because it is of considerable importance to businesses and for the economy as a whole.
  I should have asked the same question of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed if he were in his place, or of another member of his party if there were a Liberal present in the Chamber, but I suspect that it matters little whether the House and the country know the views of the Liberal party on the appropriate proportion of costs to be borne by business rates. I suspect that, after the next general election, the Liberal Bench will be as empty as it is for our deliberations this evening.
  The hon. Member for Derby, South also criticised the decision to increase VAT to reduce the burden of the community charge, and it is necessary to be clear about that. I understand her to be saying that my constituents—whose community charge has been reduced this year from £330 a head to £190—should not have that benefit but should be paying more. I assume that she was arguing, as was the right hon. Member for Llanelli, that it is appropriate for local tax payers to bear a greater proportion of the cost.
  If the hon. Member for Derby, South were in her place, no doubt she would swiftly rise and tell me that a Labour Government would not have introduced the community charge in the first place, so the need would not arise. Whatever the nature of the local tax used to raise revenue, its burden falls on the local tax payer, and it is important that my constituents and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends know by the end of this debate what proportion of the cost of local services the Labour party feels should fall on the local domestic taxpayer.
  If it is not in favour of that shift—I believe that the hon. Lady said that it would be £4 billion or £5 billion extra without achieving a single teacher—I take it to mean that Labour believes that, if more money is to be made available to local government, it should have been spent on extending services rather than on reducing the burden to the local taxpayer.
  How much does the Labour party believe that local taxpayers should bear to pay for the total cost of local services? I believe that the Labour party proposes, as a first step, that we should return to the unreformed domestic rate system. My constituents will know that, in the last year of domestic rates—1989–90—the average rate bill in Slough was £500. They will also know that the increase in precepts and expenditure since then would add another 38 per cent., taking the average to roughly £700.
  If the Labour party is against measures which reduce the burden falling on local taxpayers, it is offering my constituents in Slough, as a first step, a return to paying £700 per household on average in domestic rates, compared with £380 in community charge for a couple or, under the proposals of the Secretary of State for the Environment, a council tax of £357 for an average-sized property. I hope that the Labour party will spell that out. If it does, I know which options my constituents will back.
  226
  In his opening remarks, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury rightfully took credit on behalf of the Government for having abolished six taxes. No doubt that inspired my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) to suggest another one—capital gains tax—that he thought should be added to the list. He acknowledged that that would be a fairly costly measure to add to this year's Budget—at a cost of £1·4 billion. I doubt whether he will be surprised not to receive a favourable response to his representations this year.
  I have another suggestion to put to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench—one that would cost them less, perhaps about £2 million but no more. In 1982, bingo duty was extended to working men's clubs and similar non-profit-making members' clubs and voluntary organisations. Its introduction was to prevent unfair competition with commercial bingo operators and not as a means of raising revenue. Ever since that duty was imposed in 1982, the Working Men's Club and Institutes Union and other clubs which are associated with it through the Committee of Registered Clubs Association—including the British Legion, Liberal clubs, Labour clubs, and, although they are not in CORCA, Conservative clubs—have campaigned for the abolition of that impost.
  As the joint chairman of the parliamentary group for non-profit-making members' clubs, I have often been vocal in the Finance Bill Committee in advocating that case. As Murphy's law always applies, it was during one year that I did not serve on that Committee that my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), then Financial Secretary, conceded a substantial rise in the threshold at which clubs were required to pay the duty. Perhaps it was not Murphy's law: perhaps it was the absence of my persuasion that led him to do so. I hope that that was not the case, as I would not wish the argument to fail because of my advocacy today.
  Raising the threshold was a welcome relief to many clubs which had been on the margin of liability to pay the tax, and the clubs are grateful for that. However, the case for abolition remains as strong as ever. The argument, to put it concisely, is that the original reason for the introduction of the tax—to prevent unfair competition with commercial bingo operators—is no longer valid. When the case was put and accepted in 1989 for the threshold to be raised, no objection was made by the Bingo Association of Great Britain. The.association made it very clear that it wished to raise no such objection.
  When representations were made earlier this year to Treasury Ministers, the clubs movement also informed the Bingo Association of Great Britain what it intended to do and asked whether it had any objections. In reply, the association wrote to Customs and Excise and said:
  "We have been requested not to oppose the abolition of this duty for the clubs, and we want to make it clear that we do not want to be cited as an objector to this change and in no way do we wish to be seen at this stage as an adverse influence on the CIU's case."
  That should put to bed once and for all any suggestion that the maintenance of this duty is justifiable because of the need to protect commercial operators from unfair competition. If the trade body of the commercial bingo operators does not seek to argue that case, I do not think that Customs and Excise or the Treasury should seek to argue it any further on its behalf.

  227
  There is a powerful reason why abolition of the duty is required for non-profit-making members' clubs—and not merely further increases in the threshold at which they have to pay tax. The problem is that even those clubs that do not have to pay tax need to maintain all the records that would be required if they were paying tax in order to be able to prove to Customs and Excise that they are not liable to pay it.
  The effect of this on the literally thousands of volunteers who run these clubs up and down the country is a very considerable additional work load. It is imposed not on people who are paid to do the job but on volunteers from among our constituents, who give of their free time to serve these clubs that play such an important role in the life of our local communities. Whatever increases in the threshold may be made from time to time, that administrative burden continues to fall on all clubs where bingo is ever played.
  I urge my colleagues on the Treasury Bench, therefore, to look closely at the submission that has been made and to add bingo duty for non-profit-making members.' clubs to the roll of honour of unnecessary and unhappy taxes that the Government have so far succeeded in abolishing.
  7.33 pm
  Ms. Diane Abbott: A few hundred yards from where I live in Hackney lies Ridley road market, a famous east end market. We can get everything at Ridley road—fruit, veg, clothes, freshly baked bagels, West Indian sugar cane. We also have our share of con men. I put it to the House that this country's economy is being run by a bunch of little better than con men. Boring and grey suited they may be, but they have standards of honesty and probity that would embarrass the average east end street trader.
  As a member of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), I have had the opportunity to observe this Government's dishonesty at first hand. The chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Worthing has been so scrupulously honest that the members of the Committee are worried that his honesty may stand in the way of him becoming Sir Terence.
  I wish to point to three of the most recent Government cons that provide the background to the Finance Bill. They are the bogus nature of the official statistics; the Government's misleading claims about the consequences of the VAT switch; and finally, and sadly, the way that they have conned innocent right-wingers in their own party about Europe. I shall come later to the touching plight of these innocent, blameless, harmless little Englanders and right-wingers. First, let me deal with the bogus Government statistics.
  The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has been agonising for some time about Government forecasts. In 1988, we said that there were a number of serious doubts about autumn statement forecasts. At first, we thought that it was just the statistics, so we said, again in 1988, that the Treasury's ability to come to any rigorous judgment about the economy is now severely circumscribed by the unsatisfactory state of the official statistics. In 1989, we pleaded with the Government to take urgent action to improve the quality and reliability of official
  228
  statistics. In 1990, we said that margins of error of the magnitude in the Government's forecasts present a serious problem in relation to the management of the economy.
  All along, we thought that the problem with the Government's forecasts was merely the statistics, but enter, in 1991, at one of our sessions of evidence on the subject, Mr. C. J. Mowl—grade 3, economic forecasts and analysis, Treasury. Our Chairman put to Mr. Mowl what I believe he imagined to be a helpful question. He said:
  "The Shadow Chancellor on the floor of the House has made considerable reference to what he describes as 'the Chancellor's forecasts' and indeed 'the Chancellor's previous forecasts'. Can you tell us to what extent, if any extent, Ministers have been responsible for any of the figures?"
  Mr. Mowl blinked, exposed as he was to the unaccustomed sunlight, and burbled. He talked about the confidentiality of advice to Ministers, about a large element of judgment and about the process of discussion. Finally, he said:
  "The forecast produced can be described as both the Treasury forecast and the Chancellor's forecast and the Government's forecast. It is a collective view."
  That is strange wording. The right hon. Member for Worthing tried again. He said:
  "But my previous understanding was that when the official forecast is produced and published Ministers do not look at a particular figure."
  He asked whether he was correct. He went on to say:
  "It certainly used to be the position. With the Red Books which I was responsible for issuing, I certainly would not have dreamt of altering any of the official forecasts."
  The Treasury officials hummed and hah-ed, but it was clear from that session of evidence that what is happening with the Government forecast is that the judgment of Ministers with no economic background is being used to tamper with the statistics.
  That is the basis for the recommendation in our report, which has been largely overlooked, that the Treasury should make full forecasts four times a year, and that the results should not be modified by Ministers. The reason why the forecasts have been so consistently out is that the statistics have been modified by Ministers—in my view, with political aims in mind. That is why the forecasts systematically failed to spot the recession, why they systematically underestimated its seriousness and why they are consistently wrong about inflation. There is one common factor in the errors in the forecasts: they are always in favour of the Government.
  Mr. Higgins: The hon. Lady is sliding from saying whether there is any political input in the forecasts into saying whether there is any political input in the statistics. It is important to make that distinction. My clear understanding, as we have heard frequently in evidence from the head of the Central Statistical Office, is that there is no question whatsoever of Ministers altering the statistics in any way. It is the case, as we understand it, that there may be to some extent a change in the forecasts, but that has happened under the Governments of all political parties in recent years, although it used not to happen some years ago.
  Ms. Abbott: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for clarifying my point. I am not suggesting that there has been political interference in the statistics; I am stating that it has been proven that there has been political interference in the forecasts. They are forecasts that have been written on the back of an envelope, and they are not worth the paper on which they are written. The errors in

  229
  those forecasts are consistently in favour of the Government. Year by year, the credibility of those inaccurate and misleading forecasts slides down the drain.
  The second great con of the Government's economic thinking which is enshrined in the Finance Bill is that switching a proportion of the poll tax to an increase in VAT will hit the rich harder than the poor. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury was reduced to quoting Guardian editorials to support that proposition, but Guardian editorials can be wrong. In the 1980s, Guardian editorials supported the SDP, and where is that party now?
  Although people who have millions of pounds to spend will pay more in VAT than people who have to watch every penny, as most of my constituents do, the Government's own statistics show that, proportionately, VAT hits the poor harder than the rich. The Government's statistical service publication "Economic Trends" conclusively gives the lie to the bogus claims that we heard from the Chief Secretary. It shows that, as a proportion of disposable income, VAT takes much more from the poor than from the rich—almost twice as much. On average VAT takes about 7·3 per cent. of an average person's disposable income.
  Mr. Mans: Bearing in mind what she says, am I to assume that the hon. Lady would like VAT reduced?
  Ms. Abbott: My purpose this evening is not to give a comprehensive analysis of the Government's economic errors, but merely to point out three particular spivvy bogus cons that have been put forward by the Treasury. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall continue with my speech, as I am aware that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
  The Government's publication "Economic Trends" points out that the bottom 10 per cent. of the population, the poorest of the poor, who are well represented in my constituency of Hackney, the poorest constituency in the country, pay 9·2 per cent. of their disposable income in VAT. However, the richest 10 per cent., who are represented by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and by the right hon. Member for Worthing, pay only 5·6 per cent. of their disposable income in VAT. Proportionately, VAT takes almost twice as much from the disposable income of the poor as it does from that of the rich. The reason is obvious. Just like the poll tax, VAT takes no account of income. In swapping part of the poll tax for a hike in VAT, the Government have simply swapped one flat-rate tax for another.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): The figures that the hon. Lady has used need to be explained properly, because they do not add up. What she says about the people at the top of the income scale is true, because rich people save much more of their income. However, what she says about the rest of the income scale is not true, because the income and expenditure figures on which those statistics are based are taken from the family expenditure survey, in which people say that they spend much more than they earn. Their spending figures are based on a figure about 40 per cent. higher than what they declare as their income, so if one is taken as a percentage of the other, the figure is bound to be distorted. If the hon. Lady examines the basis of that, she will find that it is true
  230
  and that the family expenditure survey shows that people in the bottom two deciles of income have expenditure 40 per cent. higher than their incomes.
  Ms. Abbott: I was talking not about expenditure but about disposable income. What I said about disposable income can be found in the text of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee report on the Budget. Everyone pays the same VAT on a packet of cigarettes or children's sweets, whether they are the Duke of Westminster or his dustman. Despite the exemptions and the zero ratings, according to the Government's own publication, VAT hits the poor harder than the rich. In economic jargon, VAT is less regressive than the late unlamented poll tax, but to say that VAT hits the poor less is like saying that being in prison is less inconvenient than being hanged. It is a regressive tax if one considers income. [Laughter.] Conservative Members may giggle, but at a time of rising unemployment, they are more concerned about taxes on car phones than the plight of the people of this country. People will take note of that and express their opinions in the next general election.
  I would not like to leave the subject of the VAT switch without mentioning the cost of the poll tax. There has been a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing across the Floor of the House about what the poll tax has cost. Let me put on record the Treasury's own figures. The poll tax has cost British taxpayers £370 million in preparation costs, and the cost of collecting the poll tax over and above what it would have cost to collect the rates is £302 million. Those figures were not cooked up by the Labour party in Walworth road: they are the Treasury's own figures. The poll tax has cost the people of Britain unnecessary expenditure in the region of £672 million. How many nurses at Guy's or operations in Bradford could that have funded? That is what the Government's political spite and economic adventurism have cost the country.
  The third economic fraud that the Government have perpetrated on the British people concerns Europe. They are trying to con not only the people and the Treasury and Civil Service Committee but their own little Englander, "wogs begin at Calais" right-wingers, who have had the wool pulled over their eyes. The Select Committee recently visited Brussels to discuss European matters and economic and monetary union. Everyone in Europe except a few neanderthal right-wingers on the Conservative Back Benches knows that economic and monetary union is a moving train and Britain is most firmly on it.
  The opinion in Brussels is that there will be a single European currency by the year 2000. There is no real sign that the Government are trying to derail that process. British people are being backed into a single European currency by a Government who wish to avoid debate because they wish to avoid the venom of their own Back Benchers.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: The hon. Lady and I are both members of the Treasury Select Committee, and I enjoyed the trip to Brussels. Given what she says she saw at the European Commission, does she favour a single European currency?
  Ms. Abbott: I do not claim to have the economic expertise of many Conservative Members; I claim merely to be a proponent of honesty and openness in government. My charge is that the Government are dishonest and are

  231
  not open about the progress towards economic and monetary union because they do not wish to tangle with the neanderthals on their own Back Benches.
  Finally, the media tell us that the Government consist of quiet, grey, boring men. I put it to the House that they are quiet, grey, boring con men. Their figures are bogus, their forecasts are bogus and, above all, their claims of economic competence are bogus. My constituents are being crucified by a combination of high interest rates, record unemployment and record bankruptcies, yet Conservative Members are concerned only with a tax on car phones.
  The Government have misled the country with talk of a short, shallow recession, but the Prime Minister's hold on power will prove short and shallow as soon as there is a general election—which, for the good of the country, cannot come too soon. The country has had enough of grey-suited con men. They would be chased out of Ridley road market, and they should be chased out of power.
  7.49 pm
  Mr. William Powell: I must tell that doughty lady, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), that honesty in politics includes declaring where one stands on the fundamental issues of the day. It is not enough merely to analyse, perhaps mistakenly, the position as one perceives it. One must tell the House whether one is in favour of the moving train of economic and monetary union. It also helps to have a clear idea of where the Labour party stands on VAT, local taxation and so on. We have had no convincing answers on any of those matters today.
  I want to give my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary some words of comfort about the progress of economic recovery. From several sectors, my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have received a buffeting about the state of the economy and whether any recovery is under way. Right hon. and hon. Members know very well that the core town of my constituency has, from the mid-1980s, been one of the principal boom towns. However, by early autumn last year, new investment had virtually ground to a halt. The last new capital construction programmes started in October 1990 and there was nothing until February 1991. Since then, there has been a growing volume of new factory starts and new capital investment for the service industry and the manufacturing industry. There has been new inward investment into the United Kingdom.
  I am not saying that that is typical of the country as a whole. My constituency was always going to be the last to be hit by the recession and the first to emerge from it and there are clear signs that it is now beginning to emerge. Of course, there has been a rise in unemployment and I have no doubt that there will be some further bad news on employment. However, as I drive around my constituency several times each week, I see new capital investment in plant and machinery and clear signs that genuine job creation is under way again. It is extremely likely that the surge of economic activity that has been taking place during the spring will spread into my neighbouring constituency, that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and much further afield.
  I welcome the liberalisation of the tax regime for friendly societies. A great deal has been said in Standing Committee and in the Chamber about friendly societies. I
  232
  welcome the fact that the Government have made a modest change to the tax regime and I look forward to the introduction—I hope as soon as possible in the next Session—of the much wider range of reforms for friendly societies that has been envisaged since the consultation paper of about two years ago. I know that good progress is under way.
  In his speech in the Budget debate, which was unfortunately wrecked by his unnecessary and gratuitous last two paragraphs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) said some interesting things about the structure of VAT. The thrust of his remarks was that the two rates of VAT—zero and 17·5 per cent.—cover too wide a band. Those comments have been echoed by the right hon. Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). The comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby about the current structure of VAT were wise. I believe that there should be other rates. The system that has existed since 1972, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) was the midwife if not the father, has served its time. Given the changing conditions and changing European circumstances, we shall have to have a much more fundamental look at different rates of VAT.
  The House knows of my interest over a number of years in the village hall movement. In the past, the Government have been helpful, but there is no doubt that this year they are not being as helpful as they have been because of the increase in VAT from 15 to 17·5 per cent. That affects all charities, but I choose to put my remarks in the context of village halls because of my interest in them.
  I want to reinforce the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) about the bloodstock industry. There is no doubt that unless some changes are made to the VAT regime, the bloodstock industry, which is important for exports and employment, will find itself seriously disadvantaged as compared to France and Ireland, which are our natural competitors in that industry. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has in her constituency one of the foremost studs in the world in which stands, among others, the great stallion Nashwan. She will be aware from her constituency experience of how important the bloodstock industry can be.
  Much has been said about economic forecasts. I commend to right hon. and hon. Members a different source of forecast from those quoted this evening. I suspect that not enough right hon. and hon. Members read The Racing Post. It has a much better record of forecasting than many of the highly paid research institutes and other bodies which are constantly telling us what might be happening in the economy in the future. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has entered the Chamber. I hope that she will take time to study a page in The Racing Post today which deals with VAT and bloodstock. As I have said, it is an important matter. I shall not go into detail but the learned commentator, Mr. Wright, analyses carefully and precisely how the bloodstock industry will be greatly disadvantaged by the new regime that will come into operation in 1993 unless my hon. Friend the Minister of State and representatives of the bloodstock industry are able to find a satisfactory way to ensure that this important industry, dealing with high quality stock, is not disadvantaged.
  One sector of the economy is extremely important for wealth creation. I was interested in the speech made by my

  233
  hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) in which he advocated the abolition of capital gains tax. He put it in the context of the great difficulty facing British people in acquiring disposable wealth. He said that he was a famous exception to the rule that it is virtually impossible in this country for people with nothing to create wealth. That is in contrast to what might happen in the United States.
  In the happy days of old, when Lord Rees of Goytre was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he pointed to the distinguished record of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby in abolishing taxes and asked Conservative Members which taxes they would like to see abolished. I have never been in any doubt that my answer is income tax. The prospect of income tax being abolished is even more remote than the prospect of capital gains tax being abolished. However, I must bear in mind that it was my political hero, the younger Pitt, who introduced the awful income tax, and we have had to live with it ever since.
  I should like to see that abolition not only of income tax and capital gains tax but of inheritance tax, which has a great impact on family businesses. Family enterprises and businesses are responsible for an important part of wealth creation. No economy will succeed without a thriving family business sector. Some of the most successful European economies have no large industry but have such a thriving sector.
  Immense efforts have been made in the past decade to increase small and medium businesses, which include family businesses. The evidence shows that, under the Government, no more family businesses have been created than there were in 1979—we must do more to correct that—because the fiscal regime that they face, despite the improvements that have been made since 1979, is remarkably unattractive. Too much economic policy is aimed at quoted companies, but 52 per cent. of the population is employed by the unquoted sector.
  The inheritance tax regime is extraordinarily unattractive to the unquoted sector. In Britain, inheritance tax is 40 per cent., compared with an average top rate of 27·5 per cent. in 16 other European countries. The British threshold is £128,000, which is lower than in any other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country, apart from Denmark, Greece and Norway. The British higher rate is levied on smaller estates than in virtually every other industrialised country. In Germany, the rate of 35 per cent., which of course is lower than the British rate, is not levied on an estate worth less than DM100 million. At DM2·95 to the pound, that is £34 million, or 265 times as much as the British rate.
  Inheritance tax almost always must be paid from the active assets of the company. In other words, the company has to be sold, and it is usually sold not to other family businesses but to quoted companies, which often extinguish competition rather than enhance the company's assets.
  One of the advantages of family businesses is that they tend to take a long-term view rather than the short-term view of reacting to today's share price and tomorrow's profit forecast. Often, those profit forecasts are made by unreliable journals that are produced at high cost rather than more reliable journals such as The Racing Post. Hon.
  234
  Members will learn much by turning their attention to real professional forecasters rather than the highly paid people who produce bogus forecasts.
  I make a plea that the Government reconsider the tax regime for unquoted companies. This is a matter of much importance. If inheritance tax cannot be abolished, I should prefer the introduction of 100 per cent. business property relief. Such relief should apply to the commercial sector and could be extended to farms. The annual cost would be not the £2 million that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) mentioned in relation to bingo, but £20 million, as suggested by Treasury Ministers. The incentive for wealth creation and for the opportunities that even the right hon. Member for Llanelli mentioned would be much enhanced. I ask Treasury Ministers, please, to think again because much more can be done. The threshold for estate inheritance tax has not been fully indexed.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the heirs to a company—who are saddled with a substantial inheritance tax burden—decide not to sell the company, they must invariably borrow against the assets of the company, thereby burdening it with substantial debt and increasing its future risks? That burden of debt effectively becomes a charge on the company's cash flow. Resources that might otherwise be available for business investment are channelled through the Inland Revenue to Government expenditure. Is not that a most economically destructive process?
  Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) is correct.
  My final point relates to employee share ownership plans. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who has played a considerable part in ESOPs, is here. ESOPs are excellent news for quoted companies or for unquoted companies that intend to become quoted, but they hold no attraction for the long-term family business. Many long-term family businesses would like to be able to offer their employees incentives, but there is an inherent contradiction between their need to keep the share valuation low and the desire of employees to increase it. I am not trying to undermine what my hon. Friend the Member for Esher has been working for, which has been accepted by Treasury Ministers in the past two years. Means to enable employees of long-term family businesses to have share participation schemes that do not undermine the fundamental balance of a company that, because of inheritance tax, wishes to keep the value of its shares to the minimum have been suggested to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. A gap has opened up in employee share participation schemes for one important sector of the economy, and I ask my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to resolve it as quickly as possible.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House of the earlier appeal for brief speeches.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Peter Hain: On 4 April, the people of Neath delivered their verdict on the Budget and the Finance Bill. The Conservative party's vote collapsed and

  235
  its candidate barely saved his deposit. There is contempt in my constituency for the incompetence and arrogance of the policies of the Chancellor and of the previous Prime Minister.
  People are most offended by the dreadful short-termism of the Government—the short-termism of a Chancellor as he rearranges the deckchairs while the ship of state sinks beneath the economic seas. The short-termism of the United Kingdom's financial system means that share levels and dividends soar while manufacturing investment collapses. Yet again, British industry trails behind that of our economic competitors.
  The success that has been claimed by the Government is a mirage. The British economy is committing hara-kiri. Since 1979, consumption has increased by 40 per cent. after allowing for inflation, but the production of the British industries that produce those consumer goods has increased by only 7·8 per cent. In other words, our consumption has increased five times more than the production of our consumer industries.
  At the same time, consumer credit has soared to a staggering £52 billion, which is five times what it was in 1979. Under a Government who preach good housekeeping, it is extraordinary to find that staggering burden of personal debt. Equally astonishing is the amount of corporate debt, which has now reached £27 billion, much of it financing the avaricious thirst for dividends and the free-loading of company directors which characterises our industry today. In money terms, dividends have tripled since 1979 while investment has barely remained stagnant. This is a society living on tick, led by a Government living on borrowed time.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) described so graphically, our trade position is catastrophic The report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee warned that any recovery from the current recession, whenever it occurs, will turn our huge current account deficit into a mega deficit as Britain's insatiable appetite for imports is let rip.
  The people of south Wales cannot understand the crazy logic of a Government who are determined to close every coal pit in south Wales while imports soar to record levels, with 15 million tonnes of coal being imported every year. That has a dreadful impact on our balance of payments deficit and a huge social cost in terms of unemployment and its effect on the communities round those pits. That strategy makes sense only to yuppie accountants in the City of London, not to anybody living in Wales. We in Wales look with amazement at the brazen cheek of Ministers who spend their time in the House claiming success while the real economy collapses around our communities. As the Welsh Chamber of Commerce reported only last week, the recession in Wales is deepening, not only in the manufacturing sector where employment has fallen by over 20 per cent. since 1979, but in the flagship of this Government's economic policy, the service sector. We have not only had record closures and business failures, but the Confederation of British Industry in Wales reports that two out of three firms are currently working below capacity. That is some recovery from the recession.
  The Government are washing their hands of Welsh industry, having cut the real value of regional preferential assistance to Wales by 57 per cent. since the early 1980s. That has happened at the very time when regional investment and support such as long-term loan finance and
  236
  the backing for research and development were urgently needed to boost our industry to prepare it for the cold winds of European competition.
  The local economy of Neath has been shattered. Unemployment is up 33 per cent. on a year ago. The figure for March 1991 was 2,400, but, according to the unemployment unit, the real figure is probably 3,612 because the unit estimates the number of people out of work on the pre-1982 basis—that is, on the basis used before the Government started fiddling the official unemployment figures. That means desperation for the families that have been put out of work. There is also desperation for those seeking work and who are offered jobs paying £80 or £90 a week, which is barely enough to raise them above the standard of living of the many people who have to subsist on benefits. If the Chancellor could not live on £80 or £90 per week, how can he expect my constituents in Neath to take jobs that provide that level of income? Why do not the Government support a statutory minimum wage such as exists in many of our competitor countries in Europe, which are far more successful economically than we are?
  Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman has just mentioned a minimum wage. Would the introduction of a minimum wage increase or decrease unemployment in his constituency?
  Mr. Hain: I rely on the analysis of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which shows that the Labour party's policy for a statutory minimum wage would increase unemployment by perhaps 4,000, which is almost insignificant, but even that——
  Mr. Mans: Would it increase unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency by 4,000?
  Mr. Hain: Be sensible. It would increase unemployment by 4,000 across the country. I repeat that comparable European countries that have a statutory minimum wage are far more successful than we are.
  Neath borough council has intervened in a way that would not attract the Government's approval. It has established five factory sites with starter units. Until recently, there have been long waiting lists for the starter units, which have proved successful, but 29 of the 134 units are now empty. That is an indictment of the Government's policy.
  Unemployment is increasing across Wales and has now broken the 100,000 barrier. On 16 May, when the voters of Monmouth go to the polls, that increase in unemployment will again be at a record level and I am confident that those voters will exhibit their protest against the Government's policies by returning a Labour Member of Parliament. Every working day in Wales, four struggling small businesses go to the wall. The number of employment training places in west Wales has been halved during the past year. Young people and women returners who urgently need training if they are to get decent jobs now face a hopeless situation. I recently visited Kenyons, a successful company in the town of Pontardawe making refrigeration equipment which it exports successfully. Its managing director described the frustration that it faces because it wants to train people and has places for them, yet its funding has been reduced because of the Government's cuts in employment training. That is what

  237
  is happening at a time when our skills base is collapsing. Apprenticeships are no longer advertised in south Wales on their previous scale.
  In addition, our infrastructure is decaying. How can the Government talk about wanting to make further cuts in income tax when they cannot invest in decent roads? There is a missing link in my constituency between Aberdulais and Glyn-neath because the A465 has not been built and there are no plans to build it despite the fact that it would be a much-needed improvement to the local infrastructure and would therefore increase employment opportunities. How can the Government claim to support local industry in Wales when they are unwilling to fund the infrastructure investment in transport which is so desperately needed?
  That is the dreadful impact of the Government's policies, but they also have tragic domestic effects. In 1990, actions at Neath county court for mortgage repossessions increased by 45 per cent. from 276 to 401, causing misery to local families. Across the country, one in five people now lives in poverty, which is a higher proportion than in any other European Community country. The 25p increase in child benefit for the second, third and fourth children in a family which is proposed in the Bill is, frankly, insulting. It will not buy more than a packet of crisps. Many of my constituents have said that they feel like sending a packet of crisps a week to the Chancellor to show the contempt with which they view that child benefit increase. The failure to uprate child benefit fully in line with the retail prices index has robbed families in Wales of a total of £48·19 million. That is the sum of money that the Government owe families in Wales and we expect them to repay it.
  VAT has already been mentioned and I read an interesting exchange in the Select Committee's report involving my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott). People in Neath who are on low incomes are hit harder than are rich people by VAT. That fact is borne out in the Government's figures in "Economic Trends" for March 1991 which show that the poorest households pay 11·5 per cent. of their disposable income in VAT compared with the richest which pay half—6·2 per cent. As disposable income in Wales is much lower than the average across the country, people in south Wales have been hit hardest by the increase in VAT, especially those in the valleys in Neath.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that an acceptable way to solve the problems was to put extra duty on petrol and especially on leaded petrol. I understand that argument and I sympathise with him from a green point of view. However, families in the valleys and especially in Neath cannot rely on public transport because there are hardly any buses—the service has been cut to ribbons by Government deregulation and by cuts in local authority provision. They rely on cars and have therefore been hit especially hard by the increases in petrol prices and in VAT.
  I wish to deal with tax cuts. In the infamous Budget of 1988 there were tax cuts for the rich made by a Chancellor who was then called "unassailable" and who is now unmentionable. According to the Treasury's own figures, the average earner in Neath has benefited since 1988 from a reduction of only £150 in his or her income tax, whereas
  238
  over that same period a Minister has benefited from a reduction of £2,540. Those figures give the lie to claims about income tax cuts—they were for the rich.
  In my constituency old-age pensioners who may be surviving on a small miner's pension may receive an increase in their pensions, but it is then taken away through an increase in income tax. By every measure, the Government's claims of success are a failure or a fraud and the sooner the Government go to the country so that we can elect a Labour Government to build a strong and modern economy, the better.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The speech of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) underlines—or perhaps defines—the meaning of the saying that economics is a dismal science. His speech was dismal from beginning to end and it was not even accurate when he tried to deal with serious issues.
  The hon. Gentleman has clearly not read the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, which is explicit about the effects of VAT. Paragraphs 95 to 102, which are worth reading, include the comment:
  "As VAT is a tax on expenditure, it is more appropriate to assess its progressivity in relation to expenditure rather than income. On that basis, VAT is clearly progressive".
  Ms. Abbott rose——
  Mr. Taylor: I am just warming up. I shall willingly give way if I may be allowed to finish my paragraph.
  The Opposition disapprove of the community charge, but even on their terms, and on the basis of indirect tax where there is an element that could be regressive, VAT is clearly less regressive than the proportion of the community charge—the £140—that has been reduced by transfer to VAT. Therefore, as the Select Committee's report states——
  Mr. Battle rose——
  Ms. Abbott rose——
  Mr. Taylor: I shall give way to the hon. Lady.
  Ms. Abbott: The hon. Gentleman has made my point, but it bears repetition. Considered as a proportion of disposable income, VAT is clearly regressive.
  Mr. Taylor: I said that the community charge to which the Opposition are opposed is more regressive even on that basis, as the Select Committee's report notes. VAT is an expenditure tax and in expenditure terms it is progressive.
  The hon. Member for Neath mentioned a minimum wage. If the Labour party wishes to talk seriously, rather than making party propaganda, about a minimum wage, they should state what its impact would be on British industry and on services within the economy, such as the health service. The introduction of a minimum wage in the health service could cost up to £500 million. Nearly 18 hospitals a year would have to close to fund that proposal. If we are talking about economic difficulties, we should bear in mind that a Labour Government would grind British industry into ruination if they imposed costs that it could never hope to recoup in the market place. They would also severely damage our public services.
  The Labour party talks happily about raising taxation without assessing what the buoyancy of the tax would be at the higher levels. It can give no firm idea about how it would fund its programme. In an interview on television

  239
  on Sunday, the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that in key areas such as the national health service there would be no more cash.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) is now in her seat. I am sure that when the reports of the debate are read, it will not be our speeches that are noted, but the hunt for the Norfolk stud that my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) so eloquently launched, and information about the relief that might be available. The importance of that to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West will occupy the long weekends to come.
  I had intended to launch an attack on a friend of mine, Professor Tim Congdon, but I was disarmed by his invitation to his 40th birthday party, which is taking place now and where I should be happy to be. However, I must take him to task for being a co-signatory of a recent letter to The Times which criticised Government policy on the exchange rate mechanism. In rather panic-stricken terms, the letter urged a sudden reduction in interest rates regardless of what had happened to the exchange rate. The letter has not stood the test of time, even though it appeared only a matter of weeks ago.
  It is significant that this evening no one has queried the ERM, the rate at which we entered or the fact that it has introduced some stability into business relationships and exports pricing; nor has anyone queried the fact that entry into the ERM has had a genuine impact as a discipline to reduce inflation. It is also significant that the National Westminster bank's leaflet, "UK Economic Outlook", which is dated 19 April 1991, states:
  "Entry into the ERM can now be seen clearly to be a success, and very few in industry and commerce would wish us to change that policy … There have been no significant or serious complaints about the pound being over-valued against continental currencies."
  It is heartening when we get such information from economists in the City. We know that the Government were right to take us into the ERM in October last year. Despite the cavilling of Opposition Front Bench spokesmen about the rate at which we entered and about other aspects of our entry, they welcome the overall idea.
  The Government's policy was correct and those of us who supported our entry have been justified in our assertion that within the mechanism, for any fall in inflation, there would be the possibility of a faster fall in interest rates than would otherwise be the case. That is because the deflationary worry that has always been created for holders of sterling is gradually removed as the Government's firm commitment to hold to the exchange rate discipline has been realised. In time, that would enable the differential margin between interest rates here and those in Germany to narrow. As it narrows, British interest rates will fall disproportionately faster and could drop well below 10 per cent., depending on how far inflation falls. Some forecasts are of a headline rate of inflation of below 4 per cent. this year. That prospect is important for British industry because inflation creates difficulties for British industry. A 1 per cent. fall in the rate of inflation could well save British industry up to £5 billion, according to figures issued by the CBI.
  The Government's thrust to bear down on inflation, which is reinforced in the Budget, is absolutely correct. Given that the exchange rate mechanism is a vital discipline in achieving that objective, the Government
  240
  were absolutely right to enter it and correct not to panic over the past few months in the face of advice from my friends like Professor Congdon.
  Mr. George J. Buckley: The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) has acclaimed the Government's entry into the exchange rate mechanism for reducing interest rates and inflation. Why did the Government not take advice from the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), who recommended entry to the ERM three years earlier? Why did the Government not do that then if it is the criterion for bringing the Government on to a more even economic level?
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member has made a good intervention. I have always believed that we should have entered the exchange rate mechanism earlier and my view in that respect is on the record. However, that is not the point. We are not dealing with theory, we are dealing with the real world. The Government took the initiative last October. Sadly for the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley), those on the Opposition Front Bench decided that, although in theory they were in favour of joining the ERM, they did not like the discipline. They wanted us to enter at a much lower level. That would have stored up inflation because, if we had dropped in at too low a central rate, we all know that a depreciating pound imports inflation into our economy. I admit that I have been a long-term believer in the ERM discipline.
  There are many aspects to the Budget, and I support the overall thrust of bearing down on inflation which it enshrines. When we consider the Finance Bill, we will consider detailed measures. I want to pay tribute to the Government for the measures that have been introduced to help industry and it is to the Government's credit that they have tried to meet some of industry's worries about cash flow. The changes in corporation tax treatment and rates have been welcomed by industry. Smaller businesses are grateful for the changes in corporation tax, VAT and PAYE which apply to them and those changes will be a significant encouragement.
  However, I want to make a point about industry not to the Government, but to the banks. I am perturbed by stories that I am beginning to hear from people in business. Although companies are grateful for some of the Government's reliefs and for recognition of their cash flow problems, there are signs that the banks are beginning to try to restore their profit accounts by applying higher than necessary premiums over base rate, particularly for smaller companies that are borrowing. I want to draw attention to that fact publicly, because it is a worrying development.
  The banks were charging 2 per cent. or 2·5 per cent. over base rate for smaller corporate clients. I hear now that they are beginning to charge much in excess of that. That means that the benefits of the fall in interest rates are not necessarily being passed through to smaller companies with the desirable speed. Given that the Government are doing their bit to control the economy for the benefit of business, the banks have a duty to take a more long-term view. I would welcome some banks stating publicly that they are not trying to restore their profit and loss accounts at the expense of British industry.
  An important objective of the Budget lies in the pattern of diversification of private investment. In this country there has in the past been a welcome priority in personal

  241
  investment on housing. I am in no way against a high proportion of personal investment in private housing which people are proud to own. Sixty-seven per cent. of the population now own their own house, and that is a significant percentage. Although it is socially welcome that people own their own houses, that seems to store up a resistance to the problems of inflation. If there is a disproportionate interest in house prices, there is a disproportionate interest in inflation. Therefore, I welcome the Government's realisation that the traditional tax relief for house purchases may need to be reviewed. There is a small, but welcome, start in removing relief on mortgages at the top rate.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: What next?
  Mr. Taylor: I believe that capital gains tax is too high; my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) made that point most strongly. One of the big distortions in capital gains tax is the fact that one's house is almost uniquely free of capital gains tax. In removing that relief, which I am not advocating—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] I am sensitive to political winds just like Opposition Members. However, some matters must be considered closely and it might be time to consider ways of assisting other forms of investment through the tax system to run more equally alongside housing.
  I have been a long-term advocate of employee share ownership. That is a natural extension of people's interests in assets. What could be more in their interests than an asset in the company for which they work? My hon. Friend the Member for Corby was kind enough to say that I had worked on this point for some time. I believe that it is an important thrust of Government to enable everyone to have access to capital and the income that derives from the ownership of capital. Employee share ownership is a vital and necessary part of that and I do not believe that we have even begun to see the long-term implications of such ownership.
  I welcome the measures in the Budget and the incentive for management to have all employee share schemes in place. I can see many implications for company personal equity plan schemes and I welcome them. By themselves those measures are just the start of the revolution. I hope that we will go much farther and in Committee I will want to consider the more boring and technical matters which hold back the development of employee share ownership.
  The widening of the access to capital is very important. The Government have shown that they are prepared to act and that there should be a shift in traditional reliefs for homes and pensions into new forms of private investment, so that the savings can be properly balanced and perhaps be more resistant to inflationary factors that so often afflict this country as soon as we appear to be releasing tight monetary policies that are necessary to force down inflation. Having succeeded in forcing inflation down, we do not want to find that it is pushed upwards again simply because people are borrowing against their houses as happened in 1987 and 1988.
  I believe that many other technical factors will be raised in Committee. I was going to refer in detail to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby about employee share ownership, but I will save that for another time.
  Mr. Buckley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I am conscious of the time, and I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, so I shall not do so again.
  There is an omission from the Budget, and that is the problem that is afflicting the Lloyd's insurance market. That problem is of considerable importance because Lloyd's is a major invisible export earner. It is important also because many of the names that are the bedrock of Lloyd's are facing cash calls on current years. I have no interest to declare. I am not a member or a name of Lloyd's, but I am concerned about the implications for that institution.
  Perhaps we should consider some form of tax relief on current-year cash calls, and possibly even enabling members of Lloyd's, and the syndicates in particular, to build up tax deductible catastrophe reserves, even if it means that the special reserves that currently exist are removed as a quid pro quo. I ask Treasury Ministers to consider that point because I am concerned that we are at the beginning of a crisis. If that crisis afflicts Lloyd's, one of the great British industries could be seriously damaged, and competition would mean that business would go elsewhere.
  Overall, it is an excellent Budget which pushes forward the battle against inflation and provides incentives for people who wish to get access to capital. I look forward to serving on the Committee.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: I welcome the opportunity of participating in this debate, not least because it gives the Financial Secretary an opportunity to reply to some of the points that I made on the Budget. I am relieved that he is present, because, although the Minister of State took notes on the previous occasion, he must have had difficulty reading her notes, because he did not reply to the points that I raised. I wish especially to obtain some information on the proposed foundation on sports and arts. Anybody who listened to the Chancellor's speech on 19 March would reasonably assume that such a measure would be included in the Bill. The Chancellor said:
  "On the understanding that all the main pools companies agree to participate and that the full amount would be passed on to a new trust established on satisfactory terms, I would be willing to reduce pool betting duty a final time—from 40 per cent. to 37½ per cent.—[Official Report, 19 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 175.]
  However, in the Bill there is no mention of a reduction of pool betting duty. The Financial Secretary must come clean and tell the House why that is the case. Is it because two of the three main pools companies have not decided to participate? Is it that the Government have failed to arrive at satisfactory terms for the proposed new foundation? With hindsight, the Financial Secretary might be advised to reply, as I have asked a series of parliamentary questions, the replies to which forced the Chief Secretary and his colleagues to reveal the shameful muddle upon muddle and shady deal upon shady deal that have continued to surround this sorry affair.
  Indeed, there are only two possible solutions to the conundrum that the proposal has thrown up—either the Government have been guilty of the most crass incompetence and negligence, or they are guilty of embarking on a comprehensive strategy of deceit and duplicity. The Government can dodge the issue no longer.

  243
  The Financial Secretary must come clean and tell the House of which of those two sins the Government are guilty. The Dispatch Box could become a confessional box when the Financial Secretary replies.
  I am sure that the whole House will wish to know of the lack of progress to date of that wonder scheme. Certainly, I suspect that the Minister for Sport might welcome some further information—poor chap, he has once again been sidelined. It is getting to be a habit of the Government to treat their Ministers for Sport in that shabby way. As a result, the Minister found himself only last Tuesday at a press conference having to invent a fairy-tale figure of £75 million for the amount that will be generated by the proposed scheme, as opposed to the £60 million that everybody else has been told by the Treasury. He admitted to me in a written answer yesterday that the extra £15 million could come about only as a result of increased pools betting turnover.
  The Minister for Sport might know something that we do not know—certainly the Treasury does not know—about prospects for the pools industry. However, he might care to reflect on the fact which the Financial Secretary must confirm or deny tonight, that to raise that extra revenue the pools companies' turnover would need to reach £1 billion for the current 12-month period, as opposed to the £800 million that current estimates suggest. In normal circumstances, such a growth would take five years to materialise. That is hardly the most commanding and informed performance from the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), but, given his shoddy treatment at the hands of his Treasury colleagues, perhaps we should make allowances for him. After all, the Government have revealed to me that he and his officials were kept in the dark about plans for the foundation and were excluded from any discussions surrounding its creation. Indeed, he was not even granted the courtesy of an official on-the-record meeting with his colleagues from the Treasury until last Wednesday. Perhaps the Financial Secretary might care to tell the House the reason for that disgraceful snub of his colleague.
  While he is about it, the Financial Secretary might care to explain plainly and simply to the 21 million adults and 7 million children who take part in sport and recreation in Britain why the Chancellor has seen fit to embark on a reckless and foolhardy gamble with the funding of that important part of their lives. The sorry tale that has been told to me by Ministers through parliamentary answers—or perhaps non-answers—is of a Chancellor who allowed himself, after just one meeting 11 days before his Budget statement, to be bounced by one pools company into an agreement to set up a body to channel funds out of our cash-starved national game, football, when they are urgently needed to provide the level of supporter safety and comfort required by Lord Justice Taylor's final report, and place it as a stake on a non-runner, the proposed foundation for sport and the arts.
  That body does not exist at present, nor is its eventual appearance a certainty, as in the past there has been an agreement between the English and Scottish Football Leagues and the Pools Promoters Association that any reduction in the football pool betting duty can take place only with the leagues' consent and that two fifths of that reduction must go to the leagues. However, that is not the case for this scheme. I understand that both the leagues are taking legal advice, and it may well be that there will be a court case as a result.
  244
  The Financial Secretary must confirm whether he knows of those developments and state why the Government agreed to a scheme fraught with such uncertainty. Is it simply that the Government were not sufficiently au fait with the matter to realise that possible danger? Either way, the Government have been guilty of either recklessness or incompetence.
  As the House knows, the round of talks takes place months before the Budget statement itself. Had the Chancellor acted responsibly and not dived into the scheme only 11 days before making his Budget statement, he would have had time to think through and consider all the possible snags that the proposal might encounter and which now endanger the scheme. Instead, we are left with delays, uncertainty and suspicion surrounding the feasibility of the scheme. Whatever the Government's view might be, it is clear from press reports that the other two pools companies which it is proposed should finance the foundation have severe reservations about the scheme. That is no wonder, bearing in mind that the first that they knew about the scheme for which they would have to supply millions of pounds was when, along with the rest of the nation, they saw the Chancellor's statement on television.
  The Chief Secretary confirmed in a letter to me on 17 April that the Government took a conscious decision not to inform the minority pools companies of the proposal, despite the fact that
  "all three companies will need to be closely involved in setting up the new trust."
  What sort of shambles is that? How do the Government intend to secure close involvement from those companies when the Government have been guilty of the most disgraceful deceit towards them? Moreover, even supposing that their co-operation is forthcoming, how can any progress be made when, as told to me in written answers, the Government have not the slightest idea who will comprise the new body's membership, the ratio of funding to sport and the arts, how its operations are to be monitored, controlled or audited, or how many people will be needed to staff and administer it.
  As the Government have said that this foundation will be in place by the start, in August, of the next football season, will the Minister revise that target? It is obvious that, given these problems, there is not the slightest chance of this new body's getting off the ground by then. No doubt the Minister for Sport is aware that the Government's reputation in sporting circles is currently all too low, and rapidly sinking. Who can be surprised at that when people saw their hopes raised, in the run-up to the Budget, by widely spread hints from the Minister for Sport that the Government would take some action to relieve sports' national governing bodies of the scandalous burden of corporation tax, only to see the promise replaced by this pig-in-a-poke scheme?
  I know that the Rugby Football Union views the Government's actions with disdain. It has written to me staying that not only will its corporation tax bill continue to be about £500,000 each year, on top of a rates bill of £130,000, but that, as a result of the Government's VAT/poll tax bribe, it will have to find £80,000 in addition to the estimated £300,000 that it had to pay in VAT last year, as it is too late to increase published ticket prices. Mr. Dudley Wood, secretary of the RFU, has told me that all

  245
  this money would have been spent on the development of youth rugby and on making up for the decline in team games in schools. Instead, he comments,
  "I must say we have fared pretty badly. I suppose we are a soft touch."
  Unfortunately, behind all the surface hype about a so-called sports-mad Cabinet and Prime Minister, that is the reality of sport and the present Government. Sport is seen by them as a soft touch. This has gone on for far too long and it must stop now.
  As one immediate step, to which the Minister must give his backing tonight, the Government could offer full and unequivocal backing to Britain's Olympic bid, which I, as a Greater Manchester Member of Parliament, am proud to say is once again to be led by the north-west. The Government could take that step through the removal of corporation tax from the British Olympic Association. Last year the Minister received a deputation on this very point. Ironically, the British Olympic Association is a victim of responding to the Government's urging that it take account of the increased competition for private funds from registered charities and the arts, and of adapting its fund-raising techniques to make greater use of corporate sponsorship agreements.
  The result has been a rise, one fifth to four fifths since 1979, in the proportion of the association's income that is subject to tax. The association has written to me saying that the Budget has left it
  "very disappointed … as the time is really now running out before the next Olympic Games."
  Unless there is immediate action from the Government, the BOA's £5 million appeal for the 1992 Olympics will be encumbered by a tax bill of £1·5 million for the preceding four years.
  The time for clever words and evasion from the Government is over. Both sport and the arts deserve proper funding. Whether the funds come from a national lottery or from some other source, the Government have a responsibility to see that they are made available. During the Budget debate, I asked for replies to very specific questions. Those replies were not forthcoming and, despite my writing to the Chief Secretary, I still await them. That will not do. Our sportsmen and sportswomen deserve better, our Olympic athletes deserve better and the House deserves better. I hope that the Minister will come up with some concrete replies this evening.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Charles Wardle: Like my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken already, I welcome the Bill. In particular, I welcome the realistic approach of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor towards the current recession, which will prove to be considerably shorter than, a few months ago, it threatened to be because of the firm anti-inflationary stance that has been adopted by my right hon. Friend.
  In the Budget, with a general election not so very far away, my right hon. Friend might have been tempted to open the economic throttle to a certain extent in order to mask the downturn over the short term, but he did not do so. Unlike Opposition Members, who advocated a large and instant cut in interest rates, my right hon. Friend wisely stuck to his anti-inflationary guns, and there are already signs in some order books that his policy is paying
  246
  off. He knows that the only way to greater competitiveness and renewed growth is the maintenance of a tight fiscal policy and high interest rates until there is clear evidence of a consistent downward trend in the headline rate of inflation. In the Budget, he gave that clear message. He warned employers and employees that extravagant pay settlements would exacerbate the situation, and achieve nothing else.
  Over the past 18 months, I have not always been at one with Treasury forecasts. In November 1989, I challenged the assumption that the worst scenario for 1990 would be two quarters of zero growth. I also questioned the forecast trend for the surplus on invisibles, and last autumn I expressed concern that the spending plans of some Departments might make the underlying rate of inflation a tougher nut to crack this year. Those reservations have been very largely dispelled by the realism now being displayed in the fight against inflation. That is the cornerstone for the recovery from recession and for renewed growth.
  During the rest of this year, the headline rate of inflation will fall, and interest rates will be reduced to some extent, so long as German monetary policy does not pull the rest of the European Community in the opposite direction. The divergent attitudes of the United States and Germany at the G7 meeting over the weekend do not help those who wish to make short-term predictions about interest rates, but the United Kingdom rates will be lower in the months ahead, and the recession will bottom out. It will begin to bottom out in the second half of 1991.
  There are already some signs that this is beginning to happen. In coming to that conclusion, I do not make use of any econometric model; I simply talk to people and ask them what is going on at the factory gates, what order books and retail sales look like. Consumer demand will recover somewhat in the summer, and order books will begin to look firmer. In the south and the midlands, the momentum will certainly take some time to gather, particularly in service industries and, of course, in capital goods industries, but the corner will shortly be turned.
  Those who measure the recession by the announcements of job losses ignore the delays between a company's decision to cut jobs and the news of those redundancies being made public. For example, ICI heralded its jobs losses weeks ago, but they will take time to work through. Similarly, Marks and Spencer, which announced a reduction of 1·4 per cent. in staff numbers, did so only after a six-month study of the implications. Job losses are likely to continue to be announced well after demand has shown the first signs of recovery.
  Against the background of firm anti-inflationary resolve and an appropriate degree of cautious optimism about trade over the next six to 12 months, my right hon. Friend has announced a variety of measures to help business and individuals. In the limited time available to me, I should like to refer to two reforms and then, finally, to turn to the tax treatment of company cars.
  I welcome the removal of £140 from the headline community charge and its transfer to VAT. It is a pragmatic solution to a problem which beset a theoretically sensible and fair tax that has nonetheless been dogged by nightmarish difficulties of implementation. The move should be broadly neutral and will bear less heavily on those on low incomes.
  I especially welcome the abolition of mortgate interest relief at the higher rate of income tax. I raised the subject

  247
  in Committee on the Finance Act 1988 and have raised it regularly since. A Conservative party whose policy is to target help on those in greatest need should not offer home-buying inducements to those who are sufficiently well off to pay the higher rate of income tax. It was an inefficient, inflationary and expensive use of taxpayers' resources. I congratulate my right hon. Friend, who will no longer have to put up with my broaching the subject with him.
  As to company cars and VAT, I have long argued in the House and in Committee against the lenient treatment of the company car as a benefit in kind. It has been a tax anomaly that served neither the Exchequer nor the automotive industry well. I am pleased that the anomaly is largely being removed, but another problem arises.
  Since the Budget, many companies have felt that it would make sense to pay an employee increased remuneration in place of providing that employee with a car. Some employers are keen to move in that direction by offering the employee a choice of a higher salary or a car. However, such choice appears to give rise to VAT problems in that the Customs and Excise are insisting that VAT must be imposed on the cash forgone if a car is chosen. The technical basis for that approach is unclear, but such treatment is inconsistent with my right hon. Friend's declared aim of removing the tax and national insurance differentials between cash remuneration and the provision of a car. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will look into the matter and confirm that there is no VAT penalty where an employer decides to offer the choice of a higher salary or a new car.
  9 pm
  Mr. Mike Watson: I want to address my remarks to the most contentious aspect of the Budget, the increase in VAT, despite the fact that the media would have us believe that the tax on mobile phones was worthy of most coverage. Only a small proportion of the people have access to or need mobile phones, yet the increase in VAT hits every man and woman, no matter how old or how poor, when purchasing a VAT-rated item. Surely that goes against the grain for a Government who claim that cutting taxation is one of their main achievements.
  We should not be surprised about the increase in VAT, because one of the first actions of the 1979 Conservative Government was to increase VAT from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent. Now the Government of tax cuts have admitted that VAT is making up an increasing proportion of revenue. In 1990–91, revenue received through VAT was 55 per cent. of the amount raised in income tax. In the current year, that will rise to 60 per cent.
  Of course, it has to be recognised that the VAT increase was a fig leaf for the Government's understandable embarrassment about the disastrous poll tax. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) said that it was a good idea which could not be implemented, but that ignores the facts. It was not popular from the north to the south of the country, and particularly in Scotland, where we had to put up with it a year before anyone else. It was unsaleable to anyone in any part of the United Kingdom.
  The regressive poll tax has been replaced by a still more regressive measure. The 20 per cent. minimum poll tax payment which everyone was required to make has no
  248
  comparison in VAT. No matter how poor a person is, he still pays 100 per cent. of the 2·5 per cent. increase in VAT. There is nowhere to hide. VAT does not take account of an individual's ability to pay. That has to be recognised.
  A typical family now pays 5 per cent. of its income in VAT, compared to 2·8 per cent. in 1979 before the Conservatives' election victory. Because of the increase of 2·5 per cent., the proportion of income paid in VAT in the coming year will be 5·8 per cent. So much for tax cuts, and that despite the fact——
  Mr. Mans: Am I to take it from what the hon. Gentleman has said that he advocates the removal of the 2·5 per cent. increase in VAT?
  Mr. Watson: Yes, I do. I think that it was a mistake. As I said, it was a fig leaf for the Government, and it will not be popular. As was said earlier in the debate, VAT is an expenditure tax rather than an income tax, yet it is increasing the percentage of an individual's income that is paid in tax. The only reason that the poorest in society are not hit harder by VAT is that they can often afford little more than the basics, which are zero-rated. That is some escape for them, but not a means of escape that anyone would take willingly.
  The Government should not imagine that the people of Scotland, Wales and England will be fooled by the apparently generous cut of £140 in poll tax. They did not highlight in their announcement the fact that many people will not get a reduction of anything like £140. In Scotland, for instance, only 2·2 million of the 3·8 million due to pay poll tax will get the full reduction of £140. A massive 1·6 million will not qualify, because they were due to pay a lesser amount in terms of poll tax. So the £140 payment is a smokescreen. It will apply to some people; it will certainly not apply to many others.
  Leaving that not unimportant point aside, the people will not be fooled. It is not as if the Government can now say that the poll tax has been abolished and they have introduced a council tax, whatever form that may eventually take. The people will not forget the poll tax, because they will not be allowed to forget it. Every time they make a purchase of a VAT-rated item, they will be paying a 2·5 per cent. poll tax surcharge. That will stick in people's minds, and it will stick in people's pockets.
  A different, although also important, aspect of the VAT increase which I do not think has been covered in the debate so far is the heavy additional burden that will be placed on charities. The rise from 15 per cent. to 17·5 per cent. means an additional £33 million a year cost for charities in the United Kingdom. Before the Budget, the Charities Tax Reform Group had petitioned the Chancellor on behalf of the major charities with a means of reducing the VAT burden on charities. Not only was that ignored, but the Chancellor introduced measures which mean that charities are now much worse off. A sum of £250 million is now the total irrecoverable VAT bill facing charities in the United Kingdom.
  It has to be understood that that additional £33 million is money which must be taken from the many worthwhile causes for which charities raise their money. When people give to charities, they do not believe that they are putting a 10p, 50p or £1 coin in the tin to pay for increased VAT payments. In return, the Government's so-called

  249
  concessions to charities in the Budget amount to a miserly £5 million, a mere one seventh of the additional cost caused by VAT rising to 17·5 per cent.
  This takes place against the backdrop of a reduction in voluntary income to charities. With the recession at the moment, it is hardly surprising that people are able to give less, and charities are suffering. The VAT increase as a result of this Budget will make that situation even more difficult. Even with the advent some three years ago of the payroll giving scheme, a total of only around £16 million has found its way to charities in the intervening period.
  Doubtless that scheme will produce more over the years, as will gift aid perhaps, but that takes time, and that is the key to my argument. While time for such schemes to become established is necessary, increases in taxation, and particularly this VAT increase, take immediate effect. Charities have no chance to plan; there is no phasing-in period, no room and no time for charities to adjust.
  As for the effect on the average family, the Government have misread, or more likely simply ignored, the results at that level of the increase in VAT.
  I believe that the Government must take steps to reduce the effects of the blunt instrument that VAT inevitably is. I hope that they will use the Committee stage of the Bill to do so.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: This debate is taking place against a background of the concern of the House at the present state of the British economy. We find ourselves now at a particularly unfavourable moment in the trade cycle, but I am afraid that it is a fact of economic life that there always will be trade cycles. It follows from this that there will be times when we are at the bottom rather than the top of the trade cycle. If the Labour party has not yet focused on that fact and digested it, it has not really got to first base in terms of understanding the requirements of economic management. Given that there will always be trade cycles, the key thing that the electorate expect of a Government is that they will know how to manage the economy at whatever stage of the trade cycle the country may be.
  Here there is a very considerable contrast between what the Government are offering the country—I am quite convinced that we are broadly on the right lines—and what the Opposition are offering. I find some of the Labour party's remedies for dealing with our present economic situation bizarre, to say the least.
  I shall give four examples, the first being interest rates. It is common ground in the House that the economy was overheating in 1988 and 1989. Britain had a tremendous boom which was not enjoyed by other members of the European Community, and advantages flowed from it. It was clear that measures had to be taken to reduce borrowing and increase saving. There is only one way to ensure that people save more and borrow less—increase the cost of borrowing and the return from saving. That means increasing interest rates, which is what the Government did.
  Every time the Government increased base rates in 1988, 1989 and 1990, the Labour party opposed the increase. The Labour party was not willing to take the necessary measures. Had we taken its advice, the
  250
  overheating would have continued and inflation would have been about 20 per cent., as it was under the Labour Government. The measures needed—whether we had decided to take them or whether they were forced on us by the international community and our creditors through a sterling crisis, as happened in 1975 and 1976—would have been even more savage, and the recession would have been deeper than the present recession.
  Labour Members are attached to a second aspect of the Labour party's policies. They believe that an effective remedy for the British economy would be increased taxation—for example, income tax. We have dwelt on the considerable economic damage that would be done by increasing the income tax paid by higher earners, who tend to add the greatest value per head to the economy, for obvious reasons, and are internationally mobile. The damage that would be done is clear.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) did not receive a reply to his question. He asked whether, if the higher rate of income tax was increased to 59 per cent.—as it would be under a Labour Government—the rate of capital gains tax would be increased to the same level. Conservative Members have a responsibility to continue asking that pertinent question until we get a reply. If the answer is no and we would keep capital gains tax at 40 per cent. while allowing the higher rate of income tax to increase to 59 per cent., the problems associated with bond washing, roll-up schemes and people converting income into capital gains would arise. The neutrality of the tax system which has been established by the Government would be destroyed.
  If we did as the Labour party intends and increased capital gains tax to 59 per cent., we would end up with the highest rate of capital gains tax in the western world. The reduction in after-tax returns to investors would have a crippling effect, and an enormous amount of investment would be forgone. There would be almost no venture capital investment with such a penal capital gains tax.
  Thirdly, Labour Members have advocated a training tax. That is superficially attractive. Companies would be told that, unless they spent a certain proportion of their turnover or wages bill on training, they would forfeit to the Government the difference between training spend and the threshold, and the money would be used to provide training.
  I wonder whether the Labour party has begun to think through the consequences. There would be enormous waste. Any firm that decided on purely commercial criteria to spend less than the threshold amount on training would have an incentive to spend the difference on anything that could be called training, however bogus.
  Precedents have been set in other countries. I know from my experience of running a subsidiary of a British merchant bank in France of the system that operates there. Unless I spent 1 per cent. of my wage bill on so-called training, I had to pay the difference between that and my actual training spend to the French Government. As there was no inducement to ensure that money was spent wisely, once I decided what needed to be spent on training in the interests of the business, if someone wanted to learn Spanish or even knitting, I did not mind because the money was lost to the company anyway.
  Such a training tax is a recipe for wasting valuable company resources. It is based on characteristic Labour prejudice and its belief that politicians and bureaucrats can second-guess business decisions and should decide

  251
  appropriate training levels. It is absurd for central Government to try to assess what is appropriate across the board—for all business sectors, for all time.
  Fourthly, the greatest folly of all is the concept of a minimum wage, which would of course increase unemployment. If one increases the price of any commodity, one also reduces demand for it. We could argue all night about the extent of the job losses that would result from a minimum wage, if it were ever implemented—but let there be no doubt that the figure would be substantial, with estimates varying between 750,000 and 1 million.
  A minimum wage would also serve to increase inflation by increasing labour costs at the lower end of the wage scale and the knock-on effect that it would have on wage rates and pay demands throughout the economy. A minimum wage would be of no benefit to those at the lower end of the pay scale whom it was designed to benefit, because they would lose family credit entitlement.
  Given the present state of the economy, it takes considerable genius to devise a system which would increase unemployment and inflation—two evils that the Government are currently addressing—and which would offer no benefit to the very sector of the community that it was designed to help. It is a form of genius in which the Labour party appears to specialise.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Keith Mans: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) on being honest in expressing his views on the increase in value added tax. Some Opposition Members—notably the hon. Members for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott)—said that VAT is a regressive tax that affects the poor most of all. However, when it came to whether Labour would get rid of it, those hon. Members were less than honest in what they said. As was pointed out by one or two of my hon. Friends, they dithered—in the same way as the Leader of the Opposition is dithering over whether to commit Labour to abolishing VAT.
  The shift from local to indirect taxation was a fundamental part of my right hon. Friend's Budget, and it is one of which. I thoroughly approve. I go along also with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in believing that it is a pity that the Government did not go all the way and got rid of local taxation—at least until such time as they decide on a new structure for local government.
  I am pleased that the Government went as far as they did, but hope that we will take on board the consequences. There is now a high level of gearing in terms of the way in which local tax works on local expenditure. It brings in only 11 per cent. of total local revenue, which means that just a small percentage increase in the tax could make for a large increase in the amount of money that people must pay. At least it is capped and I suggest that it will have to be capped at a relatively low level. That is the main difference between our suggestions for local government finance and those of the Opposition. Their fair rates proposal has no top limit, and no capping. It is rather odd that they are suggesting certain limits on central Government taxation and expenditure, but that they are
  252
  not suggesting any capping for local government expenditure. That is a fundamental flaw in their economic programme.
  Another aspect of the Finance Bill is the excellent help that it gives to worker share ownership plans and to profit-related pay. As many hon. Members know, I have encouraged that subject for a number of years, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor). It is certainly encouraging that we are moving in the direction of allowing employees to take a fuller part in the operation of their companies. Profit-related pay improves productivity, cuts costs and improves job security. I hope that, at times when profits are not as great as they have been, directors and top managers will incur a cut in their profit-related pay.
  This Budget is undoubtedly good for business, but there is still a lot to do, especially as regards the environment. However, I sincerely hope that that aspect of the Budget can be dealt with in Committee.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: We must always examine a Finance Bill in relation to the economic circumstances from which it arises, for it is against that background that it may best be judged. Tonight and in Committee it will be our argument that the Bill miserably fails to measure up to the desperately needed measures required by the economy. We are in a deep recession and no amount of hype from the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary or Conservative Members will hide that fact.
  That argument has formed a large part of our debate this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) spoke eloquently of the fact that engineers in his constituency are finding this recession even worse than the recession of 1980. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) talked about the great British industries which were being run down by the market ideologies of the past 12 years.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Neath (Mr. Hain) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) spoke about important issues—how our economic circumstances are affecting their constituents.
  Other important matters have been mentioned today. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) drew attention to the crucial question of what will happen to the proposed foundation for sport and the arts. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) spoke about the impact of measures in the Bill, especially upon people with low incomes. Perhaps most perceptive of all was my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who contributes to our debates on the Finance Bill each year and who spoke about the Government's false optimism which parallels, almost precisely, what occurred in the 1920s.
  The bare facts of our economic condition are incontestable. Since the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) became Chancellor, 500,000 people have lost their jobs. Last month's rise in unemployment was the highest since records began. Every day, 100 businesses go bust in Britain and 3,000 people lose their jobs. The Chancellor has forecast that growth will fall by 2 per cent. this year. Meanwhile, growth in Germany is 4·5 per cent. and in France it is 1·8 per cent.

  253
  Let us have no nonsense from the Government about international factors being the cause of the recession. Even the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee did not buy that argument.
  Worst of all, investment as a whole is set to fall this year by nearly 10 per cent. and manufacturing investment is set to fall even further. Investment does not seem really to matter to the Chancellor. It is, in his words of yesterday, "a lagging indicator." Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the blinkered economic vision of this Government. Far from being a lagging indicator, investment is the key future indicator of economic performance. According to the CBI's industrial trends survey, which has been widely quoted by the Government today, the chairman of the CBI's economic situation committee, Mr. David Wigglesworth, makes that point. He says:
  "Investment in plant and machinery is still being cut heavily and this can only reduce the capacity of firms to respond when demand recovers."
  It was precisely the lack of capacity to respond to demand that created the problems of the mid-1980s and led to the recession that we now face. To write off investment as an indicator behind the present trend ignores the fact that it is a crucial determining factor of the future trend. The Chancellor would do well to recognise that fact.
  Mr. Butterfill: As the hon. Gentleman seems to regard investment as such an important factor, can he say what his party would do to encourage it? We have heard that the Labour party would put a tax on savings which, in turn, would have an effect on investment. More particularly, if we look at the unincorporated sector, his proposals for a 59 per cent. tax rate mean that the risk-reward ratio for the unincorporated sector would be absolutely diabolical.
  Mr. Smith: I shall turn shortly to the corporate tax allowance measures and the reform of the business expansion scheme which we propose, since they deal with precisely the point as to how we should encourage investment in a far more effective way than the Government propose in the Bill.
  When the Chancellor tells us that recovery is just around the corner and when the Chief Secretary speaks—as he did even today—about what he calls the transformation of the British economy, they are talking nonsense, and I think that they know it. All the figures for output, investment, job vacancies, bankruptcies, growth and unemployment reveal that our economy is in deep trouble. Both we and the British people will not accept any attempts by the Government to talk their way out of the morass that they themselves have created.
  Remember, these were the people who told us a year ago that there would be no recession and who said, a few months ago, that, yes, there would be a recession but that it would be relatively shallow and short-lived. We did not believe them then. We do not believe them now when they say that recovery is coming, and coming soon. I wish, for the sake of millions of people and of thousands of firms, that it were true. Sadly, it is not.
  There is one other myth that we must lay to rest. The Chief Secretary talked with astonishing pride of the Government's record on growth during the 1980s. He called it a success story. Let us get the figures perfectly clear. Average growth between 1979 and 1990 was 1·75 per
  254
  cent. a year. That is the lowest figure achieved by any Government in this country since the second world war. Average growth, incidentally, under the 1974 to 1979 Labour Government was 2 per cent.
  Mr. Sayeed: Can the hon. Gentleman give comparative figures for 1982 up to the present day?
  Mr. Smith: By asking that question the hon. Gentleman reveals precisely the fallacy in the figures that are constantly trotted out by the Government. Of course, they ask us to look at their performance during the period from when the first recession that they created was finishing until the second recession was beginning, ignoring the periods of negative growth before and afterwards which must also be included in the equation. If the Chief Secretary believes that the worst performance since the war is a success story, he had better think again.
  How does the Finance Bill measure up against a background of recession, rising unemployment and negative growth? Our opinion is that it measures up pretty poorly. There are some measures that we welcome. Last year we argued strongly for VAT relief on bad debts at one year rather than two years. Even after further consideration in last year's Finance Bill the Government rejected it. We welcome their repentance now.
  For many years now we have been arguing for mortgage interest relief to be available only at the standard rate of tax. The Chief Secretary has recognised belatedly that it is fair to give the same rate of relief to all taxpayers. So why did the Government reject our proposal last year and the year before and why did the present Prime Minister tell the Welsh Tories last July how strongly he condemned Labour for meddling by making precisely that proposal? Again, we welcome the Government's repentance.
  One item that was in the Budget but is not specifically included in the Bill is the increase in child benefit. It is long overdue and it is not enough. It involves a miserly 25p for the second and subsequent children, but at least it breaks the freeze and we welcome that repentance, too.
  However, we have one question. The Government saved £360 million by freezing the married couple's allowance. They used only £220 million of that saving for the change in child benefit. Why did not they use the whole lot?
  Although we welcome some items in the Budget and the Bill, many others are either iniquitous or inadequate or both. Of course, a general relief on corporation tax rates will be welcomed by some businesses, although not all, but it is better than nothing. It does not add up to a so-called Budget for business and will fail entirely to achieve what is most desperately needed—a motor to get investment going again.
  That is why before the Budget we proposed a system of enhanced first-year capital allowances for investment in manufacturing industry to help give a kick start to the purchase of new plant, machinery and technology and the carrying out of research. That would have done far more in a far more focused way than anything in the Finance Bill. That is why we also proposed a complete change in the business expansion scheme to attract private funds into new enterprises, especially in the regions. Yet the Bill leaves the business expansion scheme precisely where it was before—a tax haven for the rich that is used almost entirely for investment in private rented property.

  255
  I now turn to the miserable measure proposed in the Bill for training enhancement. Any recognition of training needs by a Government who have lopped £350 million off employment training and £300 million off youth training in the past two years is welcome, but what a wasted opportunity it is. We have been given a miserly scheme, hedged about with restrictions, which will cost the Exchequer only £15 million in a full year and will not come in for another year in any case. We could have had a proper recognition of the training needs of industry and a training programme led by Government initiative but drawing on the real enthusiasm to deliver in many industries. We proposed such a programme, but all that we got was £15 million in two years' time. That is hardly a good answer to our underskilled position in the world economic league.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is making a series of interesting expenditure commitments for a putative Labour Government. How do they fit in with the stated priorities of his colleague, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), and the statement on Sunday by the Labour party leader that there is no more cash?
  Mr. Smith: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has not examined properly the proposals that we made in advance of the Budget. We set out clearly and in a costed fashion the measures that we recommended, including a major package of proposals on training, and we set out how we would go about funding them. The hon. Gentleman should examine his facts a little more carefully before intervening again.
  Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: I have only five more minutes and I must get on.
  The centrepiece of the Budget and the Bill is the increase in VAT from 15 per cent. to 17.5 per cent. in order to get the Government off the poll tax hook. In a phrase that the Chief Secretary will come to regret, he said—I think that I am quoting him correctly—"In the circumstances in which we found ourselves, this was an appropriate step." Found themselves? Who dreamed up the poll tax? Who voted it through and imposed it on the British people? Who, even now, have offered no word of apology for the unfairness, administrative chaos, hardship and grotesque waste of public money that the poll tax fiasco has caused? The answer is the Government, including the Chief Secretary. The blame for the poll tax and for the shift in taxation to mitigate its electoral impact will lie fairly and squarely with the Government. The VAT increase is putting up prices, making people worse off and fuelling the underlying rate of inflation. The Government have made the wrong choice in their desperation to get rid of the poll tax liability that they created.
  There is precious little in the Budget for the environment. The Government have taken some steps to bring company car taxation more into line with the proper value of the benefit. However, there is still no satisfactory distinction in the tax system between a car provided as a perk and one that is an essential tool of the trade. Where are the imaginative measures that could have been taken? We proposed an increase in the differential between leaded and unleaded petrol, an incentive for the fitting of catalytic converters, incentives for the purchase of environmentally
  256
  sensitive products and the carrying out of home improvements, a graded scale of vehicle excise duty to encourage the use of smaller cars and a levy on landfill waste disposal. Such a programme of measures could have used the taxation system to help the environment. The Government have totally failed to take up that challenge.
  The Bill fails to take up the challenges facing our economy. It will do virtually nothing to help lift us out of recession. It will do precious little for families with children. It will do hardly anything for the environment. The Government started with a recession and are ending with a recession with an irresponsible short-term boom in the middle. They have failed the economy, as does the Bill. It is time for a Labour Government to start the recovery.
  9.39 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): The Budget will, this year alone, make available to business three quarters of a billion pounds by not taxing it to the extent that it would have been taxed without the changes in the Bill. That decision was taken because we know that businesses are going through a difficult period. The recession will not go on for ever. We can speculate endlessly about when it will end, but we know that it certainly will end, and that when it does, British business will be well placed to grow in the 1990s as it did in the 1980s.
  The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) seemed to forget that the debate was on the Finance Bill. She sent her researchers scurrying to find every bad statistic and every chance remark made by a commentator to construct a dreary litany of gloom. There was no good news that could not be rubbished and no bad news that could not be magnified. Sadly, she neglected the Bill and its important contribution to stimulating and encouraging recovery.
  We listened with interest to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who maintained a curious combination of contentions—that inflation was out of control but that we should relax monetary policy by cutting interest rates. He seems to have become a late convert to the "Monklands law" that, whatever the interest rate, it should be lower. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is pleased to have a convert. It is important to be aware of the priority that the hon. Gentleman attaches to the reduction and control of inflation.
  The debate, as always, attracted many important and serious speeches. One thinks particularly of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), whose Committee has done such important work on the subject. He made, as usual, a speech of great authority, to which we listened with great respect.
  The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) made a series of extraordinary allegations that will surprise my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport when he reads them in Hansard. He made several points; I regret that I did not answer them earlier, so perhaps I shall deal with a few of them now. Consultations are being held on the creation of the foundation for sport and the arts. It was always clear that we would contribute only if all three pools promoters participated, if the foundation was established on acceptable terms and if all the duty cut was passed to the foundation. He asked why the Bill does not cut the duty. That will appear as a new clause in

  257
  Committee, with other Budget proposals that were not ready for inclusion when the Bill was published. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary will deal in detail with any further questions from the hon. Gentleman.
  I am sorry that I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), but I have seen a note of it. He mentioned inheritance tax and the possibility of 100 per cent. relief for businesses, which I have discussed with him previously. Already, 50 per cent. relief is available for substantial holdings in unquoted companies, which means an effective rate of 20 per cent. That compares well with regimes in other countries. Help is available in paying inheritance tax, such as payment over 10 years with interest-free instalments.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and for Wyre (Mr. Mans) spoke of the proposals to encourage the use of employee share schemes. I am grateful for their support. The proposals will take this important process further, which is to be widely welcomed. I am sorry that it was not more widely welcomed by Opposition Members, who I would have thought would favour workers having the opportunity of being encouraged to participate directly in the success of the enterprises for which they work.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) and for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) made important and serious speeches. They both have considerable experience in the commercial world, which benefits their contributions and our debates.
  My right hon.Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) referred to clause 50 and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) mentioned it in an intervention. I know that several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed concern about its provisions. We have listened seriously to what they have said about this difficult and technical set of issues. No doubt they can be thoroughly explored in Committee and I look forward to my right hon. and hon. Friends' contributions to those debates. I believe that the measure is right. It does not involve any double taxation and it is not retrospective. It simply remedies a technical defect and without it there would be a return to the building societies' general funds—not to the investors or depositors on whose interest the tax was levied in the first place—of the tax that properly should have been paid and properly was paid. I repeat that, without the provisions, there would be a capricious return of that tax to the building societies, which would reflect, at random, the point in the financial year at which their accounting year ended.
  Sir William Clark: In view of the interest in clause 50 among my hon. Friends and the importance of retrospection and double taxation, would it not be a good idea if that clause were discussed on the Floor of the House rather than upstairs in Committee?
  Mr. Maude: I hear what my right hon. Friend says. As he knows, such matters tend to be discussed through what are delicately known as "the usual channels" and no doubt they will be discussed in that way. Nevertheless, we are very much aware of the concern about this. The case for proceeding with clause 50 is powerful and we have
  258
  considered it extremely carefully. I look forward to the opportunity of continuing the task of persuading my right hon. Friend that it is right.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I do not want to dispute what my hon. Friend has said because he has much of the Finance Bill to cover in the next 14 minutes, but may I refer other hon. Members to the House of Lords judgments, because there is at least a point of argument about whether everything that their Lordships have said has been accepted by my hon. Friend?
  Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend makes the point that there are disputed matters. There is plenty of scope for argument, and I look forward to pursuing the subject with my right hon. and hon. Friends—or rather my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is looking forward to pursing this matter in Committee. Comes the hour, comes the man, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will deal persuasively with this point in Committee.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South also referred to mobile telephones. I know of his concern about what he describes as a petty measure. I do not believe that it is petty. The private benefit of a portable telephone that is provided by an employer is already chargeable to tax but, at the moment, if it is to be properly accounted for, the employer has to keep detailed fiddly records, and that is a burden upon him. The introduction of a simple scale charge, at a modest level that would reflect only slight private use of the portable telephone, is a simplifying measure that will make life easier for employers. There has been a great deal of misrepresentation about the effect of this measure, but I believe that it is right. It is also right that we should extend it to car phones.
  Sir William Clark: Why should my hon. Friend suggest placing extra administrative burdens on small business men because of some private use, when mobile telephones produce about £10 million for the Exchequer? Surely that is administrative nonsense.
  Mr. Maude: The point I was making was that the introduction of a simple scale charge would reduce the burden on small businesses because if there is a private benefit from the use of a portable phone, that is already chargeable to tax and already required to be accounted for in detail to the Inland Revenue. That seems burdensome; it would be simpler and better to replace it with a straightforward and modest scale charge.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) raised the issue of capital gains tax in general terms. I am not one of the Financial Secretaries who has had the benefit of a conversation about that with him, but I look forward to doing so and to pursuing the points that he argued so persuasively.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) talked about shipping. I know that there is concern about that, but as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the Budget statement, there are limits to the extent to which the tax system can be skewed towards the special needs of a particular industry. It is worth saying that ships already receive capital allowances of 25 per cent. a year, which gives nearly full relief over seven to eight years. That compares with the average economic life of a ship—bought new—of 15 to 20 years, so the present regime already gives more relief more quickly against tax

  259
  than would be the case if there were a straightforward allowance for commercial depreciation. The most important help that we can give the shipping industry is to foster business generally. Shipping will benefit from many of the other measures contained in the Budget, especially the cut in the main corporation tax rate.
  Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend accept that our position is extremely poor vis-à-vis those countries with whom we must compete if we are to have an effective merchant marine because our competitors have much better capital allowance systems?
  Mr. Maude: There are different capital tax regimes and corporation tax regimes in different countries and that will always be the case. As a result of the Budget, we now have a corporation tax regime that will give us the lowest tax rate of any country in the European Community—indeed, of any country in the Group of Seven. That is a massive advantage to British business, including shipping. We should emphasise the great benefits that will flow from that system.
  Many of the contributions from the Opposition referred to investment. It is important, but it is not an end in itself—it is a means to increase productivity and to improve business. However, sometimes the Opposition talk as though investment were intrinsically desirable and as though one measured the success of an economy by the increase in the amount of investment. The economy did not grow to the extent that it did in the 1980s merely because there were record levels of investment; it grew because productivity increased, because industrial relations improved and because innovation increased. One can sometimes make too much of the influence of Governments on investment.
  "Tinkering via investment, subsidies or other means to alter the relationship between the cost of capital and the rate of return on investment has noticeably failed."
  Those are not my words, but those of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, in a speech that he made about five years ago. I think that he was right. He made the perceptive point that what matters is the real commercial rate of return on investment, not the artificial rate of return that is created by tax incentives and by subsidies. I am sorry that he has regressed from that position to the point where he and the Labour party now argue for increased capital allowances for industry, and for a tax credit for additional research and development. At one point, it seemed that the Labour party had accepted the Government's approach to corporation tax and it is sad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has apparently not learnt the lesson but has regressed to previous heresies.
  This evening, we have heard much about what the Labour party would not like to see. We have heard less about Opposition Members do want. We know that they want to spend more public money because they have said so. That is a plausible claim and we believe that part of what they say because the Labour party has always spent more money when it has been in government. However, it is less clear where that money will come from.
  Oddly enough, the Labour party's documents do not throw much light——
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Which documents?
  Mr. Maude: I will show where the information comes from if that will help the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) because he will not get the information from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen.
  The Opposition claim that they will raise £1 billion by tackling offshore trusts. That is a spendid idea, but there are two snags. The first is that we are already doing that, and the second is that it will raise not £1 billion, but less than £100 million. There is no pot of gold there. What is the Opposition's next wheeze? "Opportunity Britain" states that there is £5 billion in uncollected taxes, enough to pay for the entire backlog of school repairs and rebuilding. Once again that is a pot of gold and a windfall of £5 billion just waiting to be scooped in. However, there is one problem That money does not stay uncollected. It is the amount of tax which, by the end of the Inland Revenue accounting year, happens not to have been collected. Nearly all of it is collected soon afterwards, much of it with interest added. Bang goes another pot of gold and with it bang goes Labour's programme for school repairs and rebuilding.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: With regard to collecting taxes, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is aware of the vitally important cancer research at the Paterson institute in south Manchester and I use the word "vitally" in its literal sense. Is he aware that the institute faces a VAT bill of £1·2 million on its voluntary funded work and that that will now increase to £1·4 million? Is there nothing that he can do to help?
  Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman raised that matter at Treasury questions a few days ago. I explained then that there are limits on the extent to which exemptions can be given under European Community law. There are already tax reliefs worth £800 million a year to charities, of which £150 million are reliefs on VAT. However, there are limits to the extent to which they can be extended. We understand what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister of State will consider the point.
  Where else will the money come from to pay for Labour's spending programme? "Opportunity Britain" states:
  "We will increase the Inland Revenue staffing and introduce tougher tax laws thus raising substantial extra income for public services."
  That is the key. This brave new programme for "Opportunity Britain" is not just a tax collection programme; it is a job creation scheme. The brave new programme means more tax men and more staff for the Inland Revenue.
  What about those tougher tax laws? What tax laws? Are all tax laws to be made a bit tougher or are some to be made a lot tougher? Which tax laws? How much extra income? From whom? What on? Who pays? How much and who collects it? Where are the answers to those questions?
  What are the Opposition going to do about VAT? Apparently, the Opposition now accept the increase in VAT that we are introducing this year. However, I recall that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget, the Leader of the Opposition claimed that that was not a fair way to collect additional taxation. Does that view still stand? Would the Opposition reverse the increase? If so, where are they going to get the extra money? If they are not going to

  261
  reverse it, why did the Leader of the Opposition say that it was unfair? Either they propose to leave in place something that they believe to be unfair or they believe that it is fair and the Leader of the Opposition has got it wrong. If he got it wrong, he should apologise. Which is it? Where are the answers? When it comes to taxes, the answer is always the same—"Tax the rich". That is what they always claim to do. They think that somehow the British public will accept that there is a painless way to raise all the extra tax.
  We know what they have done. We do not need to look at the crystal ball; we can read it in the books. All Labour Governments have increased the basic rate of tax—the rate of tax that every taxpayer pays—and yet all Labour Governments have claimed in opposition that they would increase tax only on the rich. We need only to look at the history books. In the 1960s, the Labour Government increased the basic rate of tax by 2½ per cent. In the 1970s, they increased it by 5 per cent. Had they told the electorate that? No, of course they had not. They were very coy about it. The British people know what they propose to do. The British people know that a Labour Government, like Labour councils, mean high spending and high taxes. They have had it once, they have had it several times, and they do not want it again. That is why they will continue to return a Conservative Government.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 209.

  Division No. 132]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bright, Graham

  Aitken, Jonathan

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

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Allason, Rupert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Amess, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Amos, Alan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burns, Simon

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkinson, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Cartwright, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Cash, William

  Baldry, Tony

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chapman, Sydney

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Chope, Christopher

  Bellingham, Henry

  Churchill, Mr

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Benyon, W.

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Colvin, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Couchman, James

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bottomley, Peter

  Curry, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

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

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Day, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Devlin, Tim

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Dicks, Terry

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brazier, Julian

  Dover, Den

  262

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knowles, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knox, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Latham, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fallon, Michael

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Favell, Tony

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lord, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Freeman, Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Fry, Peter

  Maclean, David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  Madel, David

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mans, Keith

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Maples, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorst, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gregory, Conal

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mills, Iain

  Grist, Ian

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Ground, Patrick

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grylls, Michael

  Moate. Roger

  Hague, William

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hannam, John

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

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

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Harris, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mudd, David

  Hawkins. Christopher

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Needham, Richard

  Hayward, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hill, James

  Norris, Steve

  Hind, Kenneth

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Page, Richard

  Holt, Richard

  Paice, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

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

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Portillo, Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Price, Sir David

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Raffan, Keith

  Irvine, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Jack, Michael

  Redwood, John

  Jackson, Robert

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Janman, Tim

  Riddick, Graham

  Jessel, Toby

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Key, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kilfedder, James

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rost, Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  263

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Tredinnick, David

  Shelton, Sir William

  Trippier, David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shersby, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walden, George

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Speed, Keith

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Speller, Tony

  Waller, Gary

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Squire, Robin

  Ward, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Steen, Anthony

  Watts, John

  Stern, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Whitney, Ray

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stokes, Sir John

  Wilkinson, John

  Sumberg, David

  Wilshire, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wood, Timothy

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Thorne, Neil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Thurnham, Peter

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Crowther, Stan

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Cryer, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Cummings, John

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Ashton, Joe

  Dalyell, Tam

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Darling, Alistair

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Battle, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dixon, Don

  Beggs, Roy

  Dobson, Frank

  Beith, A. J.

  Doran, Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Douglas, Dick

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

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Benton, Joseph

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eadie, Alexander

  Boateng, Paul

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Boyes, Roland

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Bradley, Keith

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fatchett, Derek

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fisher, Mark

  Buckley, George J.

  Flannery, Martin

  Caborn, Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Callaghan, Jim

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Foster, Derek

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foulkes, George

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Fraser, John

  Carr, Michael

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Galloway, George

  Clelland, David

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Cohen, Harry

  George, Bruce

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Corbett, Robin

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  264

  Gordon, Mildred

  Nellist, Dave

  Gould, Bryan

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  O'Brien, William

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Grocott, Bruce

  Parry, Robert

  Hain, Peter

  Patchett, Terry

  Hardy, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Haynes, Frank

  Prescott, John

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Henderson, Doug

  Radice, Giles

  Hinchliffe, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hood, Jimmy

  Reid, Dr John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Richardson, Jo

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Robertson, George

  Hoyle, Doug

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Illsley, Eric

  Rooney, Terence

  Janner, Greville

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kennedy, Charles

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Salmond, Alex

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lambie, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Leighton, Ron

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Short, Clare

  Lewis, Terry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

  Loyden, Eddie

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

  McAllion, John

  Snape, Peter

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Soley, Clive

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Spearing, Nigel

  McFall, John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McKelvey, William

  Stott, Roger

  McLeish, Henry

  Strang, Gavin

  Maclennan, Robert

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McMaster, Gordon

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McWilliam, John

  Turner, Dennis

  Madden, Max

  Vaz, Keith

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Wallace, James

  Marek, Dr John

  Walley, Joan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Maxton, John

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Meacher, Michael

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Meale, Alan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Winnick, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Worthington, Tony

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wshawe)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Jack Thompson.

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Paul

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion mae, and Question proposed,
  That Clause Nos. 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31 and 77 and Schedule 14 be committed to a Committee of the whole Housse;
  That the remainder of the Bill be Committed to Standing Committee;
  That, when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the

  265
  Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.—[Mr. Maude.]
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I beg to oppose the motion.
  For procedural reasons, I am speaking against the Government motion. I should, if I had been in order, have preferred to speak in favour of my instruction, but I understand that that is not possible.
  I want to argue why clause 50 should be taken on the Floor of the House, and it may be for the convenience of the House if I do that fairly briefly.
  It was a mistake for the Government to use the Budget in 1985 rather than primary legislation to achieve what they were after.—[Interruption.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members below the Gangway please either leave the Chamber or come in and sit quietly?
  Mr. Bottomley: It would have been possible in a debate on the Floor of the House to argue that it might have been better for the Government to consult the Building Societies Association over what effect their regulations might have, rather than go through three sets of the law courts. It would be possible to argue in a Committee of the whole House that it has been a mistake for the Government to keep trying to change the law, and certainly it would be possible to argue that it was a mistake for the Government to keep the cash for five months after the House of Lords judgments on 25 October 1990. That may be a matter which could be dealt with in other ways. I have today referred the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
  The difficulty that the House is in is that the House of Lords has judged very clearly that the House of Commons did not know what it was doing when it approved the amended regulations. The fact that the Revenue knew that the regulations by themselves were not sufficient is shown by the fact that they amended them.
  Page 4 of the Building Societies Association letter could be quoted in a debate on the Floor of the House, where it says that the House of Lords held that there was a fundamental flaw in the regulations—this is the important point which should be considered by the whole House—"consequent on the double taxation."
  There is also, on page 3 of the letter from the Leeds Permanent building society to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the statement:
  "In the unanimous opinion of the House of Lords, the retrospective Regulations tax twice."
  There is a subsidiary issue as to whether subsequent regulations of the House allowed the Revenue to tax twice, and that I think is a matter for the whole House. I do not think that anyone in the House realised at the time that that was what was happening.
  The final point, on page 4 of the Leeds letter, to which I would have referred if there had been a debate on the Floor of the House, is that the Inland Revenue's counsel argued in the House of Lords that he found it too embarrassing to defend the Government's windfall claim. That is a point which I was making to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary more obliquely. The letter goes on to say that the counsel for the Revenue
  266
  "told their Lordships that they should not ask themselves if this was 'just or unjust', but only whether Parliament had, by the 1986 retrospective amendment, 'decreed this state of affairs, just or unjust'."
  It is clearly a matter for the whole House to decide whether it is just or unjust. That is why I argue that we ought to have clause 50 on the Floor of the House. However, if we cannot do it in a Committee of the whole House, we shall have to wait until the Standing Committee reports back to the House. Those are the words of Lord Oliver on page 9 of his judgment, Lord Goff on page 18 and Lord Lowry on page 25. Those seem to be points to which all hon. Members will,want to refer.
  My final point is one not of constitutional procedure but of politics. If each member of a building society loses £25 on average, there is the prospect of 10 million people writing to their Member of Parliament or to my right hon. Friends the Chancellor or the Prime Minister asking for their money back. That strikes me as rather inappropriate politics if we have a general election within the next year. My guess is that, on reconsideration, the Government will want either to change clause 50 or, preferably, to drop it. I hope that, between now and when the clause is debated, they will decide to do the latter.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude) rose——
  Mr. Tim Smith rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that there can be only one speech against the committal motion.
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills):—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 28.

  Division No. 133]

  [10.20 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Allason, Rupert

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Amess, David

  Burns, Simon

  Amos, Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Carrington, Matthew

  Ashby, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, David

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Chope, Christopher

  Baldry, Tony

  Churchill, Mr

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Colvin, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Bitten, Rt Hon John

  Couchman, James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Cran, James

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Boateng, Paul

  Curry, David

  Body, Sir Richard

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

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bos well, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Devlin, Tim

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Dixon, Don

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Dover, Den

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dunn, Bob

  Brazier, Julian

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bright, Graham

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Emery, Sir Peter

  267

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Jessel, Toby

  Evennett, David

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Fallon, Michael

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Favell, Tony

  Key, Robert

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Kilfedder, James

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Flynn, Paul

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Foster, Derek

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Knowles, Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  Knox, David

  French, Douglas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fry, Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Gill, Christopher

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Lord, Michael

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Gorst, John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Maclean, David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gregory, Conal

  Madel, David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Grist, Ian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Ground, Patrick

  Mans, Keith

  Grylls, Michael

  Maples, John

  Hague, William

  Marlow, Tony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hannam, John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Harris, David

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mills, Iain

  Hayes, Jerry

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Haynes, Frank

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hayward, Robert

  Moate, Roger

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Morris, M (N''hampton S)

  Hill, James

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hind, Kenneth

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Holt, Richard

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

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

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Norris, Steve

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Page, Richard

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Paice, James

  Irvine, Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Jack, Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Jackson, Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Janman, Tim

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  268

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Portillo, Michael

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Price, Sir David

  Thorne, Neil

  Raffan, Keith

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Thurnham, Peter

  Redwood, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Riddick, Graham

  Tracey, Richard

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Tredinnick, David

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Trippier, David

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Trotter, Neville

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rowe, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Walden, George

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Waller, Gary

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Ward, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sims, Roger

  Warren, Kenneth

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

  Watts, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wells, Bowen

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Speed, Keith

  Whitney, Ray

  Speller, Tony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Squire, Robin

  Wilkinson, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wilshire, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stern, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Sumberg, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Kennedy, Charles

  Beith, A. J.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Nellist, Dave

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Salmond, Alex

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Carr, Michael

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Cartwright, John

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

  Cryer, Bob

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Douglas, Dick

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Committee tomorrow.

  Finance Bill
    ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1989–90

  Community Charge
  10.34 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I beg to move,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £4,834,497,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £4,013,497,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on grants to local authorities in respect of the community charge and certain related administrative expenses; on rate rebate grants; on emergency financial assistance to local authorities; and on repayments of excess contributions made by local authorities and other bodies in respect of non-domestic rates in 1990–91.
  It may be convenient to discuss also the other two motions:

  Community Charge
    CLASS XV, VOTE 22
    That a further sum, not exceeding £520,381,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £431,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Scottish Office Environment Department on grants to local authorities in respect of the community charge and certain related administrative expenses; on rate rebates and transitional relief grants; and the special payments scheme to local authorities in Scotland.

    CLASS XVI, VOTE 11
    That a further sum, not exceeding £333,187,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £33,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Welsh Office on residual rate rebate for the disabled grants, grants to local authorities in Wales in respect of the community charge and certain related administrative expenses.
    The motions seek approval for expenditure under the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991. The Act received Royal Assent on 28 March, and the expenditure is urgently needed to compensate local authorities for certain provisions in the Act. That is why we have taken the unusual step of bringing forward these supplementary estimates for the House's approval tonight.
    In recent years, the burden of paying for local services has fallen too heavily on local taxpayers. We propose to ease that burden through a series of measures that will redress the balance between local and national taxation. In the longer term, we shall ensure that the council tax which replaces the community charge will need to raise less money than was raised by the rates in their last years or the community charge last year. For the short term, the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act provides for an immediate reduction of £140 in the level of community charges set by local authorities for 1991–92.
    Since the Act will have a significant impact on the finances of local authorities during the current year, we are providing authorities with assistance in three ways. First, we are compensating them for the effects on their cash flow of the delay in sending out bills. Secondly, we are reimbursing them for the direct loss of community charge income as a result of the £140 reduction. Thirdly, we will
    270
    reimburse the reasonable additional administrative costs which they have incurred as a result of the recent legislation.
    Since this year's community charge bills are being sent out late, it is inevitable that authorities will suffer losses of interest on revenue that they had budgeted to receive in the first few weeks of the financial year. We are taking steps to offset those losses. In England, we have brought forward the amounts payable to local authorities from the pool of non-domestic rates. We made an extra payment on 5 April which authorities would not otherwise have received and, overall, in the first two months of the year, we are paying out 32 per cent. of each authority's business rates entitlement for the year as a whole.
    This should ensure that authorities are adequately compensated for the cash flow shortfall that they would otherwise face. In Scotland, a similar effect is being achieved by advancing payments of revenue support grant, and in Wales we are achieving the same ends by front-loading the new community charge grant which will reimburse authorities for the £140 reduction.
    As I have said, front loading is only part of the picture. We also intend to use our powers under the Act to pay two new grants to local authorities; and those grants cannot be paid without the specific approval of the House. That is why the supplementary estimates are being presented to the House today.
    Mr. David Wilshire: Before my hon. Friend pays the councils, will he make inquiries about the length of delay in issuing bills? Some councils will take longer than others. Will he also make inquiries into whether Labour councils are deliberately delaying issuing their bills until after Thursday, so that the public do not know the truth?
    Mr. Key: It would be outrageous if Labour councils were doing that.
    Mr. Wilshire: They will.
    Mr. Key: However, the evidence is that councils are, on the whole, doing the best they can.
    Mr. Wilshire: Some are.
    Mr. Key: Some of them have made remarkable progress. Within a matter of days of the changes being announced, they had got their bills out.
    As I have already said, front loading is only part of the picture. We also intend to use our powers under the Act to pay two new grants. The first will reimburse authorities for the direct loss of community charge income arising from the general reduction in charges. Of course, we shall not know until the end of the year exactly how much income each authority has lost, but we.can make an estimate, and that is what we have done. Our estimate uses authorities' own figures for the amount of income they were expecting to raise from charges. So it takes account of their expectations about non-collection, ensuring that our grant does not simply bail out authorities that are poor collectors, and it also takes account of standard and collective charges.
    Grant will be paid during 1991–92 to cover 90 per cent. of the estimate for each authority. Final payments, to bring the amount of grant up to 100 per cent. of actual losses, will be made next year. This year's payments will involve an increase in central Government support for the

    271
    current year of over £5 billion for Great Britain as a whole. We have already released the first instalments of community charge grant to local authorities. In order to permit that urgent expenditure, an advance of nearly £505 million has been made from the contingencies fund. That sum will be repaid to the fund when parliamentary approval for the additional expenditure has been obtained.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend make it quite clear to the House and to the councils generally that the advance of that money in no way releases local authorities from their responsibility to collect outstanding community charge which has not yet been paid?
    Mr. Key: Yes, indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, and I can give him an absolute assurance that there is no question of an amnesty on the payment of tax due to local authorities. It is essential that all those in a position to influence non-payers use that influence to ensure that they pay. It would be grossly unfair to other law-abiding payers if that were not the case.
    As I have said, we are paying only 90 per cent. of the grant this year. The remaining 10 per cent. will be paid after the end of the financial year, subject to any adjustments that may be necessary, on the basis of audited claims. That arrangement is based on a recognition that authorities' own estimates of the amount of charge income to be raised are subject to considerable uncertainty. In those circumstances, it would be wrong in principle to pay 100 per cent. of the estimated entitlement until an audited claim has been received. We recognise, however, that the holdback of 10 per cent. will affect the cash flow position of authorities. We have therefore taken that into account in advancing the payments from the business rate pool.
    That brings me to the third measure on my list. We intend to reimburse authorities for all reasonable additional administrative costs incurred by them as a result of the recent legislation.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I must compliment the Minister on his smooth performance, but is it not the first time that the Gerald Ratner principle has been applied to legislation? The Government has had to admit to the House that the legislation under which local government finance has operated for the past two years is, to use Gerald Ratner's phrase, nothing better than a prawn sandwich. In the light of the additional administrative costs to local authorities, does the Minister intend to deduct those funds from all the ministerial salaries that have been concerned with the fiasco over the pasi. two or three years, as Mr. Ratner would do?
    Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman made a particularly long intervention. I can assure him that if he were to reduce ministerial salaries by anything at all, there would be precious little left for the benefit of his constituents.
    We are taking very great care to discuss with local authority associations what the basis and timing of payments should be. No decisions on that have been taken, but we expect that the cost to the Exchequer in the current financial year will be of the order of £60 million.
    Apart from those three initiatives, we are taking the opportunity to adjust the public expenditure provision required for the existing community charge reduction scheme and the assistance which is given towards the preparation and administration costs of that scheme.
    272
    Because of the £140 general reduction, the total amount of help that will need to be given through the reduction scheme will be reduced.
    The resultant savings have made it possible to make a number of improvements to the scheme. The threshold for entitlement has been reduced from £104 to £52. Allowance is now being made for people who changed their address during 1990–91, and, for the first time, the scheme will take account of as many charges as there are eligible charge payers in a property. Those changes in the rules mean that some 18 million people will still qualify for a reduction under the scheme in the current financial year.
    The cost of the revised community charge reduction scheme will now be £1·38 billion, which is about £450 million less than the figure announced in the local government finance settlement in January. As with community charge grant, 90 per cent. of that sum will be paid to authorities this year, with the balance of the grant payable after the end of the year on the basis of audited claims.
    The changes to the reduction scheme will also affect the preparation and administration costs incurred by authorities in relation to the scheme. We are therefore seeking additional provision to cover the extra costs of amended computer software and other administrative expenses.
    Mr. Richard Tracey: Before leaving the issue of adjustments and so on, will my hon. Friend consider a further point about the behaviour of some local authorities? Some in London say that the London borough of Lambeth has still not sent out bills for last year's community charge, and is therefore suffering a large shortfall in its community charge. It would be wise for my hon. Friend and the Department of the Environment to investigate that closely so that the truth can be found before the Government and the taxpayer make any payments to that borough. Other London boroughs may be in a similar position.
    Mr. Key: I regret to say that my hon. Friend is right. The London borough of Lambeth has a substantial debt, not only from uncollected community charges last year but from uncollected rents and rates and a great deal of other income due to it. I suspect that it would be extremely unfair on those who live in the London borough of Lambeth if we were not to assist the borough to finance its services this year, considering that the borough receives a substantially greater grant than its neighbour—Wandsworth—because of its additional needs. I take my hon. Friend's point, and I hope that those in Lambeth responsible for these matters will take careful note of it.
    The estimates will enable the Government to provide a substantial amount of additional assistance to local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales this year. They give effect to the commitment that we have made to reduce the burden on local taxpayers. I commend them to the House.
    10.46 pm
    Mr. William O'Brien: The Minister said that these estimates are before the House because of the extra that people were paying, first in rates and then in massive poll tax payments. I remind the Minister that ratepayers and poll tax payers have paid more over the past few years because the Government have so drastically

    273
    reduced the rate support grant that it was only reasonable that someone should have to pay more. Many people need and depend on the services of local authorities. The sorry fact is that it has taken the Government 12 years to realise that that has been happening.
    We are debating a contribution to help local authorities with their expenditure. However, we think that it would be better to reinstate the rate support grant as it was before the Government took office than to operate this mis-mash of resolutions and proposals.
    Mr. Wilshire: Before leaving his point about why people are paying such large bills, will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that one of the reasons for that is that some of his colleagues refuse to pay their community charge and have been stoking up many other people and encouraging them not to pay, so that the law-abiding citizens have had to pick up the tab?
    Mr. O'Brien: We hear that story a lot from Conservative Members, who do not mention that rates were increasing long before the poll tax came into effect. The poll tax has been in operation in England for only a year and in Scotland for two years. The Government have discovered that it does not work, hence the need for the estimates.
    On 25 March, the Minister of State announced drastic changes and hon. Members have been awaiting announcements or additions to the Order Paper today. We hoped to hear from the Minister that, from 1 April 1991, the Government would extend the 100 per cent. rebates for the poll tax to people on income support and to those whose incomes are such that they cannot afford to pay.
    In his statement on 23 April, the Secretary of State, who I am pleased to see in his place, made it abundantly clear that the Government are now aware of the hardship that people on income support, students, student nurses, apprentices and people on youth training courses experience in paying their poll tax bills. The right hon. Gentleman promised that under the new council tax, which will be introduced in 1993, the maximum rebate for people on income support, students and trainees would be 100 per cent.
    If the Government now recognise the hardship that people experience in paying their poll tax bills, why should they have to wait a further two years for 100 per cent. rebates? Ordinary people want an answer to that question.
    Mr. Malcom Bruce: Is not it unfair on people and absurd for local authorities to have to pursue 20 per cent. of a much reduced tax, when the cost of collection will probably exceed the revenue that will be secured? Does not that show how incompetently crazy the Government are?
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, with which I shall deal later.
    If the Government have recognised the need for 100 per cent. rebates, why not will they make them available from 1 April? Why cannot they be included in the estimates? Why does not the Secretary of State act immediately and offer them to those who are in greatest need?
    The House is agreeing to expenditure of £4·8 billion from the Consolidated Fund to meet the cost of the
    274
    Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that, under that Bill, poll tax bills would be reduced by £140.
    Mr. John Bowis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the people about whom he is talking do not need to wait for two years? If Labour authorities were to produce spending plans at target or less, those people would not only receive the 20 per cent. this year; they would receive more than that through their income support level. The people the hon. Gentleman wants to protect could be protected this year if the Labour authorities that are wastefully overspending stuck to target.
    Mr. O'Brien: Those who are requesting 100 per cent. rebates are not found only in Labour local authorities. The Association of District Councils has suggested that there should be 100 per cent. rebates for those on income support and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the ADC is Tory-controlled. The hon. Gentleman's own colleagues are also asking for that consideration. Collecting the 20 per cent. could be more expensive than giving 100 per cent. rebates to those people. That is the craziness facing the local authorities, but it is not too late for the Secretary of State to make that adjustment and to allow relief to those who most need it while also reducing the administration costs of the local authorities.
    The purpose of the three motions is to reduce the poll tax by £140 per person. They also relate to covering the cost of the changes that have been made to the poll tax reduction scheme that was announced by the Minister on 25 March. I believe that the Minister said that he would cover all the costs incurred by the local authorities that will be faced with extra work. Extra demands are being placed on their staff and resources because of making the changes that the Government have introduced.
    I believe that, as part of the general reduction scheme, we should include 100 per cent. rebates for those who have suffered the greatest hardship as a result of the poll tax. That is the most important matter before the House. However, there is also the question of rebilling, to which the Minister referred, and of the delay in local authorities' receipt of the income that would enable them to meet their costs. Can the Minister be more realistic in assessing those costs?
    If the cost will be met only at the end of the financial year when the audit is carried out, I must advise the Minister that that will create additional problems for local authorities, which may have to borrow to meet the cost of providing services. That will lead to interest charges, which will have to be taken into consideration when assessing the total cost of the extra charges and the extra calls upon the resources of the local authorities. I hope that that amount will be included in the total refund that is made to the local authorities. Has the Minister any updated figures for that cost? We were told that it could amount to £200 million of wasted taxpayers' money——
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): No.
    Mr. O'Brien: I am prepared to give way to the Minister of State. If he is saying that it will not be £200 million, what is his most recent assessment of the cost?
    Mr. Key: I am delighted to answer. In fact, I said that it would be £60 million
    Mr. O'Brien: But the Minister then said that that was only an estimate. There has been no real attempt to ascertain the actual cost. I suggest that £200 million is a more realistic figure than the one that the Minister has given. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because local authorities are now making it clear that the Government have underestimated the real cost, and that their costs will be much greater than the £1, £1·50 or £2 per poll tax payer suggested by the Minister. The Minister of State has underestimated that figure. Bearing in mind the way in which the Government arrived at the figure of £60 million, one can readily accept that they have again underestimated and that they are not being honest or fair with the House or with the people outside.
    The money that we are told will be paid to local authorities for the extra billing and extra work that must be carried out would be better channelled into providing improved education facilities, community care and health care. The money that is being wasted on paper that is churned out and then destroyed, on equipment that must be purchased so that bills can be sent out and on the recruitment of additional staff to make up for the Government's mistakes could be better spent on the services on which people rely. It is sorrowful and painful to consider that people are suffering because services are not being provided and the Government are wasting money in the way that has been outlined tonight.
    Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about services that the public are losing, but in his capacity as a Front-Bench spokesman, what advice would he give to the Labour authorities that are not sending out bills and that like the London borough of Lambeth, which I mentioned earlier, have not even sent out the bills for last year? Lambeth is one of the new inner London education authorities, and as such has responsibility for young people. What would he say to such a borough, which is not even attempting to collect the money from last year, let alone this year?
    Mr. O'Brien: Send out the bills. If that is the advice that Conservative Members wish me to give, I give it.
    There is a doubt about how many people will qualify for, and receive, the £140 reduction in the poll tax. The Budget brief presented by the Treasury on 19 March stated that one of the main features of the Budget was that the community charge would be reduced by £140 in 1991–92. The inference was that all community charge bills would be reduced by that amount. We are now told that that is not a realistic figure and we realise that the Chancellor's statement was wholly misleading. More poll tax payers will receive a reduction of less than £80 than will receive a reduction of £140. Five million pensioners will receive less than £80; 20 million poll tax payers do not qualify for the £140 reduction. They are the Minister's figures, not mine. The people who can afford to pay—such as right hon. and hon. Members—receive the full reduction. It is grossly
    276
    unfair that people who receive the largest reduction are those who can afford to pay their poll tax, but that is the crazy scheme that the Government have introduced.
    The Prime Minister and other Ministers have often told us that benefits that are available from Government sources and from tax sources should go to the people in greatest need, yet that principle does not apply to the poll tax relief scheme. If under social benefits the people in greatest need receive the greatest benefits, why should the same principle not apply with the poll tax rebates?
    We shall not oppose the motions because money is being channelled into local government and local government needs that money. As I said earlier, that money should have been channelled through the rate support grant. That would have allowed local authorities to provide the services that are needed in their areas and that would have been a better way to provide local authorities with resources.
    The £4·8 million should go to the people who need it most and the local authorities should decide how best the grants should be spent. That money could allow local authorities to provide better education and to repair and bring up to date schools that have not been painted or repaired for years because the Government have been reducing grants and resources to local authorities. We would prefer local authorities to spend the money in the way that they think fit. The money should allow local authorities to provide the community care and the sporting and recreational facilities that are so needed, particularly in rural areas. The Association of District Councils wants the resources to provide the services that are required.
    We press the Government to redistribute the money and to provide other resources to allow local authorities to provide the service that people demand. On 19 March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
    "I have concluded that…the level of the community
    charge is still too high…the community charges recently announced in England, Wales and Scotland will be cut by£140."—[Official Report, 19 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 180.]
    That does not apply. The Secretary of State for the Environment has also said that the number of people receiving help will increase to more than 18 million next year. We are now told that the number of people who will receive the maximum rebate has substantially reduced. In a written answer on 17 April, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment stated:
    "the reduction scheme…as already planned for 1991–92, is estimated at £86."—[Official Report, 17 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 184.]
    The figures show that 14·6 million charge payers will receive less than £80 and 20 million will receive less than the £140 that the Government have claimed will be distributed.
    We want a better redistribution of the money available to local authorities. Local authorities should have more freedom to provide the services that their communities are demanding. A Labour Government will ensure that that happens.
    11.8 pm
    Mr. Paul Flynn: It was interesting to hear the Minister discuss the Welsh situation. Clearly he is the Government representative who is the expert on what has happened in Wales. However, perhaps not many other hon. Members will realise just how ludicrous has been the pantomime of the rate reduction system that was introduced in Wales. A transitional relief system has been introduced and the Secretary of State for Wales confessed, showing rather more courage than sense, that the system is his brainchild.
    I shall talk generally about the system and say how the Government started out by coming to the conclusion that it would be sensible to give reductions not on the basis of what people paid individually under the old rating system but on an area basis. That works out as very rough justice indeed.
    I choose an area of Wales totally at random, the county of Monmouth. Strangely enough, it has the lowest reduction in all Wales—£4, compared with £82 in the Rhondda. That is £4 for an individual. Of course, there are people in the Rhondda who are very deserving of a reduction, but there are also people in the Rhondda who do not need a reduction at all. Many areas in Monmouth are very poor and will suffer because they are not getting that reduction. That is extremely rough justice, but when the system is broken down into individual parishes and communities it becomes even more demented. There is a degree of fairness if an area is homogenous—that is, if it is wholly rural or urban. In my patch of Newport, West we have a totally perverse result. Under the previous rating system, the areas where the rates paid per parish and per community were low are rural areas. That is for the good reason that the farms were derated. Although there might be 600 dwellings there, 300 of them may have been farms, and they were derated.
    When the Government did their arithmetic they came up with the absurd conclusion that areas of deprivation and need were rural areas. In my constituency—the same applies to Newport, East—all the rebate goes to rural areas. We have very prosperous rural areas getting rebates of £50 and large council estates getting nothing. That has caused considerable puzzlement and resentment throughout the constituency. My local newspaper has carried many stories of people asking why on earth they should pay the £50 David Hunt levy, as it has become known, when prosperous areas down the road are paying nothing.
    To give an example, under the old rating system, two people in a five-bedroom house were paying £1,500 in rates. Two people in a caravan a field away paid £12 in rates. Under the Tory tax, as described by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), they paid equal rates—quite unfairly, with two people in each house—of £460 each. Under the brave new world of the David Hunt levy there will be the generous boon and allowance from the Government; the £53 will go to the people living in the five-bedroom house and the people on the caravan site will receive nothing.
    The system needs some attention. The Minister should give some assurance to those who have lost out and are losing out. Some areas, including Rogerstone, Allt-yr-yn,
    278
    Bassaleg, Rhiwderin and Caerleon will get nothing. Areas such as the Christchurch road, Nash, Redwick, and the leafy world of Wentlooge are getting large handouts.
    Those will be matters of some significance on Thursday, as the voters will demonstrate. Tonight we are considering a system which the Government, on their own estimate, say will cost £60 million. We can be very cynical about that figure. That is £60 million to pay for the Government's attempt to save their skin. This is really a Tory tax. If my memory serves me correctly, according to newspaper reports, that £60 million is more than the personal fortune of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Would not it be just if that money were paid not from the public purse but from the funds of either the Secretary of State or the Conservative party?
    11.15 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Nobody will oppose the motion, as people expect to benefit from this reduction—and soon. However, a number of questions that did not arise when the announcement was made are beginning to emerge. There is a specific question to which I would appreciate an answer. The total amount involved in the three motions is just under £5·7 billion. We were advised that the yield from the Budget increase in VAT would be about £4·25 billion. It would be helpful to know how the difference is made up. The exercise that began in the Budget could have gone very much further. If it had, perhaps people would be clearer as to the exact scale of the manipulation.
    The Government could have abolished local taxation altogether. Presumably people would have thrown their hats in the air and said, "Wonderful." But a few months later they would have begun to wonder how it was that their children continued to be educated in schools, that the streets continued to be swept, and that other services continued to be provided. The answer, of course, is that councils depend on Government grants to pay for those services. Indeed, that is how councils will increasingly have to be run.
    The Government, having steadily reduced the grants to local authorities in an attempt to squeeze them, have, at one go, reversed their policy and thrown billions of pounds back at the problem. Secondly, they have maintained that this is central Government money. I wonder how often we have heard Ministers say, "We don't have any money; it is taxpayers' money." That is not what the Chancellor said when he made his Budget announcement. He said that he had made funds available from the central Exchequer. That is the difference. At the end of the day, people have to pay, by way of one tax or another, for their services, and the VAT increase was immediate evidence of that fact.
    At the weekend, I discussed with an Environment Minister one of the interesting aspects of the new system. The Government say that the new property tax will not involve revaluation resulting from extensions or improvements to houses, as happened under the old rating system. On two counts, it appears that that is wrong. First, improvement could result in a valuation moving the house up a band or two. That would have a significant effect. Secondly, the cost of any major improvement would attract a substantial extra amount of VAT.
    A single person with a £58,000 house in Strathkelvin and Bearsden, if he were to undertake a £25,000 improvement, would pay a council tax that was £147 more

    279
    than the community charge or poll tax figure, in addition to £625 in extra VAT. All I can say is, "Eat your heart out, Michael Hirst. When you find out about that, you won't come back to this place." I could give other examples, but I shall not do so. No doubt the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) will be happy if I do not go into cases affecting his constituency.
    The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) made a very valid and relevant point. When the Chancellor made his announcement, many people thought that they would get a rebate of £140. It is all very well for Ministers to smile and say, "We all know that that was a reduction from the headline tax," but that is not what many people thought. Indeed, Charlie Gray, the convener of Strathclyde regional council, said that many people in that area thought that the tax had been abolished. The Tory tabloid press. which many of them read, told them that, effectively, the tax had been abolished: "Poll tax goes"; "Victory over the poll tax"; "Defeat of the poll tax". Only later did people realise that the tax had not gone and that they would not get reductions such as they expected.
    It is extraordinary, especially at the point of change between financial years, that the Government have not abolished the 20 per cent. rule. They have got themselves into an absurd bind. In the case of Shetland Islands council, the most extreme example, the council could be obliged to collect 20 per cent. of 97p from people who have not paid their tax. The cost of billing would be absurd. Being sensible, the council is not wasting its time pursuing the matter, although it has been suggested that the council may be in breach of the law. I only hope that there are not absolute lunatics in the Scottish Office, and that it will not pursue the council. Even where 20 per cent. is £25 to £30, the cost of collection could be out of proportion to the amount due.
    I have talked before about students who have spent short periods on courses—for example, at Robert Gordon institute of technology in Aberdeen, which has been successful in attracting students from Malaysia for three-month courses. The council has had to pursue people to Kuala Lumpur and to places in the jungle for amounts of £6 or £9. Because of the cost of recorded delivery to such places, it does not make sense to try to collect the money, but the director of finance says that he is legally required to do so. That may be an extreme example, but there is no doubt that the cost of collection in many cases is out of all proportion to the revenue involved.
    The wear and tear on council officials who have had to deal with the incompetence of the Government should not be discounted. The officials have wrestled with the difficulties with great commitment and success. Conservative Members should not be too sweeping in their denunciation of councils which have been dilatory in collecting the tax. There are bad examples—Lambeth is a case in point—but there are many efficient councils.
    My own council, Grampian regional council, was so efficient that it got its bills out before the Budget. As a result, it had to re-bill, at a cost of £250,000 in postage alone. In those circumstances, the officials should not be attacked by the Government. They have been victims of their own efficiency. Conservative Members, including the Secretary of State for Scotland, have criticised council officials for not being diligent enough in following up non-payers.
    While the Government may feel that the immediate rescue of the £140 reduction in the headline tax and the
    280
    introduction of the simplified council tax have got them off the hook, increasingly, as people study the proposals, they will find that there is another group of winners and losers. The Government will suffer because they will be hit by anomalies, rather unexpectedly, in their own heartlands. A growing body of opinion recognises the sheer incompetence of the way that the Government have gone about administering the tax and then the changes.
    When pressed on "Newsnight" a few weeks ago, the Minister of State said that the cost of the change would be about a few hundred million pounds. When I heard that, and when I read in my local newspaper that the prospective Conservative candidate for my constituency had criticised the council for spending £9,000 on producing three editions of a newspaper giving council information during the year, I could not help but be struck by the gulf between that modest cost and the squandering of enormous amounts by the Government, which was dismissed in such a cavalier way.
    Mr. Dick Douglas: Would the hon. Gentleman care to reflect on the position that persists in Edinburgh, where the university is being considerably embarrassed because of a deficit of about £20 million? Will he contrast the trauma that it is going through with the profligacy of the Government who are wasting good resources on trying to clear the poll tax problem?
    Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman makes his point. Any hon. Member could make a variety of points about what could be done with the money instead of the waste that we have suffered.
    The main conclusion we have to reach is that, in spite of everything, the shambles is to go on until 1994. The problem has not been resolved; we will have to live with it until 1994. In the meantime, we have to get to grips with yet another change.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland maintained in an interview recently that he had no revolt on his hands. He said that he had always regarded the events of the past couple of years as a reasonable progression from the rating system to the lessons of the poll tax and on to a reformed property tax. I suppose that he could have argued that the first world war was a necessary expedient to ensure that women were given the vote. Everyone knows that the Secretary of State for Scotland has egg all over his face. He defended the poll tax to the last ditch, as did the Minister of State. Perhaps we shall suffer, because they will have the last laugh. After all, the poll tax will be implemented through the general election until 1994.
    I hope only that the people will realise how incompetent the Government have been, how crazy was the way in which they changed the system and how we have not passed through the wood to an efficient working system that will enable local government to implement a buoyant and reliable method of raising finance under which people will be charged fairly for the services that they must receive.
    11.25 pm
    Mr. Harry Barnes: The estimates are stage 1 of the Government's inadequate attempt to remove themselves from the mess that has been created by the poll tax. There was mayhem when many local authorities had to produce a second set of bills, and the estimates take account of the costs of second billing,

    281
    but other problems have not been overcome. For example, when poll tax bills are sent out, assessments and calculations for poll tax payers are down and out, as it were, and there is no entry to the system. When bills are produced twice, the problems are exacerbated. For example, the circumstances of some payers will change because of alterations to their social security payments and other arrangements. During the billing, the local authority can do nothing to assist those whose financial position has changed. It is difficult for an authority to implement manual changes, because of the problems encountered in attempting to enter the system to obtain basic information. There were enormous problems when the Government plucked a new system out of the hat.
    There has been talk about the 20 per cent. provision and £140. There are some who will enjoy the £140 provision under the new system, but they are the people who benefited from the introduction of the poll tax. In some instances, they were benefiting by thousands of pounds a year. At the same time, the increased prices that are the result of additional value added tax are picked up by all and sundry. In other words, there is no grand strategy to overcome the problems that were caused by the introduction and implementation of the poll tax.
    Stage 2 of the Government's so-called policy lies in the dim and distant future. It might be reached by 1994, but it might not. Of course, a Conservative Government will not be in office in 1994. An alternative policy will be produced by a Labour Government. In the meantime, the Government's plans will fail to overcome the massive problems that have been caused by the poll tax.
    The first motion refers to expenditure.
    "in respect of the community charge and certain related administrative expenses".
    I stress again a massive problem which was created by the poll tax and which much thought is needed to put right. High expenditure is needed to alleviate the damage. The poll tax has had a disastrous effect on electoral registration. The figures show that, last year, 1·6 per cent. of the population of England, Scotland and Wales who were estimated to be over 18 were missing from the electoral register. People dived for cover because of the difficulty that they would face in meeting the demands on them. Sometimes, a member of a large household who was about to turn 18, thus becoming liable to pay the poll tax, did not sign the register.
    Statistics show the numbers of 18-year-olds, of those over 18 and people on the electoral register. The number of people on the electoral register has fallen. The Government failed to produce district registration figures, although district council elections were to be held. It was apparent that electoral registration figures would not be available until after the elections. According to parliamentary answers, they were to be available on 10 May. We do not yet have the constituency figures. Theoretically, if the Conservatives do not do too badly in the local government elections, they may decide to call a general election and we would not know the electoral registration figures. That would be disgraceful.
    After some pressure, the Government produced district registration figures on 25 April. They show that there is a continuing, if marginal, decline in electoral registration in England, Wales and Scotland, but not in Northern Ireland, which does not have the poll tax. Northern
    282
    Ireland is in a healthy position in terms of the number of 18-year-olds coming on to the register for the first time, but the position in England, Wales and Scotland is disastrous.
    Money should be provided in the estimates to tackle the problem. The Government should have given attention to this point in the review. They had said that nothing was ruled out and nothing was ruled in. I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment offering to give information. About two months later, I received a letter from a junior Minister saying that the Department was sorry but it was too busy. Nothing was to be ruled out, but I was part of the nothing and I was ruled out.
    Between 1987 and 1990, the percentage of the population on the electoral register fell by 1·5 per cent. in England and by 1 per cent. in Wales. Over a slightly longer period—because the poll tax was introduced in Scotland a year earlier—the number declined by 1·7 per cent. in Scotland. Between 1987 and 1990, electoral registration increased by 0·6 per cent. in Northern Ireland.
    The position of those about to attain the age of 18 is far worse than it was at any time in the 1980s or 1990. The figure for attainers in Scotland has fallen from 52,000 last year—which itself was only 69 per cent. of the estimated population of 18-year-olds—to 47,000, compared with the 1982 figure of 70,000.
    The same pattern is seen in Wales, although the reduction there is not so dramatic, probably because the effect of the poll tax in Wales has not been so marked as in England.
    The attainer figure in England has collapsed between 1990—when it was at a low level anyway—and 1991 by 20 per cent., which has caused electoral chaos. Therefore, although the opinion polls may show that Labour and the Conservatives are neck-and-neck, that is not really the case. Such polls are based on random sampling and do not take account of who is and who is not on an electoral register. The 1·5 per cent. to 2 per cent. of voters missing from the electoral register are likely to be those who have most to fear from the operation of the poll tax—and you can bet your bottom dollar that they are also the people who would vote Labour.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I draw the attention of the hon. Member to the motion on the Order Paper because, although it refers to "certain related administrative expenses", the hon. Member's remarks are going beyond that subject.
    Mr. Barnes: The motion clearly concerns expenses incurred in connection with the community charge in correcting errors in the system and other administrative expenses.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: But not opinion polls.
    Mr. Barnes: I was making the point that, whatever trend may be shown by opinion polls, there would be a very different result at the ballot box, with a 2 per cent. loss for Labour.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard enough about losses and gains. Perhaps we can hear more from the hon. Member about the estimates that are before the House.
    Mr. Barnes: The estimates represent an attempt by the Government to overcome the vast problems that confront

    283
    them. If a Conservative Government continue in office, they will put other measures before the House to get themselves out of even more serious difficulties. Even if that is done, estimates will have to be presented to the House to ensure that something is done to defend this country's democratic system, which is based on electoral registration, and which has been seriously and deliberately hit by the Government.
    11.38 pm
    Mr. Paul Murphy: It is fitting that I should follow my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) because he, together with my hon. Friends the Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), served on the Standing Committee that, three and a half years ago, considered the legislation that introduced the poll tax.
    That Committee often sat until 2, 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. I suspect that it would have astounded the Ministers who piloted that legislation if they had known what would be occurring tonight. Tonight's proposals for reduction schemes, £140 relief by means of value added tax, and requests to local authorities to shred their bills and spend—or misspend—millions of pounds on putting right all that has gone wrong would have seemed a fairy tale to those Ministers.
    Tonight the Government stand accused of a volte-face—of the biggest collective hypocrisy in 40 or 50 years of political history. Today's proceedings are wholly unnecessary and should not be occurring. The money that we have wasted and that we are proposing to waste is astounding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said, the community charge reduction scheme must be the dottiest scheme that we have come across in many years as far as Wales is concerned.
    In Monmouth, which by chance happens to be the neighbouring constituency to mine, only four areas will get any relief through the relief scheme: Llantilio Crossenny, £4; Rogiet, £19; Caerwent, £6; and Tintern, £10. The rest of the boroughs, and most of the Welsh districts, will not receive the relief that they should have, according to the needs of the people within them.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): Two thirds will get it.
    Mr. Murphy: The Under-Secretary of State says that two thirds of the community will get it. He does not take into account the people in those communities. The scheme makes no reference to their needs. They could be communities where many people are wealthy and a few are poor, or vice versa. At least the English scheme has the merit of considering the problems of individuals. The Welsh scheme has already been seen to be discredited, not merely by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, but by all the Welsh local authority associations, which realise that they have made a mistake.
    Mr. Bennett: Last year, the Welsh authorities asked for this scheme. Two thirds of all communities will get it and the £62 million available—£40 million more than last year—is all going to community charge payers. None of it will go on administration. It is a very good scheme.
    Mr. Murphy: This year, the local authority associations have said exactly the opposite. They are saying that they
    284
    were mistaken. They thought that the scheme would save money on administrative costs, which might have occurred a year ago. However, what has resulted is a unique unfairness, because people are losing out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West said earlier, the justice is extremely rough.
    What is more important is that the scheme should have been unnecessary in the first place. We have effectively wasted nearly £80 million in the Principality by introducing a scheme which would never have been necessary had the tax been fair and just in the first place. That is the greatest indictment of this scheme.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has already referred to the fact that many people will not receive the whole £140. If, under the new and revised community charge reduction scheme, they were to have obtained £140 or more, they will get nothing. People on income support will not get their money. Some will have their bills cut by just £28, including pensioners in the Principality. People with the highest incomes will get most, and those with second homes—an aspect that is especially relevant in the Principality—could get as much as £280 a week off their community charge bills.
    One aspect which has not been mentioned, and which hits the valleys in south Wales, is that many thousands of people who were eligible for home improvements and repair grants before this scheme now become ineligible. When we couple that fact, as we must, with the new means-tested improvement grants, the effects upon our valleys, which are trying to improve their areas with such grants and with other schemes, is calamitous. Had the Government thought a little more about their £140 off the scheme, the considerable poverty trap that exists in Wales could have been reduced.
    The greatest indictment that falls upon the Government's shoulders must be the administration costs of the scheme. The money that the Government have squandered and wasted in Wales during the past three and a half years is a disgrace. They have spent £10 million more than necessary on introducing the scheme. The Government spent another £20 million more than they had spent prior to that on administering the rates. On top of that, they spent another £80 million on sweetening the poll tax. Over £100 million has been spent in Wales that might just as well, for what good it has done, have been dumped in the Bristol channel.
    Only two days ago, the Secretary of State for Wales came to the Dispatch Box and boasted to the House of Commons about the money he was spending on two new hospitals in Wales. Had he not introduced this preposterous and discredited tax in Wales, we could have had another two new hospitals in the Principality. That is a measure of the disgrace that has resulted from the mess that the Government and the Welsh Office have got themselves into over the administration of the poll tax.
    We do not, of course, intend to oppose this motion, but another £3 million is to be wasted by giving our councils that sum of money to administer this latest scheme. Welsh councils have had to shred their bills, re-bill and employ extra people. They have had to borrow at least £100 million in order to cover the cash flow loss that occurred as a result of the latest scheme. They have also had to pay back another £100 million in interest rates. The Government will have to find another £3 million—rightly so—to give to local authorities. That is money that could have been spent on many other things.

    285
    The people of Cardiff will come to realise that they have to spend over £1 million a year—£5 for virtually every adult in the capital city of Wales—simply in order to keep alive a poll tax register that will have to linger on for another two or three years. It is a national disgrace for the people of Wales. It costs £5·5 million to administer the poll tax in the capital city of Wales—£26 for each charge payer.
    The administrative cost of sending out many of the poll tax bills is far greater than the cost of the bills themselves. [Interruption.] Again from a sedentary position the Under-Secretary refers to the valuation registers. Let me tell him that only this week we discovered that the Government have asked the district valuation officers in Wales to use the 1973 valuation register as the basis for a secret valuation of properties in Wales, by means of which they can change the new banding arrangements to something different from what they announced to the House. The Welsh Office said that there should be seven bands, but it has already begun to tell the district valuation officers that there should be nine because it realises that seven is wholly unacceptable to the people of Wales. It would mean that the rich still got richer while the poor got poorer.
    We are sorry that, during the past three and a half years, we have had to put up with a load of nonsense from Ministers, saying how marvellous the poll tax was. The fact is that £100 million of Welsh money has been wasted on putting through a measure that has now been abandoned. There are two years yet to go before something that is possibly even worse is put in its place.
    11.47 pm
    Mr. Key: In this short debate we have considered the need for additional funds to cover the costs that local authorities will face as a result of the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act. I need hardly remind the House that the Act was the outcome of three days of concentrated deliberations both here and in another place immediately before Easter. The supplementary estimates for which we are seeking the House's approval also reflect an unusual procedure. This is not the time of year at which supplementary estimates are normally brought forward. I have explained the reasons. However, these unusual measures have had a most benign purpose. They will ensure that throughout the country the community charges originally set by local authorities will be reduced by £140. The speed of the House in concluding its deliberations enabled the reductions to be made. Tonight's deliberations will, I hope, authorise the payment of grant to compensate authorities for all of the £140 that they will not now receive.
    The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) spoke about a volte face, or an about-turn. The only about-turn being contemplated is the Labour party's return to the rates using the 1973 valuations.
    My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales has answered many of the points about Wales. I have great affection for Wales and for the people of Wales. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on carrying forward the success of his predecessor in transforming Wales into the flourishing and enterprising community it undoubtedly is.
    286
    The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) suggested going back to the local government finance regime of 1979. That would be a profoundly disagreeable prospect and we are certainly not contemplating it tonight. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) complained that the £60 million would be going directly to the charge payers of Wales. Many charge payers in Labour-controlled authorities, such as Lambeth, would be only too delighted to receive the community charge bills being distributed in Wales.
    The hon. Member for Normanton asked me to accept that the estimates for extra administrative costs were far too low, but at present they are our best estimates of the costs of computer software, staff training and so on. However, I stress that we have asked local authorities to discuss them with us, we have asked them for their own estimates, for which we are still waiting, and, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, we have announced that all reasonable extra costs will be met.
    The hon. Member for Normanton also asked whether authorities would be compensated for the short-term costs of borrowing. Of course they would, because compensation comes through advancing payments from the non-domestic rates pool, including an extra payment date on 5 April, as I have explained. In addition, payments of the community charge grant to cover the actual income lost began on 25 April.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Government had seen what he described as the error of our ways and why we did not reinstate the rate support grant. However, I can reassure him on that point. The revenue support grant for this year has already been made. It cannot be made again, so special arrangements are needed. That is the reason for the supplementary payments. Next year, the extra grant will be assimilated into the revenue support grant and distributed in the normal way.
    The hon. Gentleman asked why we did not do away with the 20 per cent. minimum payment. We took the view that it was right to reduce the contribution made by all local taxpayers and hence the £140 reduction was made across the board. Those on income support continue receiving a level of support calculated to cover the 20 per cent. of charges. That support has not been reduced, so those people are getting a reasonable deal.
    Mr. O'Brien: The abolition of the 20 per cent. minimum payment is an important issue because it will cost more to collect, particularly if it is paid in 10 monthly instalments. Does the Minister not realise that the situation is chaotic and that the minimum payment will cost more than it is worth in local authority administration? Why do the Government not accept that there is an urgent need to reconsider abolishing the 20 per cent. minimum payment by students and people on income support?
    Mr. Key: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is making more of a political than an administrative point. The situation is not chaotic, but is being administered extremely well throughout the country. There seems to be little point in changing those administrative arrangements when the burden is not unfair and has been allowed for in the arrangements and when we are planning to change the local tax system. We fully intend to introduce the council tax in the year from 1 April 1993 and not in 1994 or 1995—the date that Opposition Members have used in their scaremongering.

    287
    My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) complained of the lengthy delay in issuing bills. Perhaps that was a bit unfair.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Key: We are extremely short of time.
    Mr. McKay: We have plenty of time for what the Minister has to say. Would it not be better for the Government to reconsider abolishing the 20 per cent. minimum payment? The treasurer of my local authority has assured me that the 20 per cent. costs much more to collect than the revenue it brings in. However, if local authorities do not collect the 20 per cent., they could be subject to surcharges. Would it not be possible at this stage to say that if it is foolish to collect the 20 per cent. and local authorities do not collect it, they will not be surcharged?
    Mr. Key: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The fact that we have now lowered the charge by a substantial amount should address most of the points that have been raised by hon. Members. I can do no more than repeat what I have already said.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne was perhaps a little unfair. There is no evidence that any authorities have deliberately delayed issuing bills. For many, the issue of bills incorporating the £140 reduction could not be done before May, and we have had to accept that. Any authorities that delayed on purpose would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. It is simply money lost to the council, affecting the services that local authorities are keen to provide. The point about Lambeth was raised by several hon. Members. We are not compensating authorities that failed to issue bills last year. Some councillors are not aware of that. Entitlement to the new grant depends on collecting the balance due—no collection, no grant.
    The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) spoke of £5·7 billion and the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred to only £4·35 billion. He inquired about the difference. That is a perfectly legitimate and straightforward question with a straightforward answer. The figure of £4·35 billion is the net cost after savings on the community charge reduction scheme. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Shetlands. He suggested that in the Shetlands there would be a need for a bill of only 20 per cent. of 97p—the personal charge remaining after the £140 reduction. As he knows, that ignores the fact that water charges are also payable in Scotland. The water charge for the Shetlands is nearly £45. Therefore, revised bills will be somewhat larger.
    The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) clearly believes in conspiracy theories. The electoral consequences of the community charge are his forte. The marginal decline in the numbers on the electoral register is not the consequence of the community charge. Most importantly, there is normal demographic change. The hon. Gentleman cannot fail to have noticed that numbers in schools fluctuate. Sometimes the numbers are up and sometimes we have falling rolls. Also, the hon. Gentleman must realise that there are special circumstances in Northern Ireland.
    288
    I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's assertions that Labour voters are tax dodgers. That was an outrageous suggestion. I was canvassing in Derbyshire last week at the same time as the hon. Member for Dagenham (M r. Gould). We were on different sides of the same market in Ripley. I had no idea of the depth of loathing for Derbyshire county council and its Labour administration. It was an education for a Member of Parliament for a Conservative seat in the south to listen to the residents of that town speaking about their county council.
    This has been an instructive and helpful debate. We must keep our eye on the fact that the consequence of what we are proposing will be a substantial relief for the local taxpayers, and I commend the estimates to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,

    CLASS VIII, VOTE 14
    That a further sum, not exceeding £4,834,497,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £4,013,497,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on grants to local authorities in respect of the community charge and certain related administrative expenses; on rate rebate grants; on emergency financial assistance to local authorities; and on repayments of excess contributions made by local authorities and other bodies in respect of non-domestic rates in 1990–91.

    CLASS XV, VOTE 22
    Resolved,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £520,381,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £431,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Scottish Office Environment Department on grants to local authorities in respect of the community charge and certain related administrative expenses; on rate rebate and transitional relief grants; and the special payments scheme to local authorities in Scotland.—[Mr. Key.]

    CLASS XVI, VOTE 11
    Resolved,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £333,187,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £33,000,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Welsh Office on residual rate rebate for the disabled grants, grants to local authorities in Wales in respect of the community charge and certain related administrative expenses.—[Mr. Key.]
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the three foregoing resolutions relating to Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, 1991–92 by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. David Mellor, Mr. Francis Maude, Mrs. Gillian Shephard and Mr. John Maples.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 3) BILL
    Mr Francis Maude accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1992: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 139.].

  Commercial Whaling
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  11.59 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: We move from the land of Wales to the killing of whales, but of a different variety, obviously.
  Earlier today, I sought to introduce a ten-minute Bill to abolish political honours. I enjoyed a minor triumph by winning the Division, thus depriving myself of any possibility of earning a K.
  Political honours pale into insignificance compared with the subject of the debate—the future of the great whale and, specifically, whether commercial whaling will once again blight the planet. I sought the debate because of the growing concern that has been expressed by environmental and animal welfare groups about the possibility of a resumption of limited commercial whaling. Those groups, and indeed Members of Parliament, were alarmed by hints that the Government were retreating from their total opposition to allowing some whaling in certain conditions.
  I do not intend to try to score political points; this is not a party political issue, nor am I seeking to make it one. Plenty of opportunities present themselves in the House for me to score points and turn issues to my advantage, but this is not one. I told the Minister outside the Chamber that I am seeking from him a cast-iron guarantee that in no circumstances will the Government agree to the killing of great whales, in the name of either so-called science or the far more open commercial reasons that are being advanced by the Japanese, Norwegians and Icelanders.
  It is not an issue of whale stocks and conservation, or indeed of humane methods of slaughter; it is a matter of ethics. Whales are intelligent, social, warm-blooded mammals that are close to humans in the order of being. For any of them to be killed is a criminal act that cannot be justified or tolerated.
  The alarm bells started to ring when the Secretary of State sent a letter on 27 March to Members of Parliament who had expressed an interest in the subject. He said:
  "The situation is now that certain whale stocks are reaching levels where it will be difficult to say that controlled and highly limited catches of whales would harm the stock…If there were, at some point, a resumption of whaling, the technology used should be a genuine and qualitative advance on the older methods so that any whaling that takes place is as humane as it is possible to be. At this year's IWC"—
  the meeting of the International Whaling Commission—
  "the UK will therefore continue to press for a sound and scientific basis to the decisions of the IWC based on the principles of caution and safety, and that any future whaling is conducted as humanely as possible."
  That is an ambiguous letter and it was not surprising that The Sunday Times subsequently ran an article under the headline, "Britain may back end to whaling ban". I am not an apologist for any journalist, but that headline, based on a reading of the Secretary of State's letter, was justifiable. But its impact in Japan was nothing compared with our feelings. We were outraged; the Japanese were overjoyed. I have extracts from Japanese newspapers that are in Japanese script. Fortunately, I have O-levels in Japanese and journalese and can translate them for the Minister.
  290
  The Japanese newspapers, in response to the letter of the Secretary of State and reaction in The Sunday Times, spoke of the United Kingdom turning away from the whaling ban:
  "Minister Gummer made clear that the United Kingdom could change policy on the whaling ban … that the United Kingdom was reconsidering her policy on anti-commercial whaling … that Britain was ready to restart whaling. It will be a big relief for Japan, which is seeking to reopen commercial whaling."
  That is what a Japanese newspaper stated. The Japanese were as delighted as we in this country were dismayed.
  Obviously, the Secretary of State cannot be held responsible for misreporting in Japan, but it was the Secretary of State's ambiguously worded letter of 27 March to hon. Members that started the whole thing off. I have responded to that letter, expressing my surprise that he appended his signature to a letter that was clearly drafted for him by his civil servants. I await the Secretary of State's reply.
  The Minister cannot be in any doubt about the sentiments in the House and the country about the killing of whales for whatever purpose. Nearly 200 hon. Members from all parties have signed early-day motion 697 on the subject. The first three signatories are from the three main parties. One of the co-signatories is in his place on the other side of the Chamber—the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden).
  The hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I went to No. 10 Downing street to present a protest letter to our Prime Minister. We then went to the Japanese embassy to present a protest letter to Mr. Kaifu, the Japanese Prime Minister, in which we said that the great whales belong to all of us on the planet and are not the private property of any particular country to do with as it sees fit. We await a reply from Mr. Kaifu, perhaps more in hope than expectation, that the Japanese Government will reverse their unbelievably selfish, unacceptable and arrogant attitude to the whales.
  In the face of what is clearly widespread public concern in this country, the Secretary of State gave an interview to The Times on 26 April in which he stated:
  "Britain will not support the resumption of commercial whaling until there is a method of killing whales humane enough to meet British animal welfare standards".
  The Minister echoed that sentiment in a written answer to me on 25 April, in which he stated:
  "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."—[Official Report, 25 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 552.]
  That answer does not satisfy me, many of the Minister's hon. Friends or the British public. Nobody is interested now in finding humane ways of killing whales any more than we are interested in finding humane ways of killing people. Both are totally unacceptable, and we should not be contemplating killing whales for any reason.
  In response to Ministers' constant references to "humane ways of killing whales", I refer them to a new publication from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which is entitled, "The Cruel Seas—Man's Inhumanity to Whales". It details the different methods of killing whales, from the cold or non-explosive

  291
  harpoon to the grenade-headed or explosive harpoon. In the slaughter of minke whales, which the Japanese are still carrying out in the Antarctic, they are using a penthrite harpoon, which uses the explosive penthrite, which is six times more powerful than the black powder that is used in other explosive harpoons. All the technical jargon leads to one irreducible fact, that the whales die in absolute agony. The RSPCA document is interesting but horrific for anyone who is concerned about the welfare of whales.
  Whales are social creatures with family structures. Who knows—perhaps, as one of their number is dying in intense pain with an explosive harpoon embedded in the flesh, others in the group may be suffering similar feelings of grief and fear as any of us would witnessing one of our family being gunned down by terrorists. Some people might regard that as an emotive comparison, but perhaps it is because we know so little about these magnificent and mysterious creatures that it is an act of criminal folly to kill them.
  Anyone who has read Heathcote Williams' epic poem "Whale Nation" will have been moved by his description of the humpback whale's music or the awesome size of the blue whale, which is the largest creature ever to have lived on the planet and still be with us—but only just. It is only just with us because of the destruction inflicted on it. The whale nation described by Heathcote Williams which has been destroyed over the centuries stands as an indictment of all of us, now and in the past.
  We used to turn all that beautiful animal life into commonplace household products, and now we see the Japanese, the Norwegians and the Icelanders killing minke whales to eat them—that is disgusting and unacceptable and it must stop. But the killing continues to this day. The Japanese, the Norwegians and the Icelanders get round the IWC's ban on commercial whaling by employing the name of science to continue their barbaric activities. That killing must be stopped.
  I want the following assurances from the Minister in advance of the IWC meeting later this month. First, I want the Government to continue to oppose the lifting of the general moratorium on commercial whaling. I am sure that he can say yes quickly.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry) indicated assent.
  Mr. Banks: I see that the Minister is saying yes.
  Secondly, I want an assurance that the Government will vote against any proposal to allow limited commercial catches of some whales, whatever evidence is advanced as justification by the Japanese the Norwegians or the Icelanders, who are the real villains of the piece.
  The third assurance is that the Government will use their best endeavours to stop the Japanese, the Norwegians and the Icelanders from continuing their so-called "scientific" whaling.
  Fourthly, should any of those countries quit the IWC, as Japan has threatened to do, in order to resume killing whales the Government should have urgent discussions with our EEC partners and with the United States Government so that appropriate sanctions can be imposed on any or all of those countries.
  292
  Lastly, the jurisdiction of the IWC should be extended to the small cetaceans—the pilot whales, the porpoises and dolphins—which are now being slaughtered in tens of thousands, mainly by the Japanese.
  The Government have enjoyed unanimous support in the House for their opposition to whaling. This is one Government policy that I do not wish to see altered in any way. I ask the Minister to assure the House that the Government's policy will remain exactly as it is, that the Government will represent the House and the entire British people by saying that there will be no resumption of the commercial killing of whales and that the killing of whales carried out in the name of science will cease forthwith.
  12.13 am
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) reflects the views of millions of people. I have had the privilege of seeing the magnificent whales in their natural environment in the seas off Alaska. Anyone who has done that or who has talked to people who have studied whales will know that they are highly intelligent, warm-blooded creatures with a social structure and could not justify their slaughter in any way. We know that whales communicate effectively. It is only a matter of time before human beings will communicate with them.
  Future generations will look back in horror at the way in which we have treated whales in this and the previous century. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government will remain firm in their policy and will oppose the resumption of any form of commercial whaling.
  12.14 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I remarked in the office last week that it was about time that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) had his Adjournment debate on whaling. I was not disappointed because it came up on the following week's schedule. I note what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has said. We had the same debate last year and there was no disagreement between us. I hope that we will be in the same position after this debate.
  I ask the hon. Member for Newham, North-West to accept one proposition—that we are all committed to the conservation of the whale. The hon. Gentleman also referred to hints. I am sure that he will also acknowledge that, in the discharge of my responsibilities, I do not normally deal in hints. Indeed, that has been a problem with my responsibilites.
  The argument is not about the classic great whales such as the right whale, the blue, the sperm and the humpback. The argument is about certain specific stocks of whales. I accept that for many people, and especially young people, the fate of the whale, like that of the elephant, is a symbol of man's acceptance that he is just one part of creation and that his role of dominance must lead him to accept the role of stewardship for the earth's diversity. I accept that proposition. However, how do we go about that?
  We should not go about it by force. That is clearly not a practical proposition. We cannot use threats either. We must use persuasion and persistant and powerful presentation of sound arguments. The forum for the

  293
  arguments is the International Whaling Commission. We have an important reason to keep the whaling countries in the IWC. The alternative—this is a real alternative, not just a hollow alternative—is that they might pull out of the IWC and form their own organisation and set their own rules. If they did that, there would be one big loser—the whale. Commercial whaling would resume, perhaps in considerable volumes.
  How we persuade those countries to stay within the IWC is a practical political question. How do we maintain the moratorium? I must make it clear to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that the Government's policy has not changed in that regard. We stick to the long-established terms of reference of the IWC. That body's great achievement was the moratorium on commercial whaling of the mid-1980s. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said, certain forms of whaling continue under that. Aboriginal whaling continues even in the Alaskan waters. There is also research whaling, some of which, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said, is effectively a form of disguised commercial whaling. However, the take has declined, even in research whaling.
  At Reykjavik we are fully committed to the continuation of the moratorium. The IWC is working to achieve a series of long-established objectives which have not changed. All members of the IWC are formal subscribers to those objectives, the first of which is a comprehensive assessment of the state of the stocks, including the Antarctic minke, the central Atlantic minke and the grey whale. The latter is not in commercial contention, but there is a need to find out more about it. It tends to live in waters close to the United States and the Americans are anxious to collect further information about it. These assessments have been carried out.
  At the meeting this month, the commission should hear reports on assessments of the other stocks which are in contention, such as the north Atlantic minke. An assessment last year, on the north Atlantic fin whale and on minkes in the Okhotsk sea, which is off Japan, was sent back for further work, to come forward to the commission again this year. Those stocks are being assessed this year.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The assessment that is taking place is not to try to find out more scientifically about whales so as better to understand their lifeform, their welfare and all the other aspects to which the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) referred, but to establish whether it is possible once again to opt for more commercial whaling of that species. That is the whole point. We do not believe that there should be any killing of whales in any circumstances. The science is not about the understanding of whales; it is about whether the Japanese can be allowed to kill them in larger numbers than they do already.
  Mr. Curry: I accept that point. Of course we do not have the power to stop whales being killed. The object of the exercise is how to achieve the maximum conservation of whales. Our judgment is that we must keep the debate in that forum. If we say that that forum is now to be used for a wholly different purpose from that for which it was set up, countries that wish to whale might walk out. I cannot judge what assessment they will make of the risks
  294
  of doing that. That is for their own judgment. However, if they were to resume, we might end up with more whales being killed than otherwise. The judgment to be made is how, within that forum, we are able to persuade those countries that whaling is not in their broader interests. That is the task in front of us. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
  If we allow the debate to escape from the International Whaling Commission, we shall risk the whale being the loser, and nobody would accept that. The management of that dilemma is a difficult political decision, but we must address it. It is clear that the Japanese, the Norwegians and the Icelanders are members of the International Whaling Commission so as to achieve an agreed international rule for resumed whaling of the minke and the fin whale stock. We are not fools. We know that that is the purpose. In a sense, that is what the constitution of the organisation says, so that is a legitimate expectation on their part.
  The question is how, within that framework, we move on the debate. Our position is perfectly clear. The United Kingdom believes that the present state of work does not permit us even to contemplate the resumption of commercial whaling. Three vital questions must be addressed. The first concerns the re-establishment and conservation of healthy whale stocks; the second, the fully developed management procedure; and the third—the hon. Gentleman has said that he regards it as irrelevant, but we think that it is important—the methods of killing.
  Those criteria have not been fulfilled. Therefore, the question whether whaling should resume ceases to be scientific and becomes ethical. It is not even on the agenda at the moment, because the clear criteria that we wish to debate have not been fulfilled. On those scientific grounds, we believe that no case is made out for the resumption of whaling. The first reason for that is that the revised management procedure is not yet fully elaborated. Indeed, the options will not be presented to the commission until the end of May. Even if a possible procedure is identified or decided upon, or if some procedures are shortlisted, there will still be much work to be done. On top of that, enforcement and related arrangements must be addressed. There is a considerable volume of work, even in satisfying criterion No. 1, to be done. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, we are not satisfied with the slaughter methods that are used.
  We are going to the International Whaling Commission meeting with clear criteria and with a clear objective. Our objective is to hold it together so that we keep the debate within the practical political forum that has now been established and that has a good track record in reducing the hunting and harvesting of whales. In fact, it has the moratorium to its credit. As there is no other forum, there is no reason to bust that one.
  I emphasise that there is no question of our agreeing at Reykjavik to the resumption of whaling. We must persuade the whaling nations that it is in their interests to stick with the international approach. Equally, it is in our interests to stick with the international approach. If either we or other countries walk away, both will lose. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about how the whale is seen and about its particular qualities as an animal. But the biggest loser, if there were to be a departure from the international approach, would be the whale itself.
  It is perfectly legitimate to say that this matter should be tackled on the basis that it is directly ethical, directly emotional, or directly moral. Clearly, however, we have to

  295
  use a coherent political process to give expression to that concern. That is the only means that we have. Declaiming does not save one whale. We must maintain the political engagement. That is how, in the past, we have managed to save whales, and I believe that it is how we shall do so in the future.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Consider the argument that has been going on about Antarctica. What is to stop any country from going into Antarctica to mine? What would the British Government or the United States Government do if some country were to say, "We do not care that all these nations say that this should be a wilderness park. We are going in"? Why should not we adopt towards the whale the same attitude as we adopt towards Antarctica? Why should we be blackmailed by the Japanese? In effect, the Japanese are using blackmail. They are saying, "If the IWC does not do what we want, we will quit it, and will go out and kill whales." Should that kind of blackmail be allowed?
  Mr. Curry: If we were to adopt the attitude that, on that basis, all the work of this organisation should be set at naught, they would say that we were using blackmail. We cannot just sweep to one side all the work of the IWC on the purely ethical ground that we want total prohibition, for reasons that go beyond any of the criteria that brought us into the organisation.
  As I have made clear, the United Kingdom Government do not want to see whaling resumed. It is not my purpose to argue the Norwegian case, the Icelandic
  296
  case or the Japanese case, and I have no interest in doing so. I do have an interest in trying to conserve the whale. Not for a moment do I impugn the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman, and I am being absolutely genuine when I ask what we could do if those countries were to walk out of the IWC and start whaling. We could not send a gunboat to stop it. Clearly, force is not a practical option. Some may ask about the possibility of economic sanctions. Let us not forget that there is aboriginal whaling in the United States. I find it difficult to imagine that, in that case, economic sanctions would be a practical proposition.
  We are left with the option of trying to operate the system as we find it, of using the only forum that exists for this purpose. The British Government's position is clear. Our policy has not changed. At Reykjavik, we shall oppose the resumption of commercial whaling. I was at a meeting in Oslo less than a fortnight ago, and whaling was very much at the top of our agenda. I explained directly to the Norwegian Minister the force of the argument and the power of the emotion that goes into British people's beliefs about whaling. I asked her to realise that this is a matter of great importance to her country. We must continue the negotiations. Their purpose is absolutely clear. It is to make sure that there is no resumption of commercial whaling in Reykjavik. We maintain that forum, and we maintain the framework in which we have managed to do a great deal for the whale. We continue to preserve it as one of the rarest animals in our creation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Aviation Fires
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reliable biological testing has been undertaken of the sprinkler systems proposed for use in passenger transport aircraft at time of aviation fires.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of United Kingdom civil aviation rests with the Civil Aviation Authority. As the answer requires detailed technical information, I have drawn the hon. Member's question to the attention of the Civil Aviation Authority, asking it to write to the hon. Member.

  Central Transport Consultative Committee
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any representations from the Central Transport Consultative Committee on the ministerial direction issued in 1988 to British Rail concerning the maintenance of railway passenger services under the Railways Act 1974; and if he proposes to revise it.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes; no.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has on the effectiveness of random mass alcohol testing of drivers in securing continuing reductions in drink driving after any one-off drop.

  Mr. Chope
  The best evidence we have on the effect of random breath testing come from New South Wales. The table below shows its effectiveness in reducing the proportion of drivers and riders killed who were over the limit since its introduction in 1982. Following the effect of an "on-off" drop that might be attributed to the introduction of such a measure, levels have remained largely unchanged.

  Proportion of drivers and riders killed, whose alcohol level was known, over the legal limit

  New South Wales

  Great Britain

  per cent.

  per cent.

  1982

  40

  33

  1983

  36

  28

  1984

  33

  26

  1985

  33

  26

  1986

  34

  24

  1987

  32

  23

  1988

  31

  21

  1989

  33

  119

  1 Provisional.

  96
  A comparison with the proportional fall in Britain shows that our approach, of seeking to change public attitudes through a carefully targeted campaign, has been more successful.

  The legal limit in New South Wales is 50 milligrammes of alcohol per millilitre of blood, compared with 80 in Great Britain.

  Crash Casualties
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people die on average in(a) motorway fog crashes each year and (b) in urban crashes each day.

  Mr. Chope
  During the five-year period 1985 to 1989, the most recent for which figures are available, there were on average five deaths in Great Britain each year resulting from motorway accidents in fog. Over the same period there were on average seven deaths each day on built-up roads.

  Railway Services
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the statutory compliance of railway services with his direction of March 1988 under the Railways Act 1974.

  Mr. Freeman
  The central transport consultative committee has made a representation about reductions in specific services since March 1988, while at the same time observing that the majority of services provide the same or a better level of frequency. I receive other representations from time to time.

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if investment in new railway carriages for the services on the Eltham and New Eltham lines has been authorised.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Four hundred class 465 Networker vehicles were approved in August 1989. The first of these is due to be delivered to British Rail in September this year. The new trains will begin to come into service on Kent Link routes, which include Eltham and New Eltham, from May 1992. The Department is currently considering an investment submission for further orders totalling 274 vehicles. We will respond as soon as possible.

  Cars (Anti-Theft Measures)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends introducing higher specifications and standards for the design of motor vehicles to make them less susceptible to theft.

  Mr. Chope
  There is already a British standard on vehicle security BS AU 209, which, if complied with by vehicle manufacturers, should make their motor vehicles less susceptible to theft.

  My Department has therefore presented proposals to the European Commission for the amendment of the EC directive on vehicle security, based on the requirements contained in the British standard.

  These proposals have so far been resisted by some other member states; but with the co-operation of the Society of

  97
  Motor Manufacturers and Traders we intend to submit revised proposals and press for their introduction at the earliest possible opportunity.

  £000s

  Privatisation

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991–92

  Sale of shares in National Freight Corporation

  151

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sale of shares in Associated British Ports

  —

  1,809

  260

  1,494

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sale of shares in British Airways plc

  —

  —

  50

  1,012

  674

  20,804

  11,364

  72

  675

  47

  1

  Sale of shares in BAA plc

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  564

  41,149

  3,095

  17

  1.392

  1

  Sale of National Bus Company Operations

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  635

  324

  139

  49

  27

  1,098

  British Rail Privatisation Study (Consultants' fees)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  94

  503

  139

  805

  1Estimate.

  No expenditure was incurred before 1981–82.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The total expenditure on the Department's press and public relations office since 1984–85 is as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  339,426

  1985–86

  354,393

  1986–87

  363,446

  1987–88

  389,473

  1988–89

  437,950

  1989–90

  451,214

  1990–911

  517,905

  1991–922

  558,301

  1 Estimate.

  2 Budget.

  These figures cover the overall costs of running the press office, calculated using the ready reckoner for staff-related costs.

  Before 1984–85 the information division was a common service of the Departments of Transport, Environment and Property Services Agency.

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

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The total sums paid out by my Department in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation are as follows:

  Road Inquiries
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many public inquiries into major new road proposals have been initiated by his Department since 1979; in how many cases the inspector's report was published (1) prior to and (2) simultaneously with the announcement of his directions; and what considerations governed the timing of the publication of the Inspector's report and the announcement of his direction.

  Mr. Chope
  Figures for the number of public inquiries initiated since 1979 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Reports are invariably published in the event of a decision being taken, and at the same time as the decision is announced. Prior publication would undermine the value of the inquiry and the report. It would not be appropriate to initiate another round of consultations, or to accept further representations, on the inspector's report after the inquiry has given all interested parties an equal opportunity to express their views. Sometimes a provisional decision is announced; the report is published with that provisional decision, and following it an inquiry may be reopened.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in how many cases, following a public inquiry into a major road proposal, he has decided to adopt proposals that differed significantly from the recommendations made in the inspector's report; and what restrictions there are on his freedom to disregard the recommendations of an inspector.
  99
  Mr. Chope
  The Secretary of State for Transport makes decisions relating to his own highway proposals acting jointly with the Secretary of State for the Environment. While precise figures are not collected, it is very rare for the Secretaries of State to make decisions which differ substantially from an inspector's recommendation. If the Secretaries of State differ from an inspector on a finding of fact or take into account evidence which was not before the inquiry and by reason of this are disposed to disagree with the inspector's recommendation, they will almost invariably reopen the inquiry, and in certain circumstances they will be required to do so by rule 15 of the Highways (Inquiries Procedures) Rules 1976.

  Medals
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange to amend the rules concerning the issuing of medals and replacement medals to include grandchildren of the person entitled to such medals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer Friday 26 April 1991]: The issue of campaign medals by my Department for services in the Merchant Navy is made in accordance with the rules agreed between the Central Chancery, Orders of Knighthood, and the Ministry of Defence on 21 May 1973. Under these, replacement medals are issued only to the first generation of legal beneficiaries which would exclude grandchildren.

  There appears to be no reason to depart from these rules in the case of medals for merchant seamen, about which I have corresponded with the hon. Member.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fishing boats in the United Kingdom failed to pay light dues in 1990.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer Friday 26 April 1991]: These figures are not available for the calendar year 1990. Payments of light dues for which they are liable have not yet been made in respect of about 450 fishing vessels for the year beginning 1 April 1990.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed

  Directorate of Statistics Staff Complement of Department of Transport

  1 April 1979

  1 April 1982

  1 April 1983

  1 April 1984

  1 April 1985

  1 April 1986

  1 April 1987

  1 April 1988

  1 April 1989

  1 April 1990

  1 April 1991

  Statistician Group

  Director of Statistics (Grade 3)

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Chief Statistician (Grade5)

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Statistician (Grade 6)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Statistician (Grade 7)

  13

  13

  15

  16

  18

  21

  21

  20

  23

  23

  20

  (Senior) Assistant Statistician

  4

  4

  4

  6

  6

  7

  8

  8

  6

  8

  8

  SUB-TOTAL

  21

  21

  23

  27

  29

  33

  34

  33

  34

  37

  34

  Other Staff

  Economic Adviser

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Senior Information Officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Senior Executive Officer

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Higher Executive Officer

  8

  7

  7

  6

  8

  8

  10

  10

  9

  10

  12

  Executive Officer

  19

  18

  17

  18

  22

  25

  25

  29

  30

  32

  31

  Administrative Officer (CO)

  44

  33

  33

  36

  34

  31

  28

  26

  27

  25

  27

  Administrative Assistant (CA)

  16

  9

  8

  6

  7

  6

  6

  5

  5

  4

  4

  (Senior) Personal Secretary

  4

  4

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Principal Scientific Officer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  0

  0

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Professional and Technical Officer

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  Graphics Officer (Typographer)

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Senior Data Processor

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Data Processor

  15

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Messenger

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  SUB-TOTAL

  112

  72

  73

  76

  82

  82

  80

  82

  82

  81

  85

  GRAND TOTAL

  133

  93

  96

  103

  111

  115

  114

  115

  116

  118

  119

  Staff in Post in Directorate of Statistics of Department of Transport

  All years as at 1 April

  1979

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Statistician Group

  Director of Statistics (Grade 3)

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Chief Statistician (Grade 5)

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Statistician (Grade 6)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Statistician (Grade 7)

  13

  17

  18

  21

  19

  20

  23

  19

  18

  (Senior) Assistant Statistician

  4

  4

  5

  5

  7

  7

  4

  5

  7

  Sub-total

  21

  26

  28

  31

  31

  32

  32

  30

  32

  Other Staff

  Economic Adviser

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Senior Information Officer

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Senior Executive Officer

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  7

  7

  8

  9

  9

  8

  9

  11

  12

  Executive Officer

  20

  18

  22

  26

  24

  27

  29

  30

  30

  Administrative Officer (CO)

  42

  34

  34

  32

  30

  26

  24

  26

  28

  Administrative Assistant (CA)

  13

  6

  7

  6

  5

  5

  4

  4

  3

  (Senior) Personal Secretary

  3

  5

  5

  5

  4

  4

  4

  3

  5

  102
  on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in his Department; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer Monday 29 April 1991]: The tables give the information requested for the complements and permanent staff employed in the directorate of statistics of the Department of Transport. The complement table shows details as at 1 April 1979 and annually from 1 April 1982; the staff in post figures are at 1 April 1979, and, thereafter annually from 1 April 1984. Data for the intervening years on each table are not available. The principal scientific officer between 1984 and 1990 and the economic adviser in 1990 were filling statistical posts.
  103

  All years as at 1 April

  1979

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Principal Scientific Officer

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  1

  2

  2

  3

  Professional and Technical Officer

  0

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  2

  Graphics Officer (Typographer)

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Senior Data Processor

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Data Processor

  13

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Messenger

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sub-total

  104

  74

  83

  86

  81

  77

  77

  81

  85

  Grand Total

  125

  100

  111

  117

  112

  109

  109

  111

  117

  Shipping Accident
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the circumstances which resulted in the loss of' the trawler Wilhelmina J when in collision with the Cypriot cargo vessel Zulfikar on 10 April; and what actions his Department took subsequently.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 29 April 1991]: The trawler Wilhelmina J collided with the Cypriot registered cargo ship Zulfikar during the early hours of 10 April in the English Channel. The Zulfikar, although aware of the collision, failed to stop. The Wilhelmina J sank with the tragic loss of all six persons on board.

  Investigations were begun by both the Cypriot authorities and the marine accident investigation branch (MAIB).

  Both MAIB and the Cypriot authorities made immediate and sustained efforts to have the Zulfikar diverted to enable inspectors to interview the master and crew. After initial rejection, the ship's managers agreed on 12 April to divert to a position off Lisbon, where on 14 April an official from the Cypriot High Commission accompanied by inspectors from MAIB boarded the vessel by helicopter to pursue their investigations.

  An interim inspector's report has been submitted to the Secretary of State, and a bulletin giving the facts so far established will shortly be issued: a copy will be placed in the Library.

  The inspectors have had the full co-operation of the flag state (Cyprus) and as the Zulfikar was manned by Indian nationals, an appropriate report has been sent to the Indian High Commission in London.

  The investigation, which has the status of an inspector's inquiry under the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations, is continuing. I cannot discuss the circumstances of the accident further at this stage. A

  TV (£)

  Radio (£)

  Press (£)

  Other (£)

  Total (£)

  Actual

  1979–80

  N/A

  N/A

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  424,102

  4,127

  2,496,440

  2,588,540

  5,513,209

  1981–82

  —

  62,896

  1,814,935

  2,784,279

  4,662,110

  1982/83

  —

  89,654

  2,984,230

  3,222,031

  6,295,915

  1983–84

  1,479,748

  17,434

  764,409

  2,670,666

  4,932,257

  1984–85

  944,975

  3,477

  717,057

  4,473,283

  6,138,792

  1985–86

  9,676,257

  311,537

  1,867,286

  5,111,180

  16,966,260

  1986–87

  15,624,000

  258,631

  6,927,370

  12,124,000

  34,934,001

  1987–88

  17,321,000

  26,841

  6,950,159

  11,647,000

  35,945,000

  1988–89

  12,569,000

  —

  5,502,000

  12,449,000

  30,520,000

  1989–90

  8,610,000

  56,000

  6,164,000

  12,485,000

  27,315,000

  104
  full report will be produced when the inquiry is completed, and the inspector's findings will be published unless a formal investigation is ordered.

EMPLOYMENT

  Single Mothers
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many single mothers are currently in(a) full-time and (b) part-time employment, respectively.

  Mr. Jackson
  Preliminary estimates from the GB labour force survey for spring 1990 indicate that there were 170,000 single mothers in full-time work and 213,000 in part-time work.

  Child Care
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of firms provide child care facilities, on or off-site, for their employees; and what percentage of(a) all employees and (b) single mothers in employment work for firms which provide child care facilities.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected, but indications are that the provision of such facilities is growing.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Training Agency or Manpower Services Commission 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. Jackson
  The information requested is given in the table.
  105

  TV (£)

  Radio (£)

  Press (£)

  Other (£)

  Total (£)

  Estimate

  1990–91

  6,115,000

  —

  3,764,000

  11,269,000

  21,148,000

  The total budget for 1991–92 excluding HSE and ACAS is £17·4 million. Detailed decisions on allocation by media as requested have not yet been taken.

  From 1991–92, and following the abolition of the Training Agency in November 1990, the Department's advertising and publicity budget, excluding HSE and ACAS, is to be held centrally.

  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 his Department in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Jackson
  There are fees paid to organisations in furtherance of privatisation by the Employment Department Group—including the former Training Agency and 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 the value of £622,000 in 1990–91. These figures are inclusive of expenses plus VAT.

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

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Year

  Expenditure

  £ million

  Actual

  1979–80 to 1985–86

  n/a

  1986–87

  1·08

  1987–88

  1·014

  1988–89

  3·185

  1989–90

  3·331

  Estimated

  1990–91

  3·564

  Employees in employment in the northern region—Unadjusted

  Thousands

  Male

  Female

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  September 19891

  555·0

  40·0

  595·0

  280·0

  240·9

  520·9

  December 19902

  n/a

  n/a

  587·9

  275·1

  255·7

  530·8

  1 The most recent regional male full-time and male part-time estimates available are from the September 1989 census of employment.

  2 The latest date for which regional estimates are available.

  n/a = Not available.

  106
  Notes:

  Figures for 1986–87 and 1987–88 are for DE information division only. Figures for TA are not available.

  Figures for 1988–89 and 1989–90 represent total expenditure separately incurred by DE information services branch; the two merged in November 1989.

  Expenditure levels for 1991–92 are in the process of being set.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total expenditure by the Training Agency/MSC on press and public relations 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 29 April 1991]: The information requested is given in the table.

  Year

  Expenditure

  (£000)

  Actual

  1979–80

  Not available

  1980–81

  Not available

  1981–82

  Not available

  1982–83

  Not available

  1983–84

  Not available

  1984–85

  Not available

  1985–86

  Not available

  1986–87

  1·08

  1987–88

  1·014

  1988–89

  3·185

  Estimated

  1989–90

  3·331

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the total number of employees in employment in the northern region in the following categories(a) male full-time, (b) male part-time, (c) female full-time, (d) female part-time, (e) total male and (f) total female, indicating in each case an estimate of the number of such employees paying national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Jackson
  There is no information relating to national insurance contributions at regional level or on a full-time and part-time basis. The available information is in the table.

  ACAS
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to receive the annual report of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

  Mr. Howard
  I have received the ACAS report for 1990, which has been laid before both Houses of Parliament today. The report is also published today and copies are available from the Vote Office.

  Disabled People (Training)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria are used in deciding if registered disabled persons would benefit from two-year employment training; and how many people had such extended training in the last period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 29 April 1991]: Before 1991 the normal period of training for ET was a maximum of one year. People with disabilities for whom extended training would substantially enhance chances of obtaining suitable employment could be offered up to a further year of training.

  As from April 1991, all fixed limits on the duration of ET training were removed. From April 1991 trainees are entitled to a reasonable duration of training having regard to the nature and level of the intended qualification or credits, and to the training needs and prior learning of the trainee. Information about the numbers of people with disabilities who had extended training is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate costs.

ENERGY

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The estimated expenditure in 1990–91 is £657,000. This figure includes:

  (i) forecast expenditure by the press office;

  (ii) staff costs (salaries, accommodation and common services) for all permanent information service and support staff in the press office, including the speech writing unit, at 31 March 1991.

  The corresponding expenditure for previous years is as follows:

  £

  1989–90

  615,000

  1988–89

  475,000

  1987–88

  460,000

  1986–87

  293,000

  Expenditure for the years prior to 1986–87 is not available on a comparable basis.

  Currently proposed expenditure for 1991–92 is £677,000.

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

  Mr. Wakeham
  Total expenditure on fees paid to outside organisations in relation to the privatisation of Amersham International, Britoil and Enterprise Oil could not be provided without incurring disproportionate costs. Fees paid to outside organisations in the case of the privatisation of British Gas and of the regional electricity companies and the electricity generating companies in England and Wales are as follows:

  British Gas

  Electricity industry

  £ million

  £ million

  1985–86

  1·4

  —

  1986–87

  162·4

  —

  1987–88

  10·5

  0·8

  1988–89

  11·1

  5·5

  1989–90

  2·2

  12·1

  The remaining costs resulting from the privatisation of British Gas and of the regional electricity companies and electricity generating companies, including fees paid to advisers, will be published in due course.

WALES

  Epilepsy Unit, Cardiff
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the epilepsy unit at University College Cardiff was closed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The epilepsy unit is independently funded—largely, I understand, by the pharmaceutical industry to facilitate the development and trial of new drugs. It is not an NHS facility. I understand that the unit is to continue to function on a more limited scale. It is the responsibility of health authorities and general medical practitioners to secure the services they regard as necessary for local residents with epilepsy, as for all other conditions.

  Specialist Treatment Centres
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to ensure that there is no geographical quota which discriminates in favour of any area health authority being able to benefit disproportionately from the three specialist treatment centres for: hip and knee replacement at Rhydlafar hospital, hernias and varicose vein surgery at Bridgend general hospital and cataract surgery at Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The targets set for each of the treatment centres reflect local waiting lists but otherwise do not discriminate in favour of the host authority.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that general practitioners throughout Wales can refer their patients direct to the specialist treatment centre funded by his Department for cataract surgery at Ysbyty Gwynedd, Bangor.
  109
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The right of general medical practitioners to directly to refer patients to the three treatment centres is ensured by the contractual agreements negotiated between the Welsh Office and the centres.

  Opticians
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many opticians were registered in Wales in March 1989.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  There were 478 opticians on contract to Welsh FHSAs on 31 December 1989. Of these, 435 were ophthalmic opticians and 43 ophthalmic medical practitioners.

  "Social Care Plans"
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the first draft of "Social Care Plans".

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  It is for each social services authority in Wales to decide the distribution of drafts of social care plans. Authorities are required by statute to publish the final version of the first social care plans by 1 April 1992.

  Family Health Services Authorities
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if all family health services authorities have now been connected to the all-Wales telecommunications network and the English family health services network.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  As a result of changes to the timetable South Glamorgan is currently the only FHSA in Wales connected to the English FHS and the all-Wales telecommunications networks. Arrangements are in hand to connect the remaining seven Welsh FHSAs to both networks during the period 13 to 17 May 1991.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will arrange for the quarterly reports on the performance monitoring of family health services authorities' plans to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The performance monitoring of FTISA business plans, indicated in the "NHS Wales: Agenda for Action 1991–93", will not be the subject of separate report documents but will be part of the continuing management discussions between the NHS directorate of the Welsh Office and FHSAs.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy of all family health services authorities' business plans in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Yes.

  District Health Authorities (Telecommunications)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those district health authorities that have not yet submitted their telecommunications strategies for approval and funding.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  All nine Welsh district health authorities have submitted their telecommunications strategies for approval and funding. Funding has been approved for eight authorities. However, further information has been requested from Pembrokeshire health authority.

  Trunk Road Improvements
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of his Department's spending on trunk road improvements in Wales for each of the next three years, together with the outturn for 1990–91, and the current planned spending for 1991–92 for such purposes.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  As indicated in the Welsh Office departmental report (Cm. 1516), provisional net outturn for motorway and trunk road new construction and improvement in Wales in 1990–91 is £163 million; planned net expenditure in 1991–92 is £147 million. No firm decisions have been taken on the Secretary of State's allocation of block resources for 1992–93 to 1994–95, though provision for the motorway and trunk road programme in Wales is expected to exceed £550 million during this period.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each environmentally sensitive area in Wales and for each year of each scheme's existence the number of applicants for entry, the number of applicants accepted for entry, and the number of unsuccessful applicants who have subsequently withdrawn from each scheme.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:

  Applications received

  Applications accepted

  Successful applications withdrawn

  Cambrian Mountains Original Area

  1987

  1293

  34

  Nil

  1988

  71

  1989

  27

  1990

  5

  23

  —

  Cambrian Mountains Extension

  1988

  1367

  46

  Nil

  1989

  90

  1990

  162

  48

  Lleyn Peninsula

  1988

  210

  84

  Nil

  1989

  101

  180

  1990

  57

  42

  1 No separate figures available.

  Outstanding applications continue to be processed.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount paid to farmers under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme in each of the designated areas for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Participants in the ESA schemes in the Cambrian mountains original area, Cambrian mountains extended area, and Lleyn peninsula received £477,000, £121,000 and £284,000 respectively in the year ended 31 March 1991.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.
  111
  Mr. David Hunt
  No expenditure was incurred by my Department on privatisation prior to 1988–89.

  Subsequently, sums were paid in respect of water privatisation. The total sums paid to outside organisations on water privatisation in 1989–90 and 1990–91 were £13·3 million and £0·8 million respectively. Costs incurred in 1991–92 will be reported to Parliament in the usual way.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Figures for expenditure by the Department's information division, including staff and press cutting service but excluding media advertising and promotional material, cannot readily be disaggregated for the years 1979–80 to 1987–88.

  Figures for the succeeding years are:

  £

  1988–89

  469,000

  1989–90

  487,000

  1990–91

  481,000

  Estimated budget for 1991–92 is £529,880.

CIVIL SERVICE

  "Next Steps" Agencies
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service, if he will make a statement on the progress so far achieved by "Next Steps" agencies.

  Mr. Renton
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 April, 1991, c. 37–39]: Good progress is being made in setting up "Next Steps" agencies. This month the number of agencies reached 50 and there are now over 200,000 staff working on "Next Steps" lines. Announced candidates for agency status total 23 covering over 20,000 further staff. On top of this, the Inland Revenue will establish by April 1992 33 executive offices with nearly 60,000 staff working along "Next Steps" lines. By then I expect half the civil service to be working fully on "Next Steps" lines. The tables attached set out the existing agencies and announced candidates.

  "Next Steps" places great importance on improving the delivery of Government services for all customers. The benefits of the programme can be seen from the numbers of improvements and initiatives which agencies are introducing to enable them to provide their customers with a better, more flexible, service. Agencies are increasingly consulting customers about their needs and where possible tailoring services to meet those needs. Each agency publishes its own annual report describing targets set, providing financial information and setting out what has been achieved. Last October the first annual review of "Next Steps" was published (Cm 1261) giving details of the achievements and improved performance of the agencies then established. I will ensure that this year a further review will be published to bring together for the benefit of the House information from these reports on all the agencies and what they are doing to meet the alms of "Next Steps".
  112
  Demanding financial and quality of service targets are being set and delivered for each agency. They demonstrate very clearly that the initiative is succeeding.

  "Next Steps"—

  Executive agencies established as of April 1991

  Number

  Building Research Establishment

  69

  Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  22

  Central Office of Information1

  73

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  58

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment2

  58

  Civil Service College

  21

  Companies House

  1,15

  Defence Research Agency

  11,70

  Directorate General of Defence Accounts2

  2,10

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  5,45

  Driving Standards Agency

  2,05

  Employment Service

  35,60

  Forensic Science Service

  58

  Historic Royal Palaces

  30

  Historic Scotland

  58

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office1

  3,30

  Hydrographic Office2

  88

  Information Technology Services Agency

  3,35

  Insolvency Service

  1,45

  Intervention Board

  91

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  32

  Land Registry

  10,40

  Meteorological Office

  2,25

  Military Survey2

  85

  National Engineering Laboratory

  43

  National Physical Laboratory

  82

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  5

  Natural Resources Institute

  39

  NHS Estates

  12

  Occupational Health Service

  10

  Ordnance Survey

  2,50

  Patent Office

  1,15

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  7

  Radiocommunications Agency

  50

  RAF Maintenance2

  5,70

  Rate Collection Agency (Northern Ireland)

  28

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  32

  Registers of Scotland

  1,10

  Resettlement Agency

  51

  Royal Mint1

  1,05

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  23

  Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)2

  2,30

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  68,00

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  6,60

  Training and Employment Agency (Northern Ireland)

  1,70

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  1,20

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  7

  Vehicle Inspectorate1

  1,65

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  7

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  32

  50 in number

  183,46

  Customs and Excise3 (30 executive units)

  26,80

  210,260

  1 Trading funds.

  2 Defence Support Agency. Figure does not include service personnel.

  3 Moving towards full operation on "Next Steps" lines publication of framework documents.

  Staffing figures are based on staff in post on 1 October 1990.

  "Next Steps—activities announced by Departments as under consideration as of April 1991

  Number

  ADAS Agency

  2,500

  Agricultural Scientific Services1

  130

  Central Science Laboratory

  340

  Central Statistical Office

  1,050

  113

  Number

  Chessington Computer Centre

  440

  Not yet

  Child Support Agency2

  known

  Fire Service College1

  200

  Fuel Suppliers Branch

  30

  Medicines Safety Division1

  350

  Pesticide Safety Division1

  160

  Planning Inspectorate

  570

  Pollution Inspectorate

  230

  Property Holdings

  1,650

  Public Record Office

  430

  RAF Training3

  2,500

  Royal Parks

  600

  Teachers' Pensions Branch

  300

  The Buying Agency4

  120

  Transport Road Research Laboratory1

  580

  Valuation Office

  5,250

  Youth Treatment Service

  210

  Ordnance Survey (Northern Ireland)

  200

  Social Security Operations (Northern Ireland)

  5,000

  23 in number

  22,840

  Inland Revenue5 (excluding Valuation Office)

  59,800

  82,640

  1 Current staffing figures.

  2 From 1 April 1993 the agency is estimated to require 4,500 staff, 1,500 of which will come from the Social Security Benefits Agency.

  3 Defence Support Agency. Figure does not include service personnel.

  4 Trading fund.

  5 Moving towards full operation on "Next Steps" lines in accordance with the action plan of February 1991: 33 executive offices by April 1992, each with a framework document, sharper accountabilities and wider managerial freedoms.

  Notes:

  Staffing figures are based on staff in post 1 October 1990, except where specified.

  Many other areas are under consideration.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Passport Control Checks
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what passport control checks will be applied to EC nationals entering the United Kingdom after 1992.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We intend to retain immigration controls on non-EC nationals. In order to ensure that these controls are effective, we believe that it will be necessary to require EC nationals to show their passports or other identity documents.

  Regional Scientific Advisers
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each civil defence region(a) the number of regional scientific advisers other than the chief regional scientific adviser, (b) the number of regional scientific adviser appointments that are currently vacant, (c) the average age of the regional scientific advisers other than the chief regional scientific adviser and (d) the amounts paid to regional scientific advisers other than the chief regional scientific adviser in each of the last five years in the form of salary, retainer and expenses.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office has responsibility for appointing regional scientific advisers (RSAs) for the nine home defence regions in England and Wales. The Scottish Home and Health Department and Northern Ireland Office have similar responsibilities for their own home defence regions.
  114
  RSAs are not paid either a salary or a retainer as part of their civil defence duties. They are paid expenses in the form of professional lecturing fees together with costs for travel and subsistence in the course of their civil defence activities. With the exception of No. 5 region, each of the regions in England and Wales has a wartime operational scientific establishment of four RSAs. No. 5 region has only three. There are currently 43 RSAs appointed by the Home Office who in time of war could be assigned to any of the Home Defence regions; there are no vacancies for the wartime operational establishment.

  The average ages of RSAs by region are given in table A. Aggregated figures for lecturing fees, subsistence and travel over the past five years are given in table B. Figures for individual regions and RSAs could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Table A

  Number of RSAs

  Average age

  Region 2: North East

  4

  56

  Region 3: East Midlands

  3

  62

  Region 4: East

  5

  63

  Region 5: Greater London

  5

  63

  Region 6: South East

  7

  62

  Region 7: South West

  4

  70

  Region 8: Wales

  3

  61

  Region 9: West Midlands

  5

  58

  Region 10: North West

  7

  58

  Total

  43

  60

  Table B

  Travel and subsistence/professional fee

  Travel

  Subsistence

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  1986–87

  14,458

  42,416

  56,874

  1987–88

  17,068

  46,933

  64,001

  1988–89

  24,193

  44,777

  68,970

  1989–90

  19,007

  50,741

  69,748

  1990–91

  1—

  1—

  70,515

  1 Separate figures for travel and subsistence not yet available.

  Police Time (Witnesses)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any consideration has been given to transferring the cost of police time spent on duty as witnesses in court proceedings from the Home Office vote to the vote of the Lord Chancellor's office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. A police officer giving evidence in court is acting in pursuance of the general duty of the police to preserve law and order. We have no plans to alter the present arrangements.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make it his policy to remove the exemptions which are currently allowed as part of the January 1990 regulations to oblige laboratories to buy only specifically bred cats and dogs from registered suppliers.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Where animals of a species specified in schedule 2 to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which includes cats and dogs, are
  115
  not obtainable from designated sources, requests to obtain such animals from non-designated sources will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) of 11 March,Official Report, column 335, what evidence he has received from the Medical Research Council on alleged deliberate breaches of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  We received a number of documents on 16 April from the Medical Research Council and we are now considering them.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct inspectors not to allow any dispensation from the requirements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, in the light of the Medical Research Council report on Professor Feldberg; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Medical Research Council inquiry report alleged that a dispensation was agreed at the National Institute for Medical Research, with the approval of the Home Office inspector, which allowed Professor Feldberg and Mr. Stean to leave anaesthetised animals undergoing procedures unattended for short periods.

  We have been assured by the director of NIMR that it was at the time and remains NIMR policy that under no circumstances must such animals be left unattended. The inspectorate did not give any dispensation to override these local instructions, nor would such a dispensation be given at any establishment.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Metropolitan Police 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. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the deputy commissioner that expenditure by the Metropolitan police on all forms of recruitment and other advertising and other promotional material in each financial year since 1979–80 is as follows—it is not possible to give separate spending figures for the years prior to 1987–88:

  £

  1979–80

  759,000

  1980–81

  967,000

  1981–82

  1,062,000

  1982–83

  1,028,000

  1983–84

  1,675,000

  1984–85

  1,747,000

  1985–86

  1,868,000

  1986–87

  2,269,000

  Television advertising

  Radio advertising

  Newspaper advertising

  Other promotional literature

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1987–88

  —

  3,000

  1,722,000

  1,111,000

  1988–89

  —

  6,000

  1,881,000

  1,258,000

  1989–90

  472,000

  15,000

  1,660,000

  663,000

  116

  Television advertising

  Radio advertising

  Newspaper advertising

  Other promotional literature

  £

  £

  £

  £

  11990–91

  683,000

  59,000

  978,000

  1,402,000

  21991–92

  313,000

  75,000

  1,466,000

  1,550,000

  1 Estimated outturn.

  1 Budget estimate.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The full cost of staff, accommodation and administration for the Home Office press office from 1979–80 to 1989–90 was:

  £

  1979–80

  283,140

  1980–81

  392,532

  1981–82

  381,799

  1982–83

  424,290

  1983–84

  516,362

  1984–85

  560,512

  1985–86

  606,996

  1986–87

  548,136

  1987–88

  599,282

  1988–89

  674,945

  1989–90

  715,646

  Notes:

  The estimated cost for 1990–91 is £786,519.

  The budget for 1991–92 is £882,582.

  1. Figures supplied before 1986–87 were the costs estimated by the Treasury. After devolved budgeting in 1986 the estimates are based on Home Office costs.

  2. Press office figures include the costs for staff, accommodation and administration costs.

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

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  For information up to 1989–90, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the then Home Secretary on 15 March 1990, at column 358. In 1990–91 payments in respect of expenses in furtherance of privatisation of the Independent Broadcasting Authority transmission system are expected to be £767,000. The costs of the current privatisation of the IBA, including fees paid to advisers, will be reported to Parliament after the sale is completed.

  Victim Support Schemes
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide financial support to victim support schemes in Manchester, after June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Home Office grant for local victim support schemes will rise to £5·4 million this year from £4·5 million last year, an increase of 20 per cent. Last
  117
  year's grant of £328,910 to schemes in Greater Manchester area, mainly for co-ordinators' salaries, is also expected to increase. In addition, the criteria under which grants are administered have been changed for this year to allow running costs as well as salaries to be funded in schemes which would otherwise be at risk of closure because of withdrawal of local authority funding.

HEALTH

  Dentures
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now disclose the full findings relating solely to the supply of dentures to the public reported to the then Minister for Health following the inquiry carried out by the Office of Fair Trading from 1983 to 1985.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Director General of Fair Trading wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the then Minister for Health on 20 June 1985 following allegations by the Association for Denture Prosthesis that dentists were abusing their monopoly through high prices and profits from the supply of private dentures and that the quality of treatment would improve if dental technicians were allowed to take impressions and fit dentures—a practice called "denturism". In his letter the director general said:"Denturism appears to have reduced the cost of dentures, including those provided by dentists, in countries without a National Health Service. However, in the United Kingdom the office's survey suggests that dentures can be obtained readily on the NHS although it may be necessary to change dentists, especially in London and the South East, in order to do this. The price is closely controlled by the DHSS and there is no evidence that dentists are making monopoly profits on providing them. It seems unlikely that denturists providing facilities to see patients could provide them much more cheaply. Against any savings would need to be set the cost of additional training for denturists if this was provided at public expense.
  In general therefore I am reasonably satisfied that the NHS provides a competitive alternative to private treatment, and I see little justification for the introduction of denturism on economic grounds. We did not assess the arguments about health care and quality of service but found little to suggest they would strengthen the case for denturism in the United Kingdom in present circumstances."

  NHS (Highest Paid Employees)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in order the top 10 highest paid employees within the national health service, stating the name of the health authority and the salary in each case.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. Details of payments awarded to individual NHS employees are a confidential matter between employer and employee.

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

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No expenditure prior to 1986–87 has been identified. Expenditure in 1986–87 and subsequent years has been incurred for work by 118
  professional advisors on the sale of the General Practice Finance Corporation. The expenditure for each year is as follows:

  £

  1986–87

  23,000

  1987–88

  37,800

  1988–89

  174,621

  1989–90

  414,000

  1990–91

  Nil

  All expenditure up to and including 1988–89 has been from a joint health and social security budget.

  There are no plans for any expenditure in 1991–92.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give separate figures for the spending by the HEA/HEC 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. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Donald Maitland, the chairman of the Health Education Authority, for details.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Functions which are commonly associated with press and public relations are carried out by the Department's information division, the manpower and running costs of which are:

  £'000s

  1989–90

  Expenditure

  890

  1990–91

  Estimated expenditure

  1,279

  1991–92

  Budget

  1,527

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

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the salaries and pension entitlements of(a) the chairpersons, (b) the deputy chairpersons, (c) the chief executive or manager, (d) the other executive directors and (e) the non-executive directors of each national health service self-governing trust in the period to 31 March 1991 and in the year 1991–92.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On the question of the remuneration of NHS trust chairmen, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the Member for Sheffield,
  119
  Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 25 January at column 356. All other non executive directors of NHS trusts are remunerated at a standard rate of £5,000 per annum. Remuneration is taxable arid subject to national insurance contributions, but is not pensionable.

  The salaries and pension entitlements of NHS trust chief executives and other executive directors are matters for the individual trust boards.

  Health Authorities (VAT Increase)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the cost to health authorities in 1991–92 of the increase in the rate of VAT to 17·5 per cent.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Health authorities have been asked to provide information to enable us to estimate additional costs following the increase in the standard rate of VAT. Adjustments will be made to health authority provision to reflect these costs.

  General Practitioner Fundholders
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the total sum of money paid out in start-up and preparation costs for general practitioner fundholders in the financial year 1990–91; and if he will provide such estimates for each of the NHS regions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The table provides the estimated expenditure, during 1990–91, on GP fundholding preparatory allowance broken down by regional health authority. Information on other payments made to potential fundholders is not available as it is not separately identifiable.

  Region

  Estimated total expenditure 1990–91

  Northern

  464,000

  Yorkshire

  558,481

  Trent

  438,518

  East Anglia

  157,353

  North West Thames

  396,640

  North East Thames

  186,317

  South East Thames

  254,000

  South West Thames

  347,417

  Wessex

  233,200

  Oxford

  401,480

  South-Western

  300,228

  West Midlands

  450,000

  Mersey

  335,999

  North-Western

  312,754

  Total

  4,372,387

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would be the cost of making financial transactions internal to the NHS as a result of contracts and general practitioner budgets subject to VAT at the standard rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not available.

  Grove Park Children's Home
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the report of the social services inspectorate into Grove Park children's home, Southwark; and if he will make a statement.
  120
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The social services inspectorate report into residential child care services in Southwark has been received by the Department and is being considered. It is expected that the report will be published shortly.

  Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the full report of the Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy is now available for 1990–91; whether this consultancy is to continue in 1991–92, what estimate has been made of the cost; and what is its programme of work for 1991–92.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy (IACC) expects to publish its full report in the summer. A copy will be placed in the Library. In 1991–92 IACC will be working on the reduction of waiting time in the West Midlands region. As announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27 February, we have engaged Qa Business Services to carry forward studies of 80 of the worst lists in 1991–92; £9 million will be available from the waiting list fund to finance the team's recommendations.

  Waiting List Initiative
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all the schemes agreed for funding from the waiting list initiative fund from the £12 million reserved for Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy recommendations.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The districts and specialties examined by Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy and the funding allocated from the waiting list fund is given in the table.

  Schemes which received funding from the £12 million reserved from the waiting list fund to finance the recommendations of Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy in 1990–91

  District and specialty list

  Fund allocated

  £

  Aylesbury

  Plastic surgery

  35,000

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  General surgery

  167,000

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  120,000

  ENT

  51,000

  Oral surgery

  100,000

  Basildon and Thurrock

  General surgery

  500,000

  Plastic surgery

  50,000

  Bath

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  283,000

  Bloomsbury

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  267,000

  ENT

  212,000

  Plastic surgery

  43,000

  Bolton

  General surgery

  156,000

  Bradford

  ENT

  86,000

  Plastic surgery

  95,000

  Brighton

  121

  District and specialty list

  Fund allocated

  £

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  200,000

  Bristol and Weston

  General surgery

  242,000

  Central Manchester

  Ophthalmology

  29,000

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  125,000

  City and Hackney

  ENT

  34,000

  Dartford and Gravesham

  ENT

  37,000

  Dudley

  Plastic surgery

  179,000

  Durham

  General surgery

  56,000

  East Berkshire

  Plastic surgery

  59,000

  East Cumbria

  General surgery

  121,000

  East Suffolk

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  260,000

  Greenwich

  General surgery

  111,000

  Hastings

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  250,000

  Hillingdon

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  160,000

  Hounslow

  ENT

  48,000

  Hull

  Urology

  106,000

  ENT

  50,000

  Kettering

  General surgery

  219,000

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  488,000

  Kingston and Esher

  Ophthalmology

  396,000

  Leicestershire

  Plastic surgery

  134,000

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  General surgery

  375,000

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  200,000

  ENT

  16,000

  Medway

  General surgery

  17,000

  Mid Downs

  General surgery

  102,000

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  174,000

  Newcastle

  Plastic surgery

  143,000

  North Devon General surgery

  60,000

  North East Essex

  General surgery

  250,000

  North Staffordshire

  122

  District and specialty list

  Fund allocated

  £

  General surgery

  50,000

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  410,000

  Gynaecology

  50,000

  North Warwickshire

  Plastic surgery

  160,000

  North West Surrey

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  218,000

  Norwich

  General surgery

  55,000

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  266,000

  Plastic surgery

  89,000

  Nottingham

  Plastic surgery

  142,000

  Oldham

  General surgery

  216,000

  Preston

  Plastic surgery

  12,000

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  Plastic surgery

  255,000

  Salisbury

  Plastic surgery

  288,000

  Sheffield

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  492,000

  Shropshire

  General surgery

  382,000

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  350,000

  Somerset

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  114,000

  Southampton

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  211,000

  South Manchester

  Plastic surgery

  200,000

  Tower Hamlets

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  25,000

  Oral surgery

  25,000

  Waltham Forest

  ENT

  82,000

  West Essex

  General surgery

  32,000

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  221,000

  West Lancashire

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  294,000

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  General surgery

  50,000

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  100,000

  Ophthalmology

  143,000

  Winchester

  Trauma and orthopaedics

  179,000

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he proposes to produce a detailed report on the expenditures from the waiting list initiative showing each project approved, together with its outcome.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We do not intend to publish a detailed report on all the projects which have received funding under the waiting time initiative. Allocations from
  123
  the waiting list fund are made to regional health authorities (RHAs) which use the funds in a variety of ways, with the common objective of reducing the number of patients who wait over one year for hospital treatment. Allocations to RHAs for 1990–91 are shown in the table. In the first half of that year, the total number of patients waiting over one year fell by 2½ per cent. and the number waiting over two years fell by 12 per cent. Provisional figures indicate a further fall in the five months to February 1991 of 12 per cent. in the number waiting over one year and 21 per cent. in the number waiting over two years.

  Waiting list fund—allocations to regions

  1990–911

  (£ million)

  Northern

  1·798

  Yorkshire

  2·017

  Trent

  2·923

  East Anglian

  1·135

  North West Thames

  1·690

  North East Thames

  3·808

  South East Thames

  2·738

  South West Thames

  2·138

  Wessex

  2·024

  Oxford

  1·638

  South Western

  1·546

  West Midlands

  4·472

  Mersey

  1·515

  North Western

  2·860

  SHAs

  0·200

  Total

  £33 million

  1 Includes allocations from the £12 million set aside for the 100 longest specialty waiting lists in the country.

  Auditing of Accounts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who has the responsibility for the audit of national health service self-governing trusts and general practitioner fundholders accounts; and whether these accounts will be available to hon. Members.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Audit Commission has the responsibility for appointing the auditors of the accounts of general practitioner fundholders. A summary of these accounts is included in family health services authority's accounts which are submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. There has never been a requirement that these should be published and we do not propose to introduce such a change.

  The Audit Commission is also responsible for appointing the auditors of the accounts of national health service trusts. NHS trusts are required to present their annual reports, audited accounts and any report on those accounts made by the auditor at a public meeting which the trust is required to hold in every calendar year except the year in which it becomes operational. These reports will also be available to hon. Members.

  Anti-cancer Drugs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost per head of population in 1990 in each standard health region of general practitioner prescribed anti-cancer drugs such as boplatin and interleukin; and what were the hospital allocations of such drugs in each national health service health region in 1990–91.
  124
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not held centrally on the hospital allocations of such drugs. Information on the cost of general practitioner prescribed anti-cancer drugs could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been given to purchasing authorities about making provision for the cost of anti-cancer drugs in placing contracts; and what agency is responsible for monitoring the results of any such guidance.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Guidance about contracts has not been given to purchasing authorities in that level of detail.

  Child Cancer
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusions he has reached, and what research is being undertaken, on the possibility of links between water supply from ground and river sources and the increased incidence of child cancer.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The numerous published studies of cancer rates in relation to the type of source of drinking water do not point to an association for childhood cancers.

  The Department is not aware of any current or proposed research in the United Kingdom on this hypothesis.

  Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the recommendations of Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy with regard to the Newcastle plastic surgery waiting list have been acted on; with what result; and at what cost.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As recommended by Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy (IACC), Newcastle district health authority employed a locum consultant in plastic surgery for nine months in 1990–91 to undertake additional in-patient, day case and out-patient sessions. This scheme received an allocation of £143,000 from the £12 million reserved for problem lists from the waiting list fund. The district has met the requirements of its contract with IACC. Between April 1990 and March 1991 it reduced the numbers waiting over a year for in-patient and day case plastic surgery by 565 and has treated an additional 422 in-patients and day cases, and 400 out-patients.

  Health Authorities (Discharge Procedures)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will arrange for the reports of health authorities on their discharge procedures as per HC(89)5 together with the subsequent comments and action of regional health authorities and his own Department to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information about action taken by district health authorities is not available centrally, since they were asked to report to their regional health authorities. Action by special health authorities is being followed up through the quality control and business planning process. Business plans will be published in due course.

  Work-related Health Problems
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of health authorities who have staff in post specifically to advise, instruct and inform on preventable work-related health problems such as repetitive strain injury; what guidance his Department offers health authorities on this point; and what steps he is taking to review the results of the guidance he has given.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Each health authority is responsible for ensuring the health, safety and welfare of its employees at work and will be guided by particular advice issued by the Health and Safety Executive. The Department has issued guidance on the establishment of occupational health services generally, but does not collect information on the number of health authority staff deployed on such services.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many cases of breaches of the Abortion Act 1967 and regulations relating to abortion his Department has referred the cases to the legal authorities in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many forms relating to abortion were submitted late by King's College hospital, London, in relation to the regulations governing abortion in the last 12 months.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is not the Department's practice to disclose detailed information relating to terminations of pregnancy carried out at individual places.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action his Department takes in relation to forms concerning abortion submitted to the chief medical officer without being dated or signed by the doctors concerned; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action his Department takes in relation to forms concerning abortion submitted to the chief medical officer which breach the regulations concerning the notification of abortions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All of the notification forms sent to the chief medical officer are scrutinised by staff authorised by him. Any incomplete forms are returned to the notifying doctor for completion and breaches of the regulations are taken up as appropriate.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ask the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to review its 1978 report on the supply of national newspapers and periodicals (Cmnd. 7214).

  Mr. Redwood
  The Director General of Fair Trading is currently conducting a review of a number of issues concerning the distribution of newspapers and periodicals. The director general will decide in the light of this review 126
  whether further action under the competition legislation for which he is responsible is required. It would not be appropriate for me to comment in advance of the completion of the director general's review.

  Policy Holders Protection Board
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the current members of the Policy Holders Protection Board and give the relevant experience of each member; how many of the commission are women; and what percentage of the total membership they comprise.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Policyholders Protection Act 1975 provides that the Policyholders Protection Board comprises five members. The Act requires that at least three members shall be directors, chief executives or managers of authorised insurance companies and at least one member shall be qualified to represent the interests of policyholders. The information requested on the current members of the board is as follows:

  Colin North Smith CBE (Chairman)

  Former senior partner in Peat Marwick McLintock and former chairman of the insurance sub-committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

  Anthony Brend

  Chief executive of Commercial Union Assurance Company.

  Charles O'Brien

  Director of the M & G Assurance Group. Former general manager and actuary of the Royal National Pension Fund for Nurses and currently a member of its council. President of the Institute of Actuaries 1976–78.

  Nigel Proddow

  Former director and chief general manager of Pearl Assurance plc.

  Rosemary McRobert OBE

  Currently a director of the investors compensation scheme. Former deputy director of the Consumers Association and director of the Retail Trading Standards Association.

  Women comprise 20 per cent. of the board's membership.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Leigh
  The total sums paid out by my Department in fees to outside organisations in furtherance of privatisation since 1979 are shown below. As far as possible, the sums paid have been broken down by year, and between fees and commissions.

  The costs of current privatisations, including fees paid to advisers, will be reported to Parliament after the sale is completed.

  Year

  Fees

  Commissions

  £ million

  £ million

  1981–82

  2·6

  3·0

  1984–85

  74·6

  94·4

  1985–86

  110·6

  —

  1986–87

  17·9

  —

  1987–88

  137·0

  —

  1988–89

  24·6

  22·9

  1989–90

  1·7

  0·1

  1990–91

  10·1

  —

  127
  1 Includes commission, if any.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Leigh
  I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member on 13 March 1990, at column 172. Expenditure in the past two years was as follows:

  £000

  1989–90

  2,287

  11990–91

  2,297

  1Estimated.

  The figures include regional press officer and other support services. Activity in this area during the current year is expected to remain at broadly the same level as in 1990–91.

  Departmental Objectives
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the objectives of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I am publishing revised objectives of my Department. They are as follows:The aim of the Department of Trade and Industry is to foster a market environment which results in satisfied customers and prosperous producers.
  To this end the DTI works to ensure that markets at home and abroad are open, fair and competitive; to see that UK business is best placed to take full advantage of market opportunities; and to champion all those involved in wealth creation.

  The DTI will
  work for trade liberalisation worldwide, and the completion of the single European market;
  promote exports of UK goods and services;
  stimulate innovation in industry by encouraging research, the transfer of technologies, the spread of technical skills and closer links between business and the science base;
  improve the provision of information to business about new methods, opportunities and management skills;
  encourage competition by tackling restrictive practices, cartels and monopolies, and by extending privatisation and contracting out;
  foster the integrity of markets so that customers, creditors and investors benefit from a well targeted system of protection and a light but effective regulatory framework allowing informed choices to be made;
  encourage a positive attitude towards wealth creation;
  reduce burdens on business by simplifying regulation and scrutinising the compliance costs which regulation brings;
  listen to the concerns of business and consumers and ensure that these are taken into account in the development of Government policies;
  ensure that policies respond to the needs of different regions and areas with special difficulties.

  In order to achieve these objectives, the DTI is committed to managing and developing the people who work within it, to enable them to provide a professional, high quality, accessible and responsive service to business and the community.

  Development Management
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will review the work done by the United Nations centre on transnational corporations in regard to the establishment of criteria for sustainable development management.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: The Government have kept the centre's work on criteria for sustainable development management under close review and will continue to do so.

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the grades and official responsibilities at that time of the officials of his Department who visited the offices of Matrix Churchill in Coventry at 11.15 am on 24 April 1989, 3.51 pm on 11 September 1989, 3.10 pm on 27 October 1989, 9.35 am on 1 December 1989, 9.35 am on 26 March 1990, 9.35 am on 20 April 1990 and 1.17 pm on 26 April 1990.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 29 April 1991]: In the light of the fact that criminal proceedings have been instituted against three individuals, it would not be right to provide this information.

  Stock Exchange Council of America
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has now taken all necessary action arising from the contents of the memorandum of understanding with the Stock Exchange Council of America, with particular reference to the evidence provided by Ivan Boesky.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 29 April 1991]: For reasons of international comity, the Secretary of State declines to comment on exchanges of information which may or may not have taken place between international regulators.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  St. John Ambulance Brigade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Prior to the tabling of this question, no request for assistance with the appeal had been received. There is scope for arrangements to be made to draw it to the attention of staff.

  Environment
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the response of the Government to the Environment Select Committee's report on Northern Ireland environmental issues.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) on 26 March 1991, at column 366–68.

  Education and Library Boards
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Northern Ireland Department of Education will take action to remedy the division of the South Eastern education and library board into four different locations in the city of Belfast.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department of Education for Northern Ireland is considering proposals by the board for a single site headquarters and has sought clarification on some aspects of the proposals.

  Building Work
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 25 April 1991]: The information is as follows:

  Year

  £3 to £5 million

  Location

  Over £5 million

  Location

  1986–87

  —

  —

  1

  Antrim

  1987–88

  2

  Armagh Maze

  2

  Newry

  Maze

  1988–89

  9

  Antrim

  14

  Banbridge

  Dungannon

  Greater Belfast

  Londonderry

  Omagh

  Warrenpoint

  1989–90

  18

  Ballyclare

  13

  Antrim

  Belfast

  Belfast

  Hillsborough

  Londonderry

  1990–91

  6

  Belfast

  16

  Bangor

  Dromore

  Belfast

  Enniskillen

  Carrickfergus

  Larne

  Londonderry

  Limavady

  Londonderry

  1 These figures include building and accommodation needs of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and a civil defence centre. The locations of the buildings have not been divulged for security reasons.

  Housing, Newry
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of any improvement or renovation schemes scheduled to be undertaken by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive at properties in North street, Newry, over the next three years.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 29 April 1991]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but I have been advised by the chief executive that no improvement/renovation works are proposed for North street, Newry, within the next three years.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what improvement or renovation schemes have been carried out by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to properties at North street, Newry, in each of the past five years; and what was the cost of each scheme.
  130
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 29 April 1991]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chief executive that two improvements/renovation schemes were carried out in North street, Newry, during the past five years. They are as follows:

  1. North street phase 1

  Improvement scheme (103 dwellings). Completed in February 1986 at a cost of £408,800, which comprised of the following works:

  (a) fire regulation compliance

  (b) upgrading of entrance hall and access galleries

  (c)provision of audio/visual entry system.

  2. North street phase 2

  Improvement scheme 2

  Improvement scheme (18 dwellings). Completed in February 1987 at a cost of £129,337, which comprised the following works:

  (a) fire regulation compliance

  (b) upgrading of entrance hall and accesses

  (c) provision of audio/visual entry system

  (d)general repairs including kitchen fittings

  (e)re-roofing

  (f)re-wiring and installation of Economy 7.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what changes will occur in Northern Ireland's rates arising from the new Government proposals for local government financing in Great Britain;

  (2) if he will make a statement on local government finances in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 29 April 1991]: The application in Northern Ireland of the reduction announced in the Budget is a good outcome for the Province's domestic ratepayers. They will contribute, on average, 36 per cent. less towards the cost of local authority-type services, which is in line with the switch to contral funding of 36 per cent. of the amount charge payers contribute to local authority expenditure in Great Britain.

  The Government's review of the community charge did not extend to Northern Ireland, which has different arrangements for financing local government services and continues to operate a rates system. Some 90 per cent. of expenditure on these services is administered by central Government in Northern Ireland, to which the ratepayers contribute through the regional rate, while district rates contribute towards the remaining 10 per cent. of services which the district councils administer. Rate relevent expenditure on the services administered by Northern Ireland departments or their agencies, to which the regional rate contributes, is determined through the public expenditure survey system and as such is subject to the full scrutiny of Parliament. This expenditure is supported by central Government at a rate of 81 per cent. which indicates the Government's continued commitment to tackling the high level of need in the Province.

  Ministers in Northern Ireland will, however, be examining the proposals in the recent Green Paper and will consider any implications they may have for Northern Ireland.

  Expenditure in Schools
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the expenditure per pupil on (i) books and (ii) equipment in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in cash and real terms since 1976.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 29 April 1991]: Total expenditure on books and equipment is as follows—separate figures not available. Figures are not available prior to the 1978–79 financial year.

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Cash

  Real terms

  Cash

  Real terms

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1978–79

  10·40

  24·33

  22·88

  53·53

  1979–80

  12·05

  24·15

  25·24

  50·58

  1980–81

  12·34

  20·89

  25·73

  43·56

  1981–82

  14·37

  22·19

  29·22

  45·12

  1982–83

  14·63

  21·09

  30·62

  44·14

  1983–84

  15·08

  20·76

  31·74

  43·69

  1984–85

  16·37

  21·45

  34·26

  44·89

  1985–86

  17·14

  21·25

  36·40

  45·13

  1986–87

  18·30

  22·01

  42·14

  50·68

  1987–88

  19·94

  22·74

  47·92

  54·66

  1988·89

  20·00

  21·26

  46·55

  49·48

  1989–90

  27·74

  27·74

  54·26

  54·26

  1990–911

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Figures not yet available.

PRIME MINISTER

  Prisoners (Visits)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will co-ordinate policy on the allocation of prisoners so that persons convicted in either England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland may serve their sentences at a convenient establishment for regular visits from their families.

  The Prime Minister
  The allocation of prisoners in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the respective prison authorities. Nearness to home is one of the factors which is taken into account, along with other matters, in deciding a prisoner's allocation. There is provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1961 for the transfer of prisoners between United Kingdom jurisdictions.

  Engagements
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 30 April.

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

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Prime Minister's office 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.
  132
  The Prime Minister
  My office has incurred no expenditure on advertising or promotional material, and there are no plans for any such expenditure in 1991–92.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Cabinet Office 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.

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Office has not incurred and does not expect to incur any expenditure on promotional advertising on television, radio or in newspapers in the years 1979–92.

  Information on other promotional material is not available for the years 1979 to 1987. Expenditure on such material from 1987–88 was:

  £

  1987–88

  19,306

  1988–89

  9,500

  1989–90

  14,833

  The estimates for 1990–91 is £1,000.

  The Cabinet Office does not expect to incur any expenditure on other promotional material in 1991–92.

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will name the Government Department to which a Crown servant calling himself Balson and visiting the offices of Matrix Churchill in Coventry at 11.15 am on 24 April 1989, 3.51 pm on 11 September 1989, 3.10 pm on 27 October 1989, 9.35 am on 1 December 1989, 9.35 am on 26 March 1990, 9.35 am on 20 April 1990 and 1.17 pm on 26 April 1990 was attached between 1 April 1989 and 30 April 1990; what was his grade; and what were his official responsibilities.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and industry.

  Arms Trade
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister which proposals he has to allow international advance warning of arms' build-up by a particular country.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding reply 29 April 1991]: On 8 April I proposed the establishment of a United Nations register of arms sales to enable the international community to monitor and control any excessive build-up of arms by a particular country. The proposal was endorsed by our European partners. We are now pursuing it in discussions with the other permanent members of the Security Council and the United Nations secretariat.

ENVIRONMENT

  Immingham Port Development
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what protection is intended for communities living near, or en route to, power stations in the east midlands who will be adversley effected by coal lorry traffic resulting from the use of the new port development at Immingham.
  133
  Mr. Baldry
  I am advised that the Secretary of State for Transport has no proposals to improve the trunk road network or to carry out other measures as a consequence of the Immingham lorry traffic. However, he intends to keep the situation under review.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, in his consideration of the relative weight to be given to people and to property in his replacement of the community charge, (1) he will make it his policy to avoid creating a deterrent to home improvement if rental values are to be used;

  (2) he will make it his policy (a) to avoid unfairness due to changes in capital values which are caused by factors extraneous to the property itself and (b) to avoid subjective and variable valuation procedures;

  (3) he will make it his policy to identify property values in the taxes paid by tenants of councils and housing associations;

  (4) he will make it his policy that (a) residents in areas served by inefficient councils should pay more than those being served by efficient councils, (b) that the principle of local accountability is maintained and (c) that local taxes paid should reflect the services used;

  (5) he will make it his policy to distinguish between nominal property values and the ability to pay.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 23 April our proposals for the new council tax. The proposal is to place each property in one of the seven bands by value.

  There will be no need either for precise valuations or for regular general revaluations. Paragraph 2.30 of the consultation paper explains that
  "because the tax is to be based on broad bands improvements to a property would not necessarily lead to a change in its appropriate band. One option would be to take alterations into account only when a property changed hands".

  The highest band property will pay about two and a half times as much as the lowest in an area. Each household will receive a single bill on the assumption that it consists of two people. There will be a 25 per cent. discount for one-adult households. The level of council tax will be higher than the standard level where an authority spends more than is necessary to provide a standard level of service, and lower in more efficient authorities. People on low incomes will receive rebates of up to 100 per cent. of the council tax.

  Tombs
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to amend or vary the appropriate regulations on conservation areas to prevent the demolition of tombs which are less than 115 cu m in size and which have an important historical interest.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to amend the direction in paragraph 97 of circular 8/87 which exempts from conservation area controls any building with a total cubic content not exceeding 115 cu m.

  If a building in a conservation area smaller than 115 cu m is of sufficient architectural or historic interest it can be listed and will then be subject to the more extensive listed building controls.

  Environmental Protection Agency
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in favour of establishing an environmental protection agency for the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has received from a variety of sources proposals for the creation of environmental protection agencies of various kinds. The Government's views on the institutions required for environmental protection were set out in chapter 18 of the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" (Cm. 1200) published in September 1990.

  Litter
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the names of the officers appointed by each local authority in England with responsibility for issuing £10 fixed penalty fines for dropping litter under the terms of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the number of such notices issued since 13 February.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not held by my Department. However, I understand that a number of local authorities, including Bath, Darlington, Chorley and Warrington councils, have made use of the power under section 88 of the Act and have adopted the fixed penalty scheme in their areas.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what percentage poll tax collection rate the reduction of £140 in respect of each poll tax payer in Lambeth will be paid.

  Mr. Key
  Entitlement to community charge grant, which will compensate authorities for the income from community charges forgone under the Community Charges (General Reduction Act) 1991, will be based on the rate of charge collection actually achieved by each authority in 1991–92; except that, where the charge is reduced to zero as a result of the Act, entitlement will be based on the authority's original estimate of its rate of collection, disregarding the effect of the Act.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the sums added to or subtracted from Grimsby's standard spending assessment under his new system of resource allocation under his new system of local government finance.

  Mr. Key
  The consultation paper about the proposed new council tax issued on 23 April states that the Government do not propose any major changes to standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out those local authorities which have been rate-capped or charge-capped during each of the years in which the capping system has operated.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 29 April 1991]: Listed in the table are those authorities which were selected for rate limitation in each of the years between 1985–86 and 1989–90, and for community charge limitation in 1990–91

  135
  and 1991–92. In addition for 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89, the three years following abolition of the metropolitan county councils and the Greater London council, the Local Government Act 1985 designated for precept limitation the Inner London education authority, the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, the Northumbria police authority, the metropolitan county police authorities, the metropolitan county fire arid civil defence authorities, and the metropolitan county passenger transport authorities.

  Authorities designated for selective rate limitation.

  1985–86

  Basildon

  Lambeth

  Brent

  Leicester

  Camden

  Lewisham

  Greenwich

  Merseyside

  GLC

  Portsmouth

  Hackney

  Sheffield

  Haringey

  South Yorkshire

  ILEA

  Southwark

  Islington

  Thamesdown

  1986–87

  Basildon

  Lambeth

  Camden

  Lewisham

  Greenwich

  Liverpool

  Hackney

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Haringey

  Southwark

  Islington

  Thamesdown

  1987–88

  Basildon

  Lambeth

  Brent

  Lewisham

  Brighton

  Middlebrough

  Camden

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Gateshead

  Newham

  Greenwich

  North Tyneside

  Hackney

  Sheffield

  Haringey

  Southwark

  Hounslow

  Thamesdown

  Islington

  Tower Hamlets

  1988–89

  Basildon

  Liverpool

  Camden

  Manchester

  Ealing

  Middlesbrough

  Greenwich

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Hackney

  Southwark

  Haringey

  Thamesdown

  Kingston upon Hull

  Tower Hamlets

  Lambeth

  Waltham Forest

  Lewisham

  1989–90

  Camden

  Southwark

  Greewich

  Thamesdown

  Hackney

  Tower Hamlets

  Lewisham

  ILEA

  Authorities designated for community charge limitation

  1990–91

  Avon

  Haringey

  Barnsley

  Hillingdon

  Basildon

  Islington

  Brent

  Lambeth

  Bristol

  North Tyneside

  Calderdale

  Rochdale

  Camden

  Rotherham

  Derbyshire

  St. Helens

  Doncaster

  Southwark

  Greewich

  Wigan

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1991–92

  Basildon

  Milton Keynes

  Bristol

  Norwich

  Greenwich

  Reading

  136

  Ipswich

  Somerset

  Lambeth

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees

  Warwickshire

  Middlesbrough

  Wirral

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate(a) the cost of establishing and maintaining community charge registers in the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91 and (b) the cost of central Government publicity and information, including staff costs, to promote and support the establishment and maintenance of community charge registers in the financial years 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Key
  The costs of establishing and maintaining community charge registers are not separately identifiable. The Government have not undertaken specific publicity on the establishment and maintenance of community charge registers. We have, however, produced a series of community charge practice notes, jointly with the local authority associations. Practice note No. 3 dealt with compiling the community charge register; No. 8 dealt with the canvass; No. 9 dealt with sole or main residence; and No. 24 dealt with maintaining the community charges register. We estimate that the total cost of printing these practice notes was £17,400. Copies were placed in the Library.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate(a) the direct cost to local authorities of collection, and the enforcement of collection, of the community charge in 1990–91, (b) the indirect cost to local authorities of loss of cash flow arising from delays in payment of the community charge in 1990–91 and (c) the payments shortfall and the national non-collection rate of the community charge in its first year of operation in England.

  Mr. Key
  English local authorities budgeted to spend £440 million on the collection of community charges in 1990–91. Estimates of the cost resulting from delays in collection cannot be made from the information collected from authorities; and information on arrears and bad debts at 31 March 1991 is not yet available.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the cost of community charge transitional relief in 1990–91(a) in total and (b) for each standard region.

  Mr. Key
  We shall be in a position to publish a final figure for the amount of relief given in 1990–91 when local authorities submit their final grant claims later this year. The total amount of relief grant claimed by authorities in their initial claims for 1990–91 is £259,881,592. The amount for each region in England is as follows.

  £

  North West

  47,854,631

  North

  22,451,448

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  36,023,883

  West Midlands

  21,353,472

  East Midlands

  26,830,977

  East Anglia

  11,137,309

  South East

  68,733,298

  South West

  25,496,574

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the cost of re-billing the community charge for 1991–92.
  137
  Mr. Key
  My Department is discussing with the local authority associations what additional administrative costs local authorities are incurring as a result of the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act and of the accompanying changes in the community charge reduction scheme, and how these should be reimbursed. Our preliminary estimate is that these costs will be in the range of £50 to £60 million in England.

  Local Government Officials
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will tabulate in league order the top 10 highest paid officials in local government stating the employing authority in each case, and the amount of each salary.

  Mr. Key
  This information is not collected by my Department.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 25 April,Official Report, Volume 189, column 492.

  Government Buildings
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future use of Norfolk house, East Kilbride.

  Mr. Yeo
  The future of Norfolk house will depend on the outcome of tripartite negotiations currently in progress between the Department as tenant, the Department's landlord, East Kilbride development corporation, and the head landlord, the Norwich Union Insurance Group. These negotiations aim to establish agreement on the complex issue of legal liability for the defects which have made Norfolk house unusable.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those Government properties, owned, leased or rented, which are currently subject to structural investigation.

  Mr. Yeo
  A wide range of structural investigations are taking place at any given time, varying from cases where options from repair to renewal are explicitly under consideration through full-scale inspections prior to lease renewals and down to routine inspections to anticipate problems and establish future maintenance requirements. In addition, responsibility for maintenance of Government property lies with a wide range of Government Departments. It is not therefore practicable to provide the information in the form requested.

  Staff in post at 1 April 1991

  Complement 1 April 1991

  Statistical

  Administrative

  Statistical

  Administrative

  Grade 5/Chief Statistician

  5

  —

  5

  —

  Grade 6

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Grade 7/Statistician

  22

  4

  22

  3

  138
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the structural investigation currently being undertaken into Centre 1, East Kilbride.

  Mr. Yeo
  Investigations have shown that Centre 1 requires considerable repair and refurbishment. My Department has appointed Hugh Martin Partnership, assisted by the Property Services Agency, to compare the long-run value for money of effecting the necessary remedial work with the alternative of developing a new building elsewhere in East Kilbride.

  Gulf Coral Atolls
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many experts work for his Department on the protection of fragile coral atolls in the northern Gulf; what contact he has had with Dr. Nigel Downing, formerly of the Kuwaiti scientific service, on the damage to fish larvae; and how many civilians working on the ecological consequences of the Gulf war have been flown to Kuwait at Her Majesty's Government's expense.

  Mr. Baldry
  The protection of coral atolls in the northern Gulf lies outside the direct responsibilities of my Department. On the action that we have taken to pass Dr. Downing's concerns to the Government of Kuwait, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him on 21 March 1991,Official Report, Vol. 188, column 171. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the transport cost of a team of three officials of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who flew to the Gulf in response to a specific request from the Government of Saudi Arabia.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for each year from 1979–80, including 1991–92, the number of staff actually employed on 1 April and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in his Department; and if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 29 April 1991]: The numbers and grades of staff and complement in the statistical divisions1 of DOE (Central) are set out in the table.

  1 The statistical divisions in DOE (Central) comprise housing data statistics, finance local authority statistics, land and general statistics, environmental protection statistics, and construction industry statistics.

  There are also statisticians employed throughout the Department in posts of a largely administrative nature: these numbered 10 at 1 April 1991.

  We do not have readily available historical data for each year back to 1 April 1979, but I have provided staff in post data for various dates within the 1979–80 to 1991–92 period in my replies to questions dated 21 July 1988, 13 March 1989 and 6 March 1990.
  139

  Staff in post at 1 April 1991

  Complement 1 April 1991

  Statistical

  Administrative

  Statistical

  Administrative

  SEO

  —

  4

  —

  4

  HEO/Senior Assistant Statistician

  3

  12

  3

  16

  EO/Assistant Statistician

  4

  32

  4

  32

  AO

  —

  36

  —

  33·5

  AA

  —

  12

  —

  13

  Sub Total

  35

  101

  35

  102·5

  Total

  136

  137·5

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that extra aid will be provided for St. Helena to cover the whole costs of the current drugs case on the island.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Financial provision has been made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for all the costs of this case.

  Cartagena Convention
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom Government or its representative will be supporting the listing of sea turtles on annex II of the protocol as proposed by the ad hoc meeting of experts for the development of annexes in November 1990 concerning specially protected areas and wildlife under the convention for the protection and development of the marine environment of the wider Caribbean region, Cartagena convention.

  Total expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on press and public relations from 1983–84 to 1989–90, latest estimates for 1990–91 and budget provisions for 1991–92

  (£ million):

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Payments to Central Office of Information for overseas information material and related activities

  17·4

  18·8

  18·3

  18·7

  19·2

  18·3

  18·1

  15·7

  11·9

  Other information services

  0·9

  0·8

  0·9

  0·7

  0·9

  0·9

  3·3

  5·8

  5·5

  Running costs of Diplomatic Wing Information/News Department

  1·8

  1·4

  1·9

  1·9

  2·0

  1·8

  2·4

  3·6

  5·0

  Running costs of ODA Wing Information Department

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·2

  0·2

  0·3

  0·4

  0·4

  0·4

  Costs of information staff at overseas posts

  12·4

  12·8

  13·6

  14·6

  17·6

  17·5

  18·8

  20·2

  21·6

  Total

  32·8

  34·1

  35·0

  36·1

  39·9

  38·8

  43·0

  45·7

  44·4

  Figures for the period before 1983–84 are not available on a comparable basis.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No such fees have been paid for the period in question and there is no expenditure planned.
  140
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We are considering the implications for the dependent territories of all the proposed listings on the annexes of the protocol concerning specially protected areas and wildlife under the Cartagena convention.

  Correspondence Unit
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the volume of correspondence (i) coming in and (ii) being sent out by the Members of Parliament's correspondence unit of the Foreign Office for each month in 1990.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  It is not possible to put a figure to the volume of all correspondence addressed to the Secretary of State and Ministers of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, 14,275 letters were received from Members of Parliament in 1990. It is our policy to reply to all such letters.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Following is the reply:

  Prince Ranariddh Cambodia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Ministers and officials of his Department who met Prince Ranariddh of Cambodia during his recent visit; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, supported by officials of the South-East Asian department of the
  141
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office, met Prince Ranariddh on 24 April to discuss the Cambodian peace process and related matters.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will give separate figures for the spending by the Lord Chancellor's 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.

  The Attorney-General
  The figures for the Lord Chancellor's Department, excluding staff costs, are as follows:

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991–92

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Television advertising

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Radio advertising

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Newspaper advertising

  15,000

  3,967

  50,242

  5,975

  Other promotional material

  32,500

  31,208

  77,968

  82,000

  1 Forecast.

  The breakdown of the amounts spent on respective areas and the amounts spent for the previous years can be obtained only at disproportionate cost, but the total expenditure, including staff costs, was:

  £

  1984–85

  135,730

  1985–86

  176,613

  1986–87

  148,020

  1987–88

  137,001

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Budgets
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list those London education authorities which have delegated the whole of their school budgets;

  (2) if he will list those London education authorities which have delegated the budget for educational psychological services.

  Mr. Fallon
  No local education authority has delegated all its potential schools budget to schools. Nor has any local education authority delegated all the budget for education psychology services.

  The proportions of their potential schools budgets which local education authorities are delegating to schools are listed in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on 21 February, Official Report, columns 235–36, together with the pursuant reply of 22 March, Official Report, column 236.

  Education, Eltham
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many reports by Her Majesty's inspectors have been produced on education in Eltham during the past 10 years; and what arrangements have been made for these reports to be seen by the public.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since 1983, when reports were first published, Her Majesty's inspectorate has produced four reports on education provided for the constituents of Eltham. All four reports were published. Three were institutional inspection reports and one was a survey report on science education in years one to three of some secondary schools in Greenwich.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Eggar
  The expenditure figures for press and public relations by this Department for the financial year 1984–85 to 1990–91 are provided in the table. Figures for 1979 to 1983–84 are not available on a comparable basis. The 1990–91 figure is provisional. The 1991–92 estimate is £2,778·0.

  Year

  £000s

  1984–85

  788·8

  1985–86

  1,026·3

  1986–87

  1,937·8

  1987–88

  2,313·6

  1988–89

  2,336·2

  1989–90

  2,596·0

  1990–91

  2,281·5

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the privatisation of the National Seed Development Organisation Ltd. and assets of the Plant Breeding Institute, the fees and other sale expenses in 1987–88 totalled about £0·6 million as stated in the published appropriation account for class XII, vote 13. In 1986 fees amounted to only £48,000, as stated in the published appropriation account for class XII, vote 4 for 1986–87. This is the only privatisation conducted by this Department in the period referred to.

  Disability and Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration he has given to the document "Guidelines on Disability and Equal Opportunities Issues" drawn up by a working party including disabled teachers and published by the National Union of Teachers; if there is any action he has taken or will be taking; and if he will make a statement.
  143
  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend understands that the National Union of Teachers will be writing to him about the recommendations in its document, "Guidelines on Disability".

  Southwark
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the cost to public funds to date of Bacon's city technology college, Southwark, in each of the financial years since its announcement; what is the latest projected cost up to and including completion; and what proportion of capital moneys expended by his Department in(a) Southwark and (b) the parliamentary constituency of Southwark and Bermondsey on (i) secondary schools, (ii) all schools and (iii) in total this comprises in each of the years in question.

  Mr. Eggar
  Capital expenditure by the Department on the Bacon's city technology college was £1·799 million in 1989–90 and £5·671 million in 1990–91. The building programme is expected to conclude in 1991·92 and the forecast spend is £3·956 million. Information on capital expenditure by the London borough of Southwark since it took over educational responsibilities from ILEA is not yet available. Southwark local education authority's annual capital guideline for 1991–92 was £1·258 million, of which the notional schools' component was £1·220 million. The comparable figures for 1990–91 were £1·429 million, £1·367 million of which was for schools. Southwark's allocation for capital works at voluntary aided schools in 1991–92 was £0·861 million and in 1990–91 was £1·186 million.

  Newcastle upon Tyne Polytechnic
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what rating the Newcastle upon Tyne polytechnic has been given by Her Majesty's inspectors as regards quality of provision of teaching; and whether he has had any discussions with the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council as to how this will be reflected in its funding decisions.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  HMI offers advice to the PCFC programme advisory groups on subject areas, not whole institutions. That advice is used by PCFC in judging claims made for outstanding quality by institutions in their bids for funds. The PCFC programme advisory group accepted Newcastle polytechnic's claims for outstanding quality in six of the nine PCFC programme areas. HMI judgments, subject by subject, are always made known to the institution.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has not had discussions of how these gradings for Newcastle polytechnic will be reflected in its funding decisions. He would not regard it as appropriate to do so arid he is satisfied with the arrangements adopted by PCFC to reward outstanding quality.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the cost in the financial year 1991–92 of restoring entitlement to free school meals to(a) the children of parents on family credit and (b) all others who lost entitlement to free school meals as a result of the Social Security Act 1986, giving figures for Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
  144
  Mr. Fallon
  It is not possible to estimate the cost of reintroducing the wide variety of discretionary schemes which existed prior to the implementation of the Social Security Act 1986.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Pension Fund Surpluses
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider reviewing the permissibility of the practice of companies capitalising on pension fund surpluses to obtain higher rating and funding.

  Mr. Maples
  I have no plans to review accounting treatment for pension fund surpluses as set out in the Companies act 1985 and statement of standard accounting practice (SSAP) 24.

  Tampons
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in 1991–92 and in a full year of zero-rating VAT on sanitary towels and tampons.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information is not available on which to base an estimate.

  Accident Prevention Equipment
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of loss of revenue if items of home safety equipment were all sold at zero VAT.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information is not available on which to base an estimate.

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

  Mr. Maples
  Figures for the Central Office of Information on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material for the years 1979–80 to 1985–86 were given in the answer at columns 240–42 on 25 November 1986. Figures for the years 1986–87 to 1988–89 were given in the answer at columns 167–68 on 13 March 1990. Figures for the years 1989–90 and 1990–91 are listed in the table below:

  1989–90

  11990–91

  £000s

  £000s

  Television advertising

  45,460

  48,100

  Radio advertising

  2,770

  1,800

  Press advertising

  40,880

  39,800

  Other promotional material

  33,000

  33,700

  1 Estimate

  Detailed decisions on estimated expenditure on advertising through the Central Office of Information on behalf of other Government Departments for 1991–92 are for departmental Ministers.

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

  Mr. Maude
  The total sums paid by Her Majesty's Treasury in fees and commissions to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation since 1979–80 is shown in the table. Where the split between fees and commissions is known this has been shown.

  The costs of the forthcoming secondary sale of BT shares, including total fees paid to advisers, will be reported to Parliament after the sale is completed.

  Year

  Fees

  Commissions

  Total

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1979–80

  n/a

  n/a

  4

  1980–81

  0

  0

  0

  1981–82

  n/a

  n/a

  7

  1982–83

  0

  0

  0

  1983–84

  n/a

  n/a

  23

  1984–85

  n/a

  n/a

  2

  1985–86

  18

  17

  35

  1986–87

  0

  0

  0

  1987–88

  79

  40

  119

  1988–89

  2

  0

  2

  1989–90

  1

  0

  1

  1990–91

  1

  0

  1

  1 Negligible.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total expenditure by the Treasury on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Her Majesty's Treasury press and public relations expenditure is as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  548,264

  1989–90

  564,691

  1990–91

  510,489

  1991–92

  1560,989

  1 Estimate.

  Comparable figures on press and public relations from 1979–80 to 1987–88 are unavailable and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Top Rate Taxpayers
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate for the total number of top rate taxpayers after the Budget changes in 1991–92.

  Mr. Maude
  About 1·7 million taxpayers are estimated to be liable to pay tax at the higher rate in 1991–92.

  VAT
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for 1991–92 the additional revenue that would be generated by an increase of 5 per cent. in the rate of value added tax levied on those products which were historically subject to a 25 per cent. purchase tax.
  146
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Around £2·5 billion in a full year.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total burden to commerce and industry of re-programming computers, reprinting brochures, changing notices and other indirect costs arising from the change in the rate of value added tax.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is accepted that the change in rate will involve some additional and unavoidable compliance costs for business, but there is no readily available means of estimating them. However, these one-off costs should be viewed against the impact of the Budget as a whole, which is to reduce the burden which the tax system imposes on business.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give the average extra cost per person per year of the extra 2·5 per cent. VAT announced in the Budget to(a) people in the Glanford and Scunthorpe constituency and (b) the national average.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 29 April 1991]: Information is not available that would permit us to estimate the extra cost per person in the Glanford and Scunthorpe constituency.

  The extra yield in a full year of the VAT increase is £5·5 billion and the population is around 57 million—this suggests an average cost of £96 per person.

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of individuals in 1991–92 claiming(a) the additional personal allowance and (b) the widow's bereavement allowance.

  Mr. Maude
  In 1991–92 the number of individuals claiming the additional personal allowance is estimated to be 480,000. The corresponding figure for the widow's bereavement allowance is 130,000.

  Earnings
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for 1991–92 the numbers of men and women with earnings below(a) the tax threshold and (b) the national insurance contribution threshold.

  Mr. Maude
  Provisional estimates for 1991–92, based on projections from the 1988 and 1989 family expenditure surveys, are as follows:

  Women

  Men

  Numbers (millions) with earnings below

  Tax threshold

  2·9

  1·0

  National insurance lower earnings limit

  2·25

  0·75

  National Savings
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he plans to change the aims of national savings.

  Mr. Maples
  Yes. I have decided that the following national savings aims should apply for 1991–92:To attract personal saving as required by the Government's funding policy.

  147
  To encourage the saving habit among a wide range of people.
  To give our customers a good, prompt and friendly service.
  To market a range of products, with particular emphasis on encouraging longer-term saving.

  Staff are to meet these aims within resource levels decided by Ministers and with the continuing objective of improving economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

  Coinage
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the new copper-coated steel 1p and 2p pieces to be introduced in 1992 will, if magnetised, affect the operation of credit cards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 29 April 1991]: The Royal Mint has advised that it is not aware of any such problems in countries that have been using low carbon mild steel in coins.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Independent Radio News
  Sir Robert McCrindle
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the provision made to accommodate Independent Radio News within the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: I understand IRN currently occupies space in No. 1 Bridge street, a building in the charge of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

DEFENCE

  Air Defence Operations
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the grading of air electronic operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The decision to reduce the pay banding of master and flight sergeant air electronic operator with effect from 1 October 1989 has generated about 35 representations.

  Downbanding was implemented after three job evaluations over a period of six years had shown it to be justified. In accordance with normal practice, no one suffered a cut in pay; personnel affected kept their existing pay rates on a mark-time basis.

  Helicopters
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many helicopters of the British armed forces have been used in(a) the Gulf war and (b) assisting Kurdish refugees.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Some 100 British armed forces' helicopters were used in the Gulf war. On 30 April there were 12 RAF Chinook helicopters based in Turkey undertaking relief operations.

  Peace Dividend
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current estimated saving arising out of the peace dividend.
  148
  Mr. Tom King
  Since 1985, United Kingdom defence spending has reduced in real terms by over 10 per cent.—excluding the cost of the Gulf conflict. Figures for coming years are set out in the public expenditure White Paper.

  NATO
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with other Defence Ministers regarding the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I am in regular contact with my alliance colleagues on a range of defence issues, including the future evolution of NATO in the light of the London declaration.

  Army (Current Enlistment)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons are currently enlisted in the Army; and how many of these are based(a) in Wales, (b) in the United Kingdom and (c) abroad.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  As at 1 March, there were 131,643 other ranks enlisted in the Army. Of these, 973 were based in Wales, 70,047 in the rest of the United Kingdom and 60,623 abroad.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete the "Options for Change" inquiry.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish his revised "Options for Change" policy statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  As the hon. Member and my hon. Friend will be aware, we are continuing to study the proposals in "Options for Change" which I announced last July. When we are in a position to take decisions on the final size and shape of the armed forces, I shall of course report further to the House.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current and future employment of British forces in the Gulf.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current level of United Kingdom deployment of armed services in the Gulf region.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown).

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the volunteer forces took part in the Gulf operation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A total of 877 members of the volunteer forces were called out in support of British operations in the Gulf.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the speed of advance of the allied forces in the Gulf war has been assessed to have any strategic implications in the European theatre.
  149
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are considering the outcome of the campaign and the conclusions to be drawn from it, but it is too early to say how the results of this work might be made public.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was estimated to have been spent on the Gulf war by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 24 April 1991, at column 483.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a decision has yet been reached on the issuing of a campaign medal to those members of Her Majesty's forces who served in the war for the liberation of Kuwait.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) on 22 March, Her Majesty the Queen has approved the award of a medal for those who served in the Gulf. Further details about the medal will be announced in due course.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for strengthening the Territorial Army.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is not possible to say what the future strength of the TA will be until the future size and shape of the Regular Army has been decided.

  Unused Airfields
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many unused airfields are owned by his Department; what is the total acreage they cover; and what is his estimate of their value if sold on the open market.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The only unused airfield currently owned by the Ministry of Defence is RAF Bishopscourt in Northern Ireland, consisting of some 577 acres, which is currently being offered for sale on the open market. It is not our policy to disclose our estimate of the value of property in the process of disposal.

  UN Forces
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he intends to contribute United Kingdom troops to a United Nations force to protect refugees from Iraqi troops; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We hope that the United Nations will take over the running of the camps for Kurdish refugees as soon as possible. Any requests from the United Nations for United Kingdom military assistance would be considered in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time. No such request has yet been made.

  Oilfield Fires (Kuwait)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military or administrative assistance his Department is giving to those attempting to extinguish the Kuwaiti oilfield fires; and what military lessons his Department has drawn from this environmental disaster.
  150
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Assistance and advice has been provided on the disposal of unexploded ordnance by Royal Engineers personnel in Kuwait. In addition, the Royal Engineers have given safety briefings and have produced maps showing danger areas and leaflets giving safety advice. As for the lessons learnt, all aspects of the Gulf conflict are currently being investigated.

  Chieftain Tank
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the lessons of the Gulf conflict have now enabled him to decide on the most suitable replacement for Chieftain tanks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We hope that a decision will not have to be delayed too long.

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

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The only privatisation my Department has undertaken since 1979 was the sale of Royal Ordnance plc, following an open competition, to British Aerospace plc in April 1987. The fees paid out in respect of that privatisation amounted to £1·9 million for work carried out between 1 January 1985 and completion of the sale.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The earliest year for which figures are available is 1982–83. Figures for the period 1982–83 to 1989–90 are as follows:

  £ million

  1982–83

  5·1

  1983–84

  6·3

  1984–85

  6·8

  1985–86

  6·7

  1986–87

  7·3

  1987–88

  7·0

  1988–89

  7·1

  1989–90

  8·0

  The estimated expenditure figure for 1990–91 is £8·2 million and for 1991–92 £9·2 million.

  Figures for 1979–80, 1980–81 and 1981–82 are not available.

  The figures provided include staff costs and expenditure on films, exhibitions, publications and equipment.

  Nimrod (Airframes)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Nimrod airframes have been purchased; at what cost; and how many such airframes are in current active service.
  151
  Mr. Alan Clark
  Forty-nine Nimrod airframes were purchased and 36 are in current active service. The original cost of these airframes is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate expense.

  AWACS
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many AWACS aircraft have been ordered from the United States: and at what cost.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Seven E-3D AWACS aircraft have been ordered from the United States at a cost of £990 million.

  Al Yamamah Contract
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Al Yamamah contract with Saudi Arabia to be completed.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The formal understandings between Her Majesty's Government and the Saudi Arabian Government specify no date for completion.

  Military Training (Fatalities)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the practice when fatalities among military personnel occur during training, with respect to whether a coroner's court conducts the post mortem; and whether the arrangements differ for regular and territorial personnel, and for domestic and overseas exercises.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I assume that the question relates to coroners' inquests. Should a sudden, violent or unnatural death occur in England or Wales, the coroner for the area concerned is obliged to conduct an inquest in accordance with the Coroners Act 1988. This applies to all service personnel whether of the regular or reserve forces. Coroners are also obliged to investigate the sudden or unnatural death of a person abroad if the body is brought back to England or Wales. Deaths in Scotland or bodies returned to Scotland including those of service personnel are dealt with under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Death Inquiries Act 1976 which allows the relevant procurator fiscal to decide whether a fatal accident inquiry should be held or not.

  Management Strategy
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who will be the budget holders for territorial units under the new management strategy; who will have the power to dismiss unsatisfactory clerical and stores staff in territorial units; and who will have the power to replace clerical staff in territorial units with contracted-out services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The general officer commanding the district in which the unit is located is the budget holder for all funds other than those administered by TAVRAs. Powers of dismissal are held under delegated authority by commanding officers not below the rank of colonel in respect of stores grades with less than five years service, and clerical staff during their probation period. Outside these categories, dismissal may be approved at major general or equivalent level only on the advice of personnel management staff at grade 7 level or above. District headquarters exercise the appropriate powers to replace clerical staff in territorial units with contracted-out services.
  152
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many individuals(a) civilian and (b) military were employed by his Department wholly or mainly on accounting and budget management duties in (a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c) 1990; how many persons his Department envisages employing once the new management strategy is in place; and how many of these were concerned wholly or mainly on duties in connection with volunteer forces.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  TA 2000
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is TA 2000; when its terms of reference were published; if he will place a copy in the Library; whether an interim progress report has been published; and what is its relationship to the study referred to in the debate of 21 February,Official Report, column 546.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  TA 2000 was the name given to an internal aide memoire prepared in the Ministry of Defence in 1989 which listed the current and future improvements then being considered for the TA. It was purely an internal management document to help co-ordination in the Ministry of Defence and is not appropriate for placing in the Library. It covered a wide range of activities including training. The study I referred to on 21 February is considering the organisation of training in order to make the best use of training time. This work was foreseen in TA 2000.

  Bloodhound Missile
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the intended service life of the Bloodhound missile when it first came into service.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Ten years, although this has been progressively extended through a variety of modifications.

  RAF Personnel
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel left the service from(a) armament engineering, (b) mechanical engineering, (c) electrical engineering and (d) electronic engineering, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The numbers of ground airmen, including airwomen, in engineering trades who left the service each year since 1979 are as follows:

  Armaments

  Mechanical

  Electrical

  Electronic

  1980

  100

  610

  155

  433

  1981

  120

  635

  208

  522

  1982

  157

  729

  217

  606

  1983

  128

  688

  212

  585

  1984

  139

  660

  213

  551

  1985

  161

  858

  247

  676

  1986

  147

  921

  258

  702

  1987

  122

  850

  208

  571

  1988

  170

  1,005

  310

  808

  1989

  253

  1,372

  432

  1,152

  1990

  170

  1,157

  330

  808

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel became qualified to serve in(a) armament engineering, (b) mechanical engineering, (c) electrical engineering and (d) electronic engineering, in each year since 1979.
  153
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The numbers of ground airmen, including airwomen, who became qualified to serve in engineering trades are as follows:

  Armaments

  Mechanical

  Electrical

  Electronic

  CY 80

  360

  1,680

  405

  987

  CY 81

  371

  1,552

  397

  833

  CY 82

  72

  301

  198

  802

  CY 83

  276

  153

  324

  571

  CY 84

  260

  1,569

  335

  817

  CY 85

  222

  1,075

  252

  942

  CY 86

  153

  523

  292

  876

  CY 87

  152

  632

  224

  739

  CY 88

  275

  572

  246

  381

  CY 89

  248

  794

  169

  516

  CY 90

  108

  835

  235

  565

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many trained fast jet pilots(a) took premature voluntary retirement and (b) requested premature voluntary retirement in 1989–90.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The number of fast jet pilots who took premature voluntary retirement in financial year 1989–90 was 47. The number who applied for voluntary retirement was 64.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel served in(a) armament engineering, (b) mechanical engineering, (c) electrical engineering and (d) electronic engineering, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The numbers of ground airmen, including airwomen, who were employed on engineering duties in the RAF in each of the years after 1979 are as follows:

  Armaments

  Mechanical

  Electrical

  Electronic

  1 April 1980

  2,493

  14,346

  3,727

  9,633

  1 April 1981

  2,753

  15,416

  3,977

  10,187

  1 April 1982

  3,004

  16,333

  4,166

  9,498

  1 April 1983

  2,919

  15,905

  4,147

  10,694

  1 April 1984

  3,067

  15,370

  4,259

  10,680

  1 April 1985

  3,188

  16,279

  4,381

  10,946

  1 April 1986

  3,249

  16,496

  4,386

  11,212

  1 April 1987

  3,255

  16,098

  4,420

  11,386

  1 April 1988

  3,285

  15,880

  4,436

  11,554

  1 April 1989

  3,390

  15,447

  4,372

  11,127

  1 April 1990

  3,385

  14,868

  4,110

  10,491

  1 April 1991

  3,323

  14,543

  4,006

  10,253

  Prince Ranariddh (Visit)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Ministers and officials of his Department who met with Prince Ranariddh of Cambodia during his recent visit; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Tornado Aircraft
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tornado aircraft are currently in storage.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Fourteen Tornado aircraft are currently in storage.

SCOTLAND

  Civil Marriages
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the response of local authorities to the Registrar-General's request that schemes should be submitted to him for providing improved facilities for civil marriages within their areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Registrar-General has received interim responses from three of the 12 Scottish local registration authorities. As his letter of November 1990 suggested that authorities should undertake any local consultation procedures about terms and conditions of service of staff before submitting schemes to him, it was anticipated that full responses would take some time to prepare.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report all the paid appointments within his patronage and the annual remuneration paid to each one.

  Mr. Lang
  Table 1 shows the information requested as at 1 July 1990. Table 2 provides information in respect of those appointments for which I am jointly responsible with other Ministers. I have made appointments to four major new bodies since July. Scottish Enterprise has a chairman, salary £43,000, and 10 members, salary £6,000; Highlands and Islands Enterprise has a chairman, salary £57,105, one member with a salary of £52,650 and eight members with salaries of £6,000; the Health Education Board for Scotland has a chairman, salary £13,500, and 10 members, salary £2,000; and the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland has a chairman, salary £20,000, four members with salaries of £8,616 and three members with salaries of £5,385.

  Table 1

  Paid appointments for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible as at 1 July 1990

  Annual salary as at 1 July 1990

  £

  Argyll and Clyde health board

  Chairman

  16,005

  Ayrshire and Arran health board

  Chairman

  13,415

  Borders health board

  Chairman

  10,810

  Caledonian MacBrayne

  Chairman

  15,000

  Seven members

  4,500

  Central Scotland Woodlands Ltd.

  Chairman

  Fee paid

  Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland

  Chairman

  7,939

  Deputy chairman

  5,030

  Six members

  2,500

  Two members

  2,650

  Common Services Agency for the Scottish health service

  management committee

  Chairman

  12,355

  155

  Annual salary as at 1 July 1990

  £

  Counsel to Secretary of State on private legislation procedure

  One member

  10,994

  One member

  7,568

  Countryside Commission for Scotland

  Chairman

  15,365

  Deputy chairman

  6,422

  Crofters Commission

  Chairman

  36,848

  Six members

  9,393

  Cumbernauld development corporation

  Chairman

  18,202

  Deputy chairman

  7,804

  Seven members

  3,525

  One member

  3,735

  Dumfries and Galloway health board

  Chairman

  10,810

  East Kilbride development corporation

  Chairman

  18,202

  Deputy chairman

  8,272

  Five members

  3,525

  Two members

  3,735

  Fife health board

  Chairman

  13,415

  Forth Valley health board

  Chairman

  13,415

  Glenrothes development corporation

  Chairman

  18,202

  Deputy chairman

  7,804

  Eight members

  3,525

  Grampian health board

  Chairman

  18,250

  Greater Glasgow health board

  Chairman

  22,730

  Highland and Islands development board (replaced by Highlands and Islands Enterprise from 1 April 1991)

  Chairman

  56,540

  Deputy chairman

  52,130

  One member

  46,695

  One member

  41,500

  Three members

  8,123

  Highland health board

  Chairman

  13,415

  Horse Race Betting Levy Appeal Tribunal for Scotland

  Two members

  1109

  Irvine development corporation

  Chairman

  18,202

  Deputy chairman

  8,272

  Seven members

  3,735

  Lanarkshire health board

  Chairman

  16,005

  Livingston development corporation

  Chairman

  17,172

  Deputy chairman

  8,272

  Five members

  3,525

  Two members

  3,735

  Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland

  Chairman

  4,691

  Vice chairman

  11,122

  156

  Annual salary as at 1 July 1990

  £

  Three members

  1,573

  Lothian health board

  Chairman

  20,490

  Orkney health board

  Chairman

  6,510

  Preliminary review committee for life sentence prisoners

  Three members

  2

  Red deer commission

  Chairman

  15,173

  Rent assessment panel for Scotland

  President

  12,471

  Vice president

  7,863

  Scottish Agricultural Wages Board

  Chairman

  1137

  Three members

  187

  Scottish Dental Practice Board

  Chairman

  33,991

  Scottish Development Agency (replaced by Scottish Enterprise from 1 April 1991)

  Chairman

  38,836

  Deputy chairman

  19,665

  Five members

  5,330

  Scottish Homes

  Chairman

  30,719

  Deputy chairman

  13,957

  Seven members

  5,330

  Scottish Hydro-Electric PLC

  Chairman

  39,750

  Three members

  4,860

  Three members

  60,000

  One member

  79,700

  Scottish Legal Aid Board

  Chairman

  17,170

  14 members

  8,529

  Scottish Power PLC

  Chairman

  66,900

  Four members

  4,860

  One member

  66,000

  One member

  63,000

  One member

  57,000

  One member

  54,000

  Scottish Seed Potato Development Council

  Chairman

  7,110

  Scottish tourist board

  Chairman

  28,048

  Five members

  5,330

  Scottish Transport Group

  Chairman

  64,610

  Deputy chairman

  12,922

  One member

  6,804

  Three members

  5,184

  Shetland health board

  Chairman

  6,510

  State hospital management committee

  Chairman

  11,955

  Tayside health board

  Chairman

  18,250

  157

  Annual salary as at 1 July 1990

  £

  Western Isles health board

  Chairman

  6,510

  1 Per day.

  2 Varied daily fees paid.

  Table 2

  Paid appointments made jointly by Secretary of State for Scotland and other ministers as at 1 July 1990

  Annual salary as at 1 July 1990

  £

  Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards

  Chairman

  21,450

  Deputy chairman

  7,900

  Agricultural Training Board

  Chairman

  6,589

  Deputy Chairman

  6,041

  British Wool Marketing Board

  Three members

  5,675

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

  Chairman

  22,650

  Director General of Electricity Supply

  71,000

  Food from Britain

  Chairman

  30,000

  Deputy chairman

  4,290

  One member

  4,290

  Nine members

  1,895

  Two members

  1,804

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  Chairman

  15,441

  Deputy chairman

  5,330

  19 members

  2,660

  Horticultural Development Council

  Chairman

  21,138

  Deputy chairman

  3,830

  20 members

  125

  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

  Chairman

  5,477

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Chairman

  45,453

  Deputy chairman

  22,465

  One member

  10,840

  Nine members

  5,330

  National Radiological Protection Board

  Chairman

  9,310

  12 members

  166

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  Chairman

  25,490

  10 members

  5,330

  United Kingdom Seeds Executive

  Chairman

  6,689

  Four members

  2,382

  1 Per day.

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

  Mr. Lang
  The total sums paid out by my Department in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation since 1979–80 are shown in the following table.

  Year

  £ million

  1987–88

  0·616

  1988–89

  2·246

  1989–90

  4·001

  1990–91

  15·126

  1 Estimated outturn.

  The total costs of the current privatisation of Scottish Power, Scottish Hydro-Electric and the Scottish Bus Group, including fees paid to advisers, will be reported to Parliament after the sales have been completed.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Lang
  The running costs of the Scottish Office information directorate for each year from 1985–86 are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1985–86

  0·9

  1986–87

  1·0

  1987–88

  1·1

  1988–89

  1·2

  1989–90

  1·4

  1990–91

  1·7

  11991–92

  1·9

  1 Plans.

  These figures exclude expenditure on information campaigns.

  Directly comparable figures for years prior to the introduction of new Scottish Office budgetary arrangements in 1985–86 are not available.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will break down the expenditure on industry, energy, trade and employment, excluding Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, in every year since 1986–87 and include plans for 1991–92.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 22 April 1991]: The information requested is shown in the table below. The figures for 1986–87 to 1989–90 are taken from the appropriation accounts. The figures for 1990–91 are consistent with those shown in the main estimates for 1991–92.
  159

  £ million1

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Outturn

  Estimated outturn

  Plans

  Regional Selective Assistance

  41·2

  43·2

  41·3

  40·5

  67·4

  73·8

  Regional Development Grant

  166·3

  75·2

  74·0

  58·6

  40·7

  25·5

  Regional Enterprise Grant

  —

  —

  0·2

  1·5

  2·8

  5·2

  Central and Miscellaneous Services

  0·5

  0·2

  0·3

  0·3

  1·2

  0·6

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  213·8

  Highlands and Islands Development Board

  26·3

  26·2

  31·6

  33·6

  32·8

  —

  Scottish Development Agency

  89·3

  93·9

  87·5

  97·5

  101·3

  —

  Total3

  323·6

  238·6

  234·8

  231·9

  246·2

  4118·9

  Notes:

  1Figures have been rounded to the nearest £0·1 million and totals may, in consequence, not add up.

  2Prior to 1 April 1991 TVEI in Scotland was the responsibility of the Department of Employment.

  3These are net figures. Total expenditure is higher when receipts are taken into account.

  4Including Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise the total for 1991–92 would be £572·1 million. This figure includes provision for training.

  Building Work
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. Lang
  [holding answer 25 April 1991]: My Department has commissioned buildings as follows:

  £3 million to £5 million

  Over £5 million

  Number

  Locations

  Number

  Locations

  1986–87

  —

  —

  two

  Glasgow sheriff court

  Kilmarnock sheriff court

  1987–88

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89

  —

  —

  one

  Parliament House extension, Edinburgh

  1989–90

  —

  —

  two

  Edinburgh sheriff court Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen

  1990–91

  one

  Falkirk sheriff court

  —

  —

  Sand Eels
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the results of his monitoring of the sand-eel situation in Scottish waters.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 29 April 1991]: The Scottish Office announced on 6 March that the sand-eel fishery in waters around Shetland would remain closed until spawning stock levels recover. This followed receipt of scientific advice that the downward trend in spawning stock levels had continued and that recruitment continued to be poor. The scientific advice on the fishery in the west of Scotland indicates that the stock is in a reasonable condition but that significant diversion of
  160
  effort into the fishery would be undesirable. A consultation paper was therefore issued on 16 April proposing that effort limitation arrangements similar to those in force in 1990 should apply this year. Comments on the paper have been sought by 1 May and it is hoped that a final announcement on the management arrangements can be made shortly after that date.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is the practice that all Forestry Commission land is advertised in the Estates Gazette when it is up for sale; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 29 April 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14 March, Official Report, column 689.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to introduce a child benefit for grandparents who care for a grandchild in the absence of the mother; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  A grandparent who is responsible for bringing up a grandchild can claim child benefit under the existing rules.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the full-year cost of raising child benefit in October to £9·55 a week for all children, assuming a corresponding increase in income-related benefit allowances for children and in child dependency increases paid with national insurance benefits, giving figures for Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  The cost for Great Britain over that of next October's actual benefit increases would be £695 million. Information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Benefit (Young Persons)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) of 26 July 1990,Official Report, columns 494–95, when he now expects to publish the results of research into the way in which benefit provision for 16 and 17-year-olds is working.

  Mr. Jack
  We expect to publish a report later in the spring.

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many community charge payers in Lambeth were in receipt of community charge benefit at the last period for which figures are available to his Department based on claims for refunds.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 14 February 1991 at column 578.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of persons in each local authority area in Scotland in receipt of(a) full rebate of 80 per cent. of their community charge and (b) exemption from payment of 80 per cent. of their community charge.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is as follows:

  Regional councils

  Persons in receipt of maximum 80 per cent, community charge benefit with income support as at November 1990

  Persons exempt from payment of the community charge as at July 1990

  Borders

  5,000

  410

  Central

  22,000

  4,080

  Dumfries and Galloway

  10,000

  800

  Fife

  26,000

  1,760

  Grampian

  24,000

  3,400

  Highland

  11,000

  780

  Lothian

  35,000

  4,400

  Strathclyde

  274,000

  35,110

  Tayside

  30,000

  2,060

  Orkney

  1,000

  320

  Shetland

  11,000

  260

  Western Isles

  4,000

  140

  Total Scotland

  443,000

  53,520

  1 Estimated.

  In addition to the above exemptions there were, in July 1990, 99,460 students in Scotland who were liable to pay only 20 per cent. of the full community charge.

  The number of people receiving maximum community charge benefit is slightly underestimated because a small number of people not in receipt of income support also receive the maximum benefit.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to publicise the arrangements and closing date for applications for claiming the special cold weather payments in respect of the February cold snap.

  Mr. Scott
  Advertisements placed in national and local newspapers at the time of the cold snap explained how to 162
  claim and advised that claims would be accepted up to three months after the period of cold weather. Local radio stations broadcast information and posters and leaflets were also distributed by local offices.

  Single Payments (Appeals)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state, for the number of appeals made against the refusal of single payments needing supplementary benefit appeal tribunals in 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88, what proportion were successful(a) where neither claimants nor representatives attended, (b) where the claimant attended but was unrepresented and (c) where the claimant attended with a representative.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the table.

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  (a) Neither appellant nor representative attended

  4·63

  4·31

  4·62

  (b) Appellant only attended

  10·95

  9·67

  9·25

  (c) Appellant and representative attended

  9·50

  7·92

  8·26

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many council tenants were in receipt of housing benefit at the end of the last period for which figures are available to his Department based on claims for refund of housing benefit by his Department to Lambeth.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As at 30 November 1990, the housing benefit rent rebate case load in the London borough of Lambeth was 20,931.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Jack
  No such fees have been identified, and no such expenditure is planned for 1991–92.

  Pensions (Increases)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost in 1991–92 of raising the single pension by £5 a week and the married pension by £8 a week above current levels(a) assuming a similar increase in income-related benefits and (b) net of income-related benefits, giving figures for Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The net additional cost of increasing the basic retirement pension in this way for pensioners in Great Britain would be(a) around £2·5 billion with a corresponding increase in income-related benefits and (b) around £1·6 billion with no such corresponding increase. Information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Budgeting and Crisis Loans
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in respect of his Bradford east office how many applications were received in 1990–91 for(a) budgeting loans and (b) crisis loans; and how many refusals there were in each category.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what allocations there were in 1988–89, 1989–90 and for 1991–92 in respect of(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans for each of the Bradford offices.

  Mr. Scott
  Information on allocations for all offices is available in the Library.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in 1991–92 of extending liability to national insurance contributions on(a) company cars and (b) free fuel to employees earning over £8,500 a year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government's proposal to extend employers' national insurance contribution liability to the benefit gained from cars and fuel provided by them will have no effect on Treasury revenues in 1991–92. It is estimated that these proposals will yield an extra £550 million in respect of cars, and £60 million in respect of fuel, for the 1991–92 year. However the payment to be made by employers in respect of the 1991–92 year will not be made until early in 1992–93. These amounts will be apportioned between the national insurance fund and the national health service. There will be no added liability on employees.

  Tax paying employers will be able to claim corporation tax or income tax relief, which will reduce income to the Consolidated Fund by about £200 million in a full year.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost in the financial year 1991–92 of raising the invalid care allowance to the level of the category A retirement pension, giving figures for Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Scott
  The estimated gross cost for Great Britain is £116·6 million. The estimate is based on the public expenditure plans contained in the current Departmental Report (Cm. 1514). Information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost in the financial year 1991–92 of converting all social fund loans into grants, giving figures for Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Scott
  The level of loan recoveries in 1991–92 assumed in determining the gross discretionary budget for 164
  Great Britain is £128 million—from past loans, as well as those made in 1991–92. This is not necessarily a valid estimate of the cost of converting all discretionary loans into grants, as the latter would fundamentally change the nature of the scheme.

  Information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures on social fund and single payment expenditure on the same basis as those provided to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North on 19 April,Official Report, column 270, excluding any expenditure on maternity and funeral payments.

  Mr. Scott
  Direct comparisons between expenditure on single payments in 1987–88 and social fund expenditure in 1990–91 are misleading, given the very different scope of the two schemes.

  The information requested is shown in the table. The figures exclude help with maternity expenses and assistance provided with the cost of funerals.

  Single payments

  1987–88: £214 million (cash) £263 million (at 1990–91 prices1)

  Social fund

  1990–91 (provisional): £232 million 12 per cent. (percentage reduction)

  1 Calculated using the estimated gross domestic product deflator.

  Income Support
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost in the financial year 1991–92 of restoring entitlement to income support for all 16 and 17-year-olds at(a) the current benefit rate for under-25s and (b) the current benefit rate for people 25 and over, giving figures for Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to him on 12 December 1990 at column 424 which quoted figures for Great Britain. Information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost in the financial year 1991–92 of raising the income support personal allowance for people aged 18 to 24 years to the level of the personal allowance for those aged 25 and over, giving figures for Great Britain and the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The cost in the financial year 1991–92 of raising the income support personal allowance for people aged 18 to 24 years in Great Britain to the level of the personal allowance for those aged 25 and over would be around £185 million. There would be additional costs due to increased expenditure on housing benefit and community charge benefit.

  Information relating to Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1986–7–8 family expenditure surveys and the 1989 ASE uprated to 1991–92 price and benefit levels.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Horticultural Wholesalers
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many horticultural wholesalers have gone out of business in England in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Curry
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current members of the Meat and Livestock Commission, and give the relevant experience of each member; how many members of the commission are females; and what percentage of the total membership they comprise.

  Mr. Maclean
  The members of the Meat and Livestock Commission and their relevant interests are as follows. There are 13 commissioners, one of whom is a woman. This comprises 8 per cent. of the membership.

  Mr. G. John—Chairman. Has a wide experience of the food industry, is non-executive Chairman of Dairy Crest Ltd. and serves on the Council of Food From Britain.

  Mr. Werner Mattes—Deputy Chairman and founder member of Matteson's Meat Ltd.

  Mrs. E. Rose—Chairman of Consumers' Committee of the MLC. Past Chairman of the Institute of Home Economics.

  Mr. G. Adams—Extensive interests in fresh meat wholesaling, slaughtering and distribution of meat.

  Mr. J. Baker—Joint Managing Director of the Baker Group of companies which includes Midland Meat Packers. A former President of the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers.

  Mr. D. Curry—Hill farmer.

  Mr. A. Mason—Chairman of Buchan Meats a farmer co-operative meat company.

  Mr. Meuric Rees—Farmer.

  Mr. P. Redshaw—Arable and livestock farmer. A member of the NFU Pigs Committee.

  Mr. J. Royan—Retail butcher and past President of the Scottish Federation of Meat Traders.

  Mr. A. Roxburgh—Past President of the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers.

  Mr. C. Smith—Meat Trading Director of Tesco Stores Ltd.

  Mr. J. Steer—Managing Director of British Beef Co. Ltd.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the number and incidence by year and county of confirmed bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases known to have been born to bovine spongiform encephalopathy infected dams.

  Mr. Maclean
  There have been 27 such cases, of which 26 were born before the ban on the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminant animals in July 1988. The breakdown is as follows:166

  County

  Year in which BSE in offspring confirmed

  Number

  Avon

  1990

  2

  Berkshire

  1991

  1

  Cheshire

  1991

  1

  Cornwall

  1988

  1

  Cornwall

  1990

  2

  Cornwall

  1991

  1

  Devon

  1989

  1

  Devon

  1991

  3

  Dorset

  1990

  2

  Dyfed

  1991

  1

  Gloucestershire

  1991

  1

  Hampshire

  1989

  1

  Leicestershire

  1990

  2

  Norfolk

  1990

  1

  Oxfordshire

  1990

  1

  Somerset

  1989

  1

  Staffordshire

  1990

  1

  Sussex West

  1991

  1

  Wiltshire

  1989

  1

  Wiltshire

  1991

  2

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in each county of England and Wales for the four-week periods ended 17 March and 17 April, respectively.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information for England and Wales is as follows:

  County

  Confirmed cases four-week period ending 17 March 1991

  Confirmed cases four-week period ending 17 April 1991

  Avon

  36

  18

  Bedfordshire

  3

  1

  Berkshire

  5

  9

  Buckinghamshire

  12

  5

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  1

  Cheshire

  49

  53

  Cleveland

  0

  1

  Clwyd

  22

  11

  Cornwall

  91

  61

  Cumbria

  24

  16

  Derbyshire

  23

  21

  Devon

  123

  131

  Dorset

  91

  99

  Durham

  3

  3

  Dyfed

  72

  66

  Essex

  5

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  2

  2

  South Glamorgan

  5

  1

  West Glamorgan

  0

  2

  Gloucestershire

  50

  37

  Gwent

  5

  8

  Gwynedd

  3

  2

  Hampshire

  44

  16

  Hereford and Worcester

  9

  29

  Hertfordshire

  5

  5

  Humberside

  6

  3

  Isle of Wight

  9

  10

  Kent

  28

  12

  Lancashire

  23

  47

  Leicestershire

  35

  25

  Lincolnshire

  13

  11

  London

  1

  0

  Manchester

  4

  5

  Norfolk

  25

  10

  Northamptonshire

  4

  9

  Northumberland

  3

  7

  Nottinghamshire

  11

  5

  Oxfordshire

  14

  15

  Powys

  14

  8

  Shropshire

  20

  41

  167

  County

  Confirmed cases four-week period ending 17 March 1991

  Confirmed cases four-week period ending 17 April 1991

  Somerset

  117

  147

  Staffordshire

  21

  21

  Suffolk

  25

  13

  Surrey

  12

  2

  East Sussex

  21

  13

  West Sussex

  33

  27

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  1

  Warwickshire

  8

  7

  Wiltshire

  81

  78

  North Yorkshire

  58

  44

  South Yorkshire

  4

  1

  West Yorkshire

  2

  6

  TOTAL

  1,280

  1,166

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the location of the live progeny of bovine spongiform encephalopathy cows.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on offspring is recorded as part of the epidemiological inquiry. In addition, since 15 October 1990, farmers have been required to maintain breeding records for cattle; and to keep both these and movement records for 10 years. The offspring of confirmed cases can therefore be traced if necessary.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the current number of live cattle which are the offspring of cows confirmed as suffering from bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  Up to 12 April 1991, the number of offspring recorded as live at the time that epidemiological inquiries were made into each case is 20,694. A number of these will have subsequently been slaughtered or died.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what research he has undertaken to ascertain whether confirmed bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases born to confirmed bovine spongiform encephalopathy dams had suffered vertical transmission of the disease;

  (2) if he has any proposals to restrict the use for breeding purposes of cattle which are themselves the progeny of bovine spongiform encephalopathy cows;

  (3) if he will publish the latest information he has concerning the possible vertical transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) on 27 March 1991 at columns 471–74.

  Farm Water Supplies
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representation he has received from farming businesses over the National River Authority's proposals to charge(a) for discharge consents and (b) for the monitoring of pure water supplies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Prior to the National Rivers Authority issuing its formal proposals on charges for discharge 168
  consents, the Department received representations from individuals and organisations in the fish farming industry, a watercress grower and the Country Landowners Association. These were conveyed to the authority, which took them into account in formulating its proposals. The authority does not have plans to charge for the monitoring of pure water supplies. Earlier this year, the Government issued a consultation paper on private water supplies, which contained details of a proposed local authority charging regime for monitoring. The comments received are being considered by the Departments concerned.

  Cattle (Illegal Hormones)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has received alleging unfair competition from the giving of illegal hormones to cattle in other EC countries; whether he has raised this matter with the European Commission; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received urging the desirability of increasing the number of tests on imported beef for hormones and clenbuterol; and if he will make a statement on measures to protect both producers and consumers in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received a number of representations recently about veterinary drug abuse in the European Community and the testing which is carried out. Under the residues directive 86/469, EC member states are required to carry out a programme of monitoring for residues of veterinary drugs, including hormones and other illegal growth promoters. The Ministry also has in place a programme of surveillance specifically directed at veterinary drug residues in imported meat, including hormones and clenbuterol.

  Surveillance for clenbuterol is being stepped up in 1991, both in terms of the number of animals tested and the range of cattle covered. The position is under continuing review, and if there is evidence of a particular problem, urgent consideration will be given to further increases in the level of monitoring.

  We have not raised this matter with the European Commission although we have discussed the situation with the Irish Minister of Agriculture, and offered him our full support in the steps he is taking against illegal clenbuterol use in the Irish Republic.

  Agricultural Products
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North, 26 March,Official Report, column 378, what was the degree of self-sufficiency in the United Kingdom, European Community, United States of America, Canada and the Cairns group countries of all agricultural products in the years 1979, 1985 and the latest year available.

  Mr. Curry
  United Kingdom self-sufficiency in all food and feed was as follows: 1979, 53·1 per cent.; 1985, 57·7 per cent.; 1990 (provisional) 56·4 per cent. Corresponding information for the other countries referred to is not readily available.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each of the environmentally sensitive areas established in England and for each year of each scheme's existence, the number of

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Applications

  Agreements

  Applications

  Agreements

  Applications

  Agreements

  Applications

  Agreements

  Applications up to 31 March 1991

  Broads

  413

  393

  239

  220

  65

  55

  38

  33

  17

  Pennine dales

  232

  221

  39

  34

  34

  22

  20

  12

  14

  Somerset levels

  566

  524

  148

  117

  75

  59

  48

  41

  36

  South downs

  58

  58

  65

  62

  38

  37

  24

  23

  5

  West Penwith

  158

  158

  10

  9

  12

  10

  3

  2

  1

  Breckland

  —

  —

  86

  84

  36

  32

  24

  23

  11

  North peak

  —

  —

  77

  66

  8

  8

  3

  3

  1

  Shropshire borders

  —

  —

  184

  161

  37

  27

  20

  18

  24

  Suffolk river valleys

  —

  —

  287

  272

  80

  77

  50

  44

  31

  Test valley

  —

  —

  15

  13

  6

  6

  2

  1

  0

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 634, he expects to announce the result of his review of environmentally sensitive areas policy.

  Mr. Curry
  As soon as we have completed our deliberations.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 634, he will publish the studies conducted for him on the costs and savings of his environmentally sensitive areas policy; and what are the conclusions of his evaluation of these studies.

  Mr. Curry
  We intend to publish reports summarising the results of the economic and environmental monitoring of the five environmentally sensitive areas designated in 1987. The conclusions drawn from our evaluation will be clear when we announce the results of our review of ESA policy.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those organisations which he has consulted during his review of hill livestock compensatory allowances.

  Mr. Curry
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 15 April at column 41.

  GATT and Codex Alimentarius Commission
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline his policy on the selection of United Kingdom representatives to GATT.

  Mr. Curry
  The European Commission negotiates in GATT on behalf of member states and in consultation with them. Attendance of Ministers or officials at any meeting is determined in accordance with the nature of the meeting and the subjects under discussion.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his Department's procedures 170
  applicants for entry, the number of applicants accepted for entry and the numbers of successful applicants who have subsequently withdrawn from each scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  The table shows the number of applications in each of the 10 ESAs in England, together with the number of agreements reached for each year of the schemes operations. No agreement holders have subsequently withdrawn.

  for giving formal advice to the United Kingdom delegations to GATT, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, and their respective committees.

  Mr. Curry
  The European Commission negotiates in GATT on behalf of the member States, and in close consultation with their representatives. My officials prepare negotiating briefs for the United Kingdom permanent delegates to GATT which take into account the wide range of United Kingdom interests in the subjects under discussion, and attend important meetings with them. In the codex, the Commission negotiates on matters within Community competence, while on others member States speak individually. The United Kingdom delegation to codex meetings includes officials from my Department when appropriate and may include industry or consumer representatives who can be consulted in the course of discussion.

  Meetings
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those organisations with which he has had formal meetings regarding the United Kingdom's position on the GATT negotiations; and how often he has met representatives of(a) the National Farmers Union, (b) the TGWU agricultural workers section, (c) the National Consumer Council, (d) the Consumers Association, (e) the National Food Alliance, (f) Oxfam, (g) the National Office of Animal Health, (h) the Catholic Institute for International Relations, (i) Christian Aid, (j) the Retail Consortium, (k) the CBI, (l) UKASTA and (m) the Fertiliser Manufacturers Association, to discuss the United Kingdom's position in those negotiations.

  Mr. Curry
  The United Kingdom has played a leading part in development of the Community approach to the agriculture negotiations in GATT. We have discussed the issues and United Kingdom interests with a wide range of organisations on many occasions. To provide precise details of these frequent consultations could only be done at disproportionate cost to public funds.

  Wheat and Grain
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Ariculture, Fisheries and Food what is the level of intervention stock of(a) wheat and (b) grain estimated for July 1991 in the United Kingdom; and how many days' supply this represents.

  Mr. Curry
  Current estimates of wheat and grain likely to be in intervention stores in the United Kingdom at the end of the 1990–91 marketing year on 30 June 1991, and the days' supply these represent, are as follows:

  Million tonnes

  Days' supply

  Wheat

  0

  0

  Grain

  0·67

  12

  Banana Regime
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of the EC's banana regime post-1991.

  Mr. Curry
  The European Commission is currently considering arrangements to apply to bananas in the single European market post-1992, but has not yet come forward with proposals. We are making it clear to the Commission and other member states that any new arrangements must fulfil our commitments to Commonwealth Caribbean suppliers and that they should take account of consumer interests, budgetary discipline, trade policy considerations and the competition and efficiency objectives of the single market initiative.

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

  Mr. Curry
  The Department has not paid any sums to outside organisations for the furtherance of privatisation in the period 1979–80 to 1989–90. We keep continually under review the contribution that the Department might make to the Government's privatisation policy.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Curry
  The information required for the financial years 1979–80 to 1983–84 could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  The figures for the subsequent years are as follows:

  £ million

  1984–85

  3·2

  1985–86

  3·5

  1986–87

  3·0

  1987–88

  0·6

  172

  £ million

  1988–89

  0·8

  1989–90

  1·1

  1990–91

  0·5

  Figures for the years 1984–85 to 1986–87 refer to the total cost of press services and paid publicity which could be separated to show expenditure on press services only at disproportionate cost. Figures for 1987–88 to 1989–90 relate to press services alone. The estimated budget for press services for 1991–92 is £0·6 million.

  Sweeteners in Food Directive
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimate he has made of the loss of sales and jobs which will accrue from the exclusion of snack foods from the sweeteners in food directive 8745/90;

  (2) if he will seek to clarify the reasons why Mr. Bangemann, the European Commissioner, decided on 15 April that snack foods should not be covered by the sweeteners in food directive 8745/90;

  (3) if he will explain the reasons for his confidence that snack food would be covered by the sweeteners in food directive 8745/90; and why he prepared the explanatory papers for Standing Committee A on the basis that they would be so covered;

  (4) if he is aware of any specific health hazards which would accrue from the inclusion of snack food within the terms of the sweeteners in food directive 8745/90.

  Mr. Curry
  Consideration of sweeteners by the United Kingdom's independent expert advisory committees, following official surveys to monitor sweetener intakes, has revealed no health hazard from the current inclusion of these substances in snack foods. We are not aware that the matter has been reviewed by any other expert body. Accordingly, we see no health grounds why the draft EC sweeteners in food directive should not provide for the continuation of this existing practice. We are urgently seeking to clarify why the EC Commission's attitude on this matter appears to have changed since the preparation of the explanatory memorandum for Standing Committee A on the proposals.

  It is the industry's view that sales of £70 million a year would be jeopardised if snack foods did not appear in the Directive. Whether jobs would be lost would depend on the industry's ability to reformulate the flavours concerned or divert resources to other products.

  We aim to highlight identified problem areas in the explanatory memorandum prepared for Standing Committee A. Our expectation, after long negotiations, was that no difficulty existed and that this existing use could be continued. All the indications given by the Commission staff to this officials were that matters would be arranged so as to facilitate this. Industry representatives and Members of the European Parliament who could discuss the matter with Commission officials met the same response. We are urgently seeking to clarify why the Commission's attitude on this matter has since changed.

  European Standing Committees
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that explanatory notes submitted to European Standing
  173
  Committees are based on the terms of the directive; and if he will make it his policy to disregard in such notes expectations by his Department that changes might be permitted by the European Commission.

  Mr. Curry
  Explanatory memoranda are the means by which Parliament is kept in touch with, and is able to comment on, draft EC legislation. All Government explanatory memoranda follow a standard format. This 174
  provides for a factual account of the documents under consideration, but it also allows for the inclusion of additional information, which may depart from the official text. The sole purpose is to keep Parliament as fully informed as possible, and we believe that this is generally welcomed by members of this House. We will try to ensure that all relevant information is included in such documents.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.
Lord Rothschild Lord Rothschild—sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Sports Facilities: Management
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of recent reports by the Audit Commission on local authority provision of sport facilities, what measures they propose to take to ensure the more efficient management of such services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government have introduced legislation requiring local authorities to put the management of their sports facilities out to competitive tendering during 1992. The Government believe that this will result in better value for money from local authority expenditure.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can she say whether there is any evidence that putting out the facilities to competitive tendering has been a success?
Bareness Blatch: My Lords, competitive tendering has been a success. Three years ago Westminster City Council voluntarily entered into a partnership with Civic Leisure Ltd. for the company to manage three leisure centres in the City of Westminster. That has resulted in major refurbishment of the leisure centres, an increased variety of activities offered, reduced costs and, most importantly, an increase in the number of people using the centres.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Baroness enlarge further upon that answer? She referred to one specific authority. Is she able to say whether that applies more generally to all authorities? Is it the case that sports facilities are now being more widely used? In particular, is it the case that many more people are using facilities for which they do not have to pay? Is it the fact, as some of us fear, that local authorities are losing a number of their most important sports facilities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in general where effective management is taking place, whether that is in-house management or, under competitive tendering, private management, the facilities and provision are better. Also, the Audit Commission which produced this report found local authorities lacking in a number of ways. Investment decisions are sometimes poorly thought out. Authorities are not always ready to consider the full range of options. Revenue consequences are not always considered in enough
610
detail. Objectives are rarely quantified and success or failure in meeting objectives is rarely measured and monitored. I could go on. It is essential that management is improved.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to pursue the matter but I have read the report which seemed to concentrate entirely on what one might call management and financial matters. I was concerned as to whether the Audit Commission was aware that the facilities were for the purpose of sporting activities and not for saving or making money. The facilities are provided so that everybody can take part in sport. It may well be that local authorities are not very good as regards management, although I do not agree with that proposition. Does not the noble Baroness agree that for a long time local authorities provided a very wide range of sports facilities? I am concerned that that may not happen in future.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as always the noble Lord, Lord Peston, raises a very important point. The Audit Commission report states that whatever the social aims, local authorities also need financial objectives if they are to manage the facilities properly. Local authorities have found it difficult to strike the right balance between social and financial objectives. When the financial objectives are achieved, the social benefits will follow.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is not my noble friend Lord Peston quite right when he says that this is only one minor facet in the provision of sports facilities for people in general? Will the Minister look at the debate which took place last Wednesday? That indicated a startling reduction in school playing fields because they are being sold off. Swimming pools are being closed down by local authorities because they can no longer afford to keep them open in view of the financial strait jacket imposed upon them by this Government. Is that not the real reason, and the report has little to do with that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I could not disagree more with the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. First, authorities' net expenditure on revenue support for sport is over £400 million per year in England and Wales. In addition, over £100 million capital expenditure is incurred each year. The past 20 years have seen a major expansion in the number of facilities and range of activities offered. Local authorities now manage 1,700 indoor sports facilities as well as many outdoor facilities including over 150 golf courses.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the report produced by the Central Council for Physical Recreation, which is nonpolitical, is lying? I know who I believe.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not making that specific allegation about a report to which at present I am not able to respond. However, I can say that a very detailed study by the Audit Commission has found that it is not about the facilities and provision, which have increased over the past 20 years, but it is about the effective management of those facilities.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are some sports and leisure centres where there is little or no control over the retail sales? A normal retailer in such circumstances would be driven out of business in a short time. Many sports halls make unnecessarily large losses.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. It is important that local authorities are both specific in quantifying objectives and in ensuring that those objectives are achieved by the best possible and most effective management. That management may be by local authorities directly or by private companies. It is the quality of management that is important.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, to keep things in balance, does not the noble Baroness agree that many local authorities that initiated the idea of this kind of recreation for ordinary people in latter years have employed professional people to guide and help them? Sometimes that professional guidance caused some of the criticisms that we are discussing today. We need a sensible liaison between professional people employed in this respect by local authorities and for local authorities to ensure that they receive the best possible advice.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is another important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. It is important that professionals are used when it is necessary to obtain professional advice. At the end of the day it is proper deployment of professional advice and proper and effective management of the facilities which will benefit the populace.

Building Societies: Taxation
2. 45 p. m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty' s Government:
Whether they intend to introduce retrospective legislation to negate the effect of a ruling of this House in its judicial capacity that many building societies were double-taxed illegally in 1986, and if so why.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, Clause 50 of the Finance Bill remedies a technical defect—highlighted by this House in its judicial capacity—in legislation enacted by Parliament in 1985 and 1986. The legislation was intended to secure that building societies accounted for tax on payments of net interest to their investors in the transitional period between the end of their accounting periods in 1985–86 and 5th April 1986. Clause 50 ensures, as Parliament intended, that payments of net interest in the transitional period do not escape tax entirely. There is no double taxation.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, though it is somewhat unconvincing. My Question said nothing in regard to double taxation; in essence it concerned retrospective legislation. Does not the Minister acknowledge that this is a further, but worse, example of retrospective legislation following
612
the retrospective withdrawal of accumulated indexation relief on gilt-edged unit trusts in the 1990 Budget? Does he agree also that when the Labour Party was in office the Conservative Opposition never ceased to criticise it for retrospective legislation? However, since the Conservatives came to power 12 years ago, time and again they have behaved just as badly in the matter of retrospection.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the greatest trepidation I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that six words from the end of his Question it says, "were double taxed illegally". Your Lordships' House found against the Woolwich on its main contention that the transitional provisions were unlawful because they imposed double taxation. However, it ruled that the provisions were invalid because there was no power to charge tax in the 1985–86 rates as the transitional provisions purported to do so.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is a well-established principle that retrospective legislation is justifiable when it is in favour of Her Majesty' s subjects, but not justifiable when it is against their interests?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my noble friend raises a perplexing point. I am not sure whether that which had been removed from the investors of the Woolwich and placed in receipt of the Treasury is to the greater benefit of the taxpayer.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the matter was tested by the Woolwich at three different levels of the judiciary and was finally upheld by the learned Law Lords in this House? This is the second example of the Government seeking retrospective legislation to deal with the matter. Is that not outrageous?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, what was accepted in the High Court was not what was accepted in your Lordships' House. As I pointed out earlier, in your Lordships' House the contention that transitional provisions should be considered unlawful because they imposed double taxation was rejected.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will my noble friend turn his attention to subsection. (4) of Clause 50 of this year' s Finance Bill? Is that not monstrously unfair in that it treats investors in one building society, which took the Inland Revenue to judicial review and won £76 million worth of tax back for its investors, much more favourably than investors in companies which did not? Since the building society movement is a competitive industry, are not the Government skewing that competition?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as my noble friend is aware, the provisions introduced in 1986 brought building societies into line with the provisions with regard to quarterly payments that existed for the clearing banks.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, arising from the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is it still the Government' s view that, as

613
regards taxpayers, the more money which is left in their rockets and the less that the Treasury gets, the better it is from the country' s point of view? That is the view that the Conservative Party and the previous Prime Minister have shouted from the house tops over many years. Have the Government now changed their policy?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I pointed out earlier that investors' money was not involved as tax on that had already been taken on behalf of the Treasury by the building societies.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the point is that the revenue regulations of 1986 were invalid and were declared so by your Lordships' Judicial Committee? The Government are now seeking to legalise them not just retrospectively but retroactively. Is the Minister saying:hat that is a proper procedure for government when dealing with about £250 million?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, confirms what I said earlier. He quite rightly referred to the regulations rather than the provision and the spirit desired by Parliament, as I also pointed out in my original Answer.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I represent the interests of consumers on a building society board? Does he agree that the building society movement is based entirely on the principle of mutuality and that by penalising the building societies in this way the Government will also be penalising their members?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I pointed out earlier, we have no desire for any form of double taxation. We had to ensure that a certain amount of taxation was paid according to the requirements of the 1986 Act.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, is my noble friend prepared to meet someone to discuss this matter? On the whole the building societies are not bad at accounts. They are quite convinced that they are paying double taxation. They would like to express that view to a responsible official.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, your Lordships' House rejected that proposition.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Lord a little further. He said that I was right and I am sure that the noble Lord is right in his assertion. We are supposedly dealing with regulations that were made in 1986 by the Inland Revenue under the Taxes Act, which turned out to be invalid. They were declared by the House of Lords to be so. Is it not correct that it is those regulations that the Finance Bill is seeking to validate retrospectively and retroactively? Is that the way to go about good government?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there is a great difference between changing regulation and changing principle.

Industrial Workers: Take-Home Pay
2. 53 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the United Kingdom compares with other European countries in the amount of take-home pay, after tax, of industrial workers earning the average industrial wage.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, international comparisons should be interpreted with care. Figures produced by the OECD for 1989 show a comparison for 17 European countries. The take-home pay after tax and national insurance contributions of a single industrial worker in the United Kingdom on the average industrial wage was £8,414. That figure was exceeded only in Luxembourg and Switzerland.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that these are surprising figures? Does he agree that they need to be more widely known than just through this Question? Does the Minister agree that they underline the need to keep wages relatively steady if we are to increase our exports, reduce our imports and, above all, reduce unemployment?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. We are at the top of the earnings league within those 17 countries. It is important to remember that the actual burden of tax in the United Kingdom for a single person is about 27. 4 per cent. compared with about 46 per cent. in Denmark and 37 per cent. in Sweden.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may say that both the noble Lord and his noble friend are technically wrong. It is not the net pay after tax that is relevant to our industrial costs; it is the grossed-up pay. What has been said is quite misleading. I am not sure which way round the Government wish us to read these figures. Does the noble Lord wish us to read them as high, which is good because our workers are doing so well; or does he want us to read the figures as being high, which is bad because our workers are too greedy? Can the noble Lord tell us the Government' s position on that matter?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, wishes to see them as poor and the figures to be low. The reality is that the figures reveal a fact which is often hidden that is to say, that there is good news in terms of the rewards which the British working man receives today for his endeavours in this country.
Lord Peston: My Lords, so I am right. The noble Lord does not wish to attack the labour force in this country or those who lead it, for being too greedy. I am right in saying that the Government approve of these high wages?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, successful Government depends on avoiding simplicity. There is a happy balance which depends on those who work in the United Kingdom receiving a proper reward and the successful progress of the country's economy.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the wages of the average industrial worker. Do the figures refer to the male and female combined or only the male? If they refer to the male and female combined what will the result be?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is very interested in the family. I have the figure for the take-home pay for a family with two children. The figure is £9, 566 which is exceeded by Luxembourg, Norway and Switzerland.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, that is no answer at all. I asked whether the figures given were the combined figures for both male and female. At this moment I am interested not in the family but in knowing what men and women are earning together or whether the figures given relate just to the male?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not have a separate figure for females. I have the figure for the number of females working in the economy and I am sure that the noble Baroness also has that. One has to remember that the combined figure is an accurate across-the-board statistic to give an indicator.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the important figures are the unit costs of production and not those that he is quoting at the moment? Does he also agree that some of the figures quoted for increases in boardroom payments make it extremely difficult to restrict working-class claims for some degree of equity?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asks a question which in a way tries to avoid the first Answer that I gave. The reality is that the average worker in the United Kingdom is doing exceptionally well within a competitive Europe. Companies will reward all their employees from the lowest to the highest on the basis of what they feel they can contribute. I am sure that on the Benches opposite there is a desire to resist returns being given to those who have made a contribution. That is a difference in philosophy and it is one which will be reflected by a falling economy if the party opposite ever comes to power.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say where Sweden comes in the batting league with its long history of socialism?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is very expensive. Interestingly, the figures are these. In terms of net value take-home pay for a two-child family in Sweden—which we are often told is a paradise—the figure is £6, 800 compared to £9, 500 in this country.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during an exchange which took place a short time ago in this House on the rates of pay for industrial workers in this country and those of our competitors in the rest of Europe, it was stated that our rates of pay were considerably lower certainly in engineering and manufacturing? Is the Minister also aware that our hourly rates of pay are well below those of our German and French competitors? Can
616
the Minister say how he arrives at the figures which indicate that we are better off? What is happening in between? I believe that the figures are still the same.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Dean, takes issue with the OECD figures, I am sure that he will take the matter up. I feel that it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to present those before the House today.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Lord acknowledge that these figures are meaningless unless they take into account also the factor of productivity?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, they would be meaningless if the Question revolved around productivity. The Question on the Order Paper does not revolve around productivity. It deals with real pay in comparable states in Europe.

The Council Tax
3 p. m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty' s Government:
Whether their policy of single occupancy rebates in their proposed new council tax is designed to help the better-off members of the community.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, "rebates" are designed to help those on low incomes. In addition we propose that there should be discounts which are designed to help all single-adult households.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in December 1987 the present Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Heseltine, stated—he was then a Back-Bencher so I cannot quote him verbatim—that he had rejected the concept of the single person rebate on the ground that it significantly helped the better off section of our community? If that was true in 1987, what has changed since?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not for me at the Dispatch Box to defend what was said in 1987. I do not know the source, the context or anything about the specific quotation. What I do know is that the present review is about looking forward and not about looking backwards.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is it not a fact that, contrary to popular belief, as concerns local authority services one person can live more cheaply than two?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in some ways that is true, but not in all ways. When a light is on in a room it is just as expensive to have it on for one person as for more than one person. Some costs are certainly cheaper and some costs simply do not change.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it not also a fact that widows, widowers, bachelors and spinsters are to be found among all income groups, while one-parent families tend to be mainly among the lower income groups? Therefore it would not seem that the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is well founded.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, used the word "rebate" when in fact he meant discount. Single occupancy households constitute about one-third of all households. Of those two-thirds are occupied by people over 60. Of those people over 60, many of them will qualify for rebates. Under the new system the rebates will go up to 100 per cent. of the cost.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is it not a fact that, because this new Whitehall tax is not properly linked to ability to pay, Londoners will pay twice as much as people in the rest of Britain? More Londoners will pay the top rates. In inner London alone 63 per cent. of properties are valued at more than £88, 000. The figure in Camden is 76.1 per cent. Many of those properties are council tenancies. Is this discrepancy intentional, or is it due to yet more faulty and botched planning?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is a considerable ability to pay element about the new council tax. First, there is a differentiation between people who live in low cost homes and those who live in high cost homes. Secondly, there is a rebate system which goes to 100 per cent. rebates to recognise the incomes of individuals when having to pay the tax. Thirdly, when one is comparing an affluent part of the country with a less affluent part—for example, if one is comparing the South and South-East with parts of the North-West and North-East—there is no question whatever that there is a differential in salaries, wages and so on. People on low incomes will be recognised in the new system. If the noble Lord spent some time looking at the illustrative figures he would find, for example, that, simply because of overspending by an individual local authority, someone in an A band house, which is the lowest end of the band, could be spending more than someone living in a higher band house in another authority.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that there is in fact no direct correlation between the tax which is to be charged and people' s ability to pay?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is suggesting that one should take the income of every single individual and apply the cost in that way, as I understand is the policy of his party. Perhaps I may point out, that a very large number of people do not pay tax, so there would have to be another system for finding cut people' s income. With regard to those who do pay tax, and taking into account the overspending of local authorities today—the noble Lord has been critical, 3f capping—the amount of taxation that would fall on families on middle incomes and above would be excessive in the extreme.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the announcement of this new tax has given rise to an enormous number of questions which as yet it has been totally impossible to answer? A great deal of thought must go into this matter. Does my noble friend not further agree that the whole nation might be best served if perhaps we could be
618
aware of the possible inequalities or difficulties? Generally speaking, we should try to give the tax a bit of a fair wind and, at any rate, try to come out with something that meets the needs of all concerned. We should try not to jump the gun in the early stages.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not entirely as pessimistic as my noble friend. I believe that many of the difficulties can be met. This tax is fairer, simpler and easier to collect. There is a rebate system for people on low incomes. There is a discount for people in single occupancy and for students and student nurses. The more people learn about this system, the more they will appreciate it in comparison with the alternatives.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Baroness about the number of bands. The other day it was to be seven bands and then the number rose to nine. One hears now that it is to be seven again, as the Government fumble about. What is the latest figure and what will it be next week?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, the noble Lord is comparing speculation with what the Government have said so far. The Government's preferred option is for a seven-band system. The newspapers have speculated about nine bands. Secondly, this is a consultative stage. It would be wrong and quite inappropriate for me to pre-empt the outcome of what is really the consultation period.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is quite right in saying that there are single person households in all income bands. Is it not the case that the 25 per cent. discount will give more back to those who are better off and living in more expensive housing? Is it not the case that there is a conflict therefore between the single person occupancy provision and the rebates, which, as she rightly says, go directly to those most in need.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. If one looks at the illustrative tables and takes into account what local authorities are spending, what he says simply does not add up. It is very touching that noble Lords opposite are so concerned about rich people. Those who are rich are already paying more in direct taxation. Indeed, 86 per cent. of what local authorities spend comes from business, commerce and central government.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether there will be an appeal against the rateable value—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but we are just coming up to 30 minutes.

Statute Law Revision (Isle of Man) Bill [H.L.]
3. 8 p. m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to revise the statute law by repealing obsolete, spent, unnecessary or superseded enactments so far as they continue to form part of the law of the Isle of Man. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time—. (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

War Crimes Bill
3.9 p. m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill before us this afternoon needs little introduction. It is the same as the one which failed to receive a Second Reading in this House on 4th June last year and has been reintroduced, after again completing its passage through another place.
Many of your Lordships know that I have been concerned with the legislation from an early stage, and that it is my personal conviction that the legislation is right. But that does not mean for one moment that I do not appreciate the strong views that have been expressed in this House against the Bill by many whose judgment I greatly respect. It now must be for each one of us to make up our minds as to what is right. All I can do now is to give the House what help I can on some of the issues raised and then also, as Leader of the House, give the House what guidance I can on some of the procedural matters which arise.
Your Lordships know the origin of the measure. In February 1988 the then Home Secretary set up an inquiry under Sir Thomas Hetherington, formerly Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales, and Mr. William Chalmers the former Crown Agent for Scotland, to consider allegations that some people who had committed war crimes during the Second World War had come to this country after the war and were still resident here.
The inquiry's terms of reference were to consider what substance there was in these allegations, to assess the strength of evidence that might be brought before our courts, and to advise as to whether United Kingdom law should be changed, so as to confer on our courts jurisdiction to prosecute for war crimes persons who are now British citizens, or resident here, in the same way as they would have been triable here had they been British citizens at the time.
The inquiry reported in June 1989 and it concluded that there were some people living in this country against whom there was sufficient evidence to support criminal proceedings for murder, and that further investigations might disclose the necessary evidence against others.
620
The cases they had investigated, said Sir Thomas and Mr. Chalmers, disclosed horrific instances of mass-murders; and they did not consider that the lapse of time since the offences were committed, or the age of the offender, provided sufficient reason for taking no action. Rather, they recommended that legislation should be introduced on the lines of this Bill.
I suppose that I am one of the few who has read the second unpublished part of the report. I think that I can and should say to your Lordships that histories are related, and crimes against civilian populations of appalling barbarity are described. I think that it is necessary to make this point, lest anyone outside this place still thinks that we are talking of excesses committed in the heat of battle rather than cold-blooded mass murder of defenceless civilians.
We are also, of course, talking of acts which were crimes according to the laws of all civilised nations at the time they were committed, and crimes which were war crimes according to international law as it stood at that time. Sir Thomas and Mr. Chalmers, therefore, stress the point that legislation on the lines of the Bill is not retrospective legislation in the sense of legislation which creates new criminal offences; that is, not retrospective legislation in the sense of making criminal actions which were not criminal at the time they were committed.
The Bill deals with jurisdiction, not the creation of offences, and it puts those who could be brought to trial here in no worse position than they would have been in had they been British citizens at the time, rather than people who settled in this country later.
It has also been argued by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, in particular, that the legislation is unjustified because a decision was made after the war that no more war crime trials should take place.
I treat with the greatest respect the views expressed by the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord, who speak from their wealth of experience as Ministers in the Government of that day; but the inquiry which studied the records and spoke to the principal surviving participants, concluded that it could not be argued that the British Government took a positive decision not to prosecute war criminals in this country, not least because no one thought there were any here. The decision to bring to an end war crime trials in the British zone of Germany is another matter.
There is also the point made by my noble friend Lord Ferrers in answering a Starred Question the other day that, even if a decision had been made after the war not to have war crime trials in Britain, it would still be for us to decide today whether evidence now put before us, which was not available to the post-war Government, requires now a different course of action.
Some might think it odd indeed if, when we in this country have never thought in terms of murderers escaping justice because of the operation of some sort of statute of limitations, we were to decide now that a

621
particular category of murderer, a mass murderer, should be exempt from prosecution just because of the effluxion of time.
I understand those who are concerned that, after so much time has elapsed, there may not be sufficient protection for an accused person in any trial which might take place. However, in this country we are used to relying on the good sense of the prosecuting authorities when they have to decide whether or not to bring a prosecution, and the good sense of British juries when examining evidence.
Further, and most importantly, it has certainly always been the intention of the Government that the Bill should preserve intact the court' s inherent jurisdiction over the fairness of proceedings, and the right of a court to terminate a trial if unfairness to the accuses might result.
But having said that, this may be an appropriate moment to emphasise that the Bill being presented to your Lordships unchanged does not, of course, mean an unwillingness on the Government' s part to consider any amendments to improve it which this House may wish to make. Naturally, any such amendments would have to be considered by the other place where there has been, and no doubt will continue to be, a free vote.
There is then the question of whether the Bill should have been wide enough to cover Japanese war crimes or, indeed, any other war crimes not covered by the Bill. But your Lordships may think that the point to be borne in mind here is that the Bill is only before us at all because of the allegations which led to the setting up of the Hetherington and Chalmers Committee, the evidence that it revealed and the recommendations that it made.
It certainly would have been unusual if the Bill had covered crimes committed in Japanese-occupied territory, without having any recommendation from a committee charged with investigating such crimes and charged with examining the question of whether there were arty such war criminals in this country.
The position is that it has never been suggested that any Japanese war criminals did come here to settle after the war. I think that this House has almost always taken the view that one should not legislate unless there is a clear mischief to be addressed.
As to more recent war crimes, including, for instance, war crimes committed in Iraq, the position as I understand is that ever since the passing of the Geneva Conventions Act in 1957 our courts have had jurisdiction to try grave breaches of the convention, including killing and torture, wherever in the world they have been committed and whatever the nationality of the suspect. So there is no need for us to legislate to cover events in Iraq. Of course whether Iraqi war crimes trials will be held is another matter entirely and not for our Government alone.
I said at the outset that at the end of the day we all have to make up our minds as to what is right and I doubt whether it will help greatly for me to explain how I came to decide on the matter. The House will excuse me if I just say this. I understand those who argue that there is nothing to be gained by reviving public interest in these matters after all these years and
622
ventilating them in the full glare of publicity; but the difficulty I have is seeing how, now that all the evidence has been laid bare by Hetherington-Chalmers, we can somehow re-bury it. The evidence is with us, and there is no way in which we can close our eyes to it.
Of course no one would have chosen to address the issues so long after the event. It is so long since the war and the instinctive wish of most of us is to get on with our lives in peace and not to rake over the past, let alone the pasts of men who have lived peacefully in this country since before some Members of this House were even born. But sometimes one is brought face to face with facts that cannot be buried, with deeds so terrible that action has to be taken. I shall say no more on the merits of the Bill. Your Lordships know the issues; so I shall now shed my present hat and put on my hat as Leader of the House, advising the House as best I can of the procedure we should follow when the debate draws to a close.
We shall start with the vote on the Motion tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. The Companion to the Standing Orders says that the carrying of a Motion in that form, which is intended to deny the Bill a Second Reading during the current Session, is treated as a rejection of the Bill. It follows that if your Lordships were to agree to the noble Lord' s amendment the effect would be to stop further proceedings in the House and your Lordships must assume that the way would be clear for the Speaker to certify that the provisions of Section 2 of the Parliament Act applied so that the Bill could be presented to Her Majesty for Royal Assent to be signified.
If the Motion is not carried, the Motion for the Second Reading will be put and if carried we will proceed to the Instruction in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I know the enormous interest my noble friend has taken in the Bill and nobody respects his qualifications for speaking in the debate more than I do. But as Leader of the House I have to hand on the advice that I have received that it would be most unwise for the House to approve the Motion in my noble friend's name.
The last occasion when an Instruction was tabled to extend the scope of a public Bill before this House was in 1906. The last time such an Instruction was passed was earlier than that. It was in 1899. Clearly therefore the procedure has fallen in to desuetude. It cannot be said to be out of order since it has not been ruled out of order by the Procedure Committee; but I have been advised that an Instruction is clearly not part of the current procedures of this House.
The use of Instructions to extend the scope of a Bill would have significant implications for the legislative work of the House. The procedure should surely not be revived without prior consideration by the Procedure Committee.
There is no more that I can say. I have explained why I think the Bill is right. I ask you to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Waddington.)
3.25 p. m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise with great diffidence but with a full sense of responsibility to perform the task that I have assumed this afternoon. I am sure that we are most grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House for his explanation of the Bill' s provisions and the procedural matters which arise from the Motion on the Order Paper. I came to my task this afternoon believing that what we had to consider was not so much whether we were disposed to change our minds but what action we should take in the light of the open threat made by the former Prime Minister that if we did not pass the Bill the Parliament Act 1911, as amended in 1949, would be invoked to get it on the statute book. Numerous threats of what would attend upon our refusal to pass the Bill have been made.
The Home Secretary, as recently as last month, in introducing the Bill a second time, while expressing the hope that your Lordships would pass it this time, said that precautions had nevertheless been taken to have the Bill ready to go through the process of the Parliament Act: it was therefore the same Bill as that which had been introduced previously and the one upon which we reached our judgment on 4th June last. Our proceedings today, I had thought, would take place in a mood of deciding where we stand in relation to the Parliament Act. I was not expecting an additional seminar on the principles and matters raised by the Bill itself upon which so many of us have reached firm conclusions.
My qualifications for saying something about the Parliament Act, which I shall do in a moment, may be that I remember when it was passed. It was just a week after my 13th birthday. I had already taken an active part in two general elections to get it on to the statute book. The two elections held in 1910 were both designed to obtain a mandate from the people to curtail the powers of the House of Lords, in accordance with the desires of the Government, following the serious differences which arose between the Government and your Lordships' House in 1909 and 1910. The mandate given by the electors in 1910 was dubious. The Liberal Government lost 124 seats in the House of Commons in the first election and had to hold a second election in December of the same year. They recovered only two of them. They did not have a majority to carry the Bill in the House of Commons. They relied upon 82 Irish Nationalists, who by 1918 had become 76 Sinn Feiners, and a Labour Party of 50 members—a rather uncertain start for an important Bill at that time. Nevertheless, my father was overjoyed that it had been passed. It has been confirmed and sanctified by time and disuse. Today is perhaps the most important occasion in the past 50 years when we are called upon to consider whether to stand by our own judgment and not to become subordinate to the House of Commons.
In an article by the political correspondent of The Times newspaper on Wednesday 24th April, I read
624
that we are losing our confidence; that if something does not happen soon, we shall be a peripheral nuisance to the Government. I ask the House to restore its self-confidence. I add my weight to the effort. That does not mean that we do not think again about the considerations which have been put before us by the Leader of the House this afternoon on the merits of the Bill. However, we have all gone through anguish over the matter. We have argued it out; we searched our conscience and our convictions before reaching the opinion that we did on 4th June.
The 4th June was not the first occasion upon which your Lordships' House had made its views clear. There was a trial run on 1st May last year on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, on an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to exclude from the scope of that Bill any matters relating to war crimes. There was the warning to the Government. On 4th June they had it confirmed in a most emphatic way.
No olive branches have been extended to your Lordships, no overtures have been made by the Government about reaching a mutual agreement. In years gone by, on all the disagreements we have had with the Commons—and there have been many—we have either come to an accommodation with the Commons or they have wisely agreed that we were right.
Take, for example, the disagreement that arose over the abolition of the GLC. A Bill was brought before us to end the term of office of the elected members of the GLC a year before the statutory limit. It was brought forward in order to make way for nominee members of the council put there by the London boroughs in order to conclude the final year of the council' s existence in a spirit of co-operation with the Government instead of being awkward, as they expected Mr. Ken Livingstone to be. We rejected that. We would not wear it. We thought it was quite outrageous that Parliament should bring to an end an elected representative body and replace it for a final year by stooges elected by London boroughs instead of the great majesty of the Greater London Council. The Government never returned with that. If they had done so, this occasion may well have taken place then.
We have been accommodating. We have always had regard on all matters to the supremacy of the elected Chamber. Nothing that we can do can stop the Government getting this Bill on to the statute book by the procedures which the Leader of the House has outlined. The Government have a straight course to the Crown. The conditions which would enable them to do that are clearly set out in Section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911. As the Leader of the House said, if we accept this amendment it could be construed as a rejection, and the Government could act accordingly.
We cannot therefore stop the Government in their tracks on the Bill. Nor should we try to do so. I hope that we are establishing this afternoon the right to have a mind of our own, firmly fixed in deep convictions on the principles of the matter before us. We are entitled to hold to it. As one privy counsellor said in the debate in the House of Commons the other

625
day, no one can criticise the House of Lords for exercising the powers which Parliament has given to it. That is what we can do this afternoon. We can tell the Commons, with great respect, that we cannot change our minds on the merits or demerits of the Bill before us. I do not enlarge upon what they are. It would be superfluous for me to begin to examine them again although I believe that the noble Lord the Leader of the House was fully justified in laying them all before us.
So the difference between us today is on procedure. Do we hold to the opinion we have expressed and keep our honour and integrity? Or do we subordinate our view to that of the Commons for parliamentary, political or any other reasons that we may feel are relevant to the situation. I do not believe that any of them are relevant. I feel more strongly today than I did on 4th June that to go along this path will lead to acute dismay, disappointment and probably controversy.
Two events have happened since 4th June which weigh with me very heavily indeed. The first is that in Australia and Canada, the first attempts have been made to do what we are asked to undertake today. They have led to frustration, futility and fiasco. My opinion, expressed in the last debate on the Bill, was that we were on the path to a fiasco. I believe that that is now so.
I circulated a few details about the state of play in Canada and Australia on the two cases. There is no encouragement there. I put it no higher than that. There have been no convictions. We must consider whether we are being asked to apply all the majesty of the law, at great cost to the nation, in order to punish the last dregs of the war criminals whose sins were hideous and horrendous. But what do we achieve? What more can we say about war crimes that we have not already said? How does it profit us to pursue them further?
The second reason which weighs heavily with me is that since we had the Second Reading of the Bill last time there has been an entirely new dimension of war crimes, war devastation, cruelty and perfidy. We have witnessed turmoil in the world such as we have not had for many years. Loud noises were made about bringing the war criminals to book at the beginning of the dispute. That is not in the terms of the ceasefire; only reparations are included—not criminal charges. If there are to be criminal proceedings against those who perpetrated the more recent criminal acts in the world, we ought to begin there. If the head of the state of Iraq Is to continue in his illustrious position, wield power in the world, sit at the conference table and be regarded as part of the machinery of establishing the peace, it will be an astonishing outcome. Yet it may well happen. There is nothing that I can see that will remove him, if his own people will not.
Finally, it is about time that we handed over responsibility to a United Nations that seems more willing to accept it and to bring this whole question of the waging of war, the laws of war and the criminality that may arise within the compass of the United Nations. Meantime, starvation, misery and the curse of dictatorship are still across the world. Leave those crimes wide and we find that we go to Russia for other
626
crimes and to Turkey for others as regards the Armenians. One can go anywhere and find war crimes. They are littered about the world and throughout history within the range of the criminal acts that we are dealing with this afternoon. We must stick to our principles and not be ashamed of them. We must not bend before any influence to desert those principles. We are entitled to our position and we should use it. We should be respected as having minds of our own. We must stress that we are not impeding the process of government but doing what the law enables us to do; and in our wisdom and in our conviction we shall do that.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this Bill be now read a second time to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, the original question was that this Bill be now read a second time, since when an amendment has been moved to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months"). The Question I now therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.
3. 40 p. m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway had given notice of his intention to move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they have power to extend the Bill to confer jurisdiction on United Kingdom courts in respect of certain grave violations of the laws and customs of war and crimes against humanity committed against United Kingdom subjects in Japanese-held territory during the Second World War and in Iraqi-held territory between 1st July 1990 and 12th March 1991; and to afford safeguards to seek to ensure fair trials.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consolidated debate. I wish first to speak to the amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I support the amendment. Secondly, I shall speak to the Motion which stands in my name. But before doing so, I wish to explain to your Lordships my reservation about the suggestion that my Motion was unwise. The Motion has been accepted by the Clerks of the Table as being in order. It is in order in accordance with an extant but ancient procedure to enlarge the scope of a single purpose Bill, which unlike other Bills cannot be amended by enlargement of the Title in Committee. It is for your Lordships to decide whether resort should be had to that procedure.
It is for your Lordships' House to regulate its own procedure on recommendations from the Procedure Committee, which has not as yet been consulted. I say respectfully to my noble friend the Leader of the House that it is premature to stigmatise the Motion as unwise. The Motion was not tabled to serve either as a soft option compromise on matters of conviction or as a sop to expediency. It was not tabled as the basis for some kind of pretended assent to a Second Reading for such reasons as were canvassed by my

627
noble friend the Leader of the House—I shall deal with those in due course—or indeed for any other reason.
When this Motion was tabled it was known assuredly that the Second Reading of this Bill would be opposed, but by a noble Lord other than myself on this occasion. As for the amendment, noble Lords who wish these trials to ensue will reject the amendment and give the Bill a Second Reading. Their view is entirely understood and it is wholly respected. Noble Lords who take a view different from mine know that it is not a trite forensic comment when I say that their view is truly respected. However, what is not understood is the suggestion that noble Lords who are opposed to the Bill and to the trials should give a kind of pretended assent to a Second Reading which enables the trials to ensue.
It is said that the Bill will go to another place, so why should we not assent. However, that begs the hypothesis. It also begs the essential moral issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, spoke in a truly remarkable speech which I shall not, of course, be able to emulate. It is said that if we do not give our assent we shall invite imposed reform. But the question of imposed reform simply does not arise. There is no challenge to the supremacy of the elected Chamber which has assured its entitlement, albeit on a massive abstention of 465 votes; that is, less than 40 per cent. of another place was in favour of the measure.
I am trying to deal with the arguments that have been put forward. It is said that if we do not give our assent certain procedural amendments governing the conduct of these trials may not be introduced; but the draft of these amendments, with a note on drafting, was submitted to the Government before the procedural Motion and the Second Reading occurred in another place and was rejected by the Government. The Bill has been returned to us without amendment.
The reality of this situation, whatever my noble friend the Leader of the House may say about consideration in due course, is that these amendments, to which he referred and which inevitably inhibit the prospects of conviction, will never be acceptable to government. If government were minded to accept such amendments they could have been incorporated in the Bill in another place or sent to us as suggested amendments, thus retaining the right to have the Bill as it stands—if they so wished—under the Parliament Acts. That would be in accordance with a procedure that was adopted when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was the Leader of your Lordships' House. Or the amendments could be introduced—if this were a serious suggestion on the part of my noble friend—as government amendments in Committee. Naturally, no such assurance has been given. If there were any viable prospect that any such amendments would be acceptable to government surely they would have been tabled for your Lordships' consideration today. But they have not, so to what end and to what purpose shall we continue to toil on a Bill which to the majority of your Lordships is repugnant in principle?
Imposed reform is that ghost which stalks the corridors of this ancient Chamber to strike terror into certain noble Lords either to induce them to abstain or even to vote for the Bill. If that is the case, that mischievous imp, or wimp of an imp, can do no service to the credibility of your Lordships' House. For this is a single purpose Bill. It is a Bill of limited incidence concerning the trial of a handful of men. Neither the governance of the realm nor any matter of general constitutional import is at stake such as could conceivably engender any obligation on the part of any noble Lord to assent against his conscience for the sake of comity. At the invitation of the Government we have a free vote. Another place has ensured its entitlement to the Bill as it stands. It is idle to talk about conflict and confrontation in a circumstance such as this. Another place has the Bill.
It is idle to rehearse the arguments. I agree, respectfully, with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. What is the object of going back over the arguments? My noble friend the Leader of the House made certain assertions when he introduced the Bill. I shall not repeat the counter assertions. We have discussed this matter on three previous occasions, and it is idle to rehearse or rehash the arguments. I merely point to the fact that the assertions made by my noble friend the Leader of the House are not common ground.
It comes to this. Noble Lords to whom these belated, selective trials on stale evidence are anathema and hateful, for whom they offend belief and strike so deep into the roots of reason or the dictates of conscience, will surely not associate themselves with the complicity of some pretended assent to a Second Reading. That is an obvious dissemblance. Surely we can say to another place with the freedom of truth, honour, and courtesy, "Have your Bill but without our assent".
Cabinet papers show that the book was closed on these extermination camp trials in the wake of Nuremberg. In the Nuremberg trials, held so soon after the event, one third of those impleaded—on what my noble friend the Leader of the House referred to as evidence assessed as sound and safe to support a conviction—were acquitted. According to those in the saddle of government at that time, whose names are down to speak—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—who know about these things (whereas most of us do not) that book was closed to end trials, to wind-up the process of retribution against known suspects and to call off the hunt. Fifty years on what more may be said?
As to the Motion which stands in my name—which may be of only academic interest because the hope is that your Lordships will support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—the proposed enlargement seeks to take into account war crimes and crimes against humanity committed under Japanese occupation in the Second World War, on which noble Lords have spoken on previous occasions in these debates, and the dimension of recent events in the Gulf and Iraq. That is not an entirely new dimension. One thinks back to

629
the Armenian massacre, to Tibet and the sad history of man' s ultimate inhumanity to man—to genocide, wherever committed, in the course of history.
The amendment would render the Bill less selective and more relevant to the world in which we live. It is accepted that, the Bill having been given a Second Reading, trials for crimes committed under German occupation shall ensue. There is no amendment to that provision. Jurisdiction for those trials is to be founded on subsequent allegiance or United Kingdom residence, notwithstanding all the objections that have been raised the past. For the proposed enlargement jurisdiction is based on a different concept; namely, conduct against victims who are Her Majesty' s subjects. The enlarged jurisdiction would arise only if the Attorney-General consented and the accused was present for trial and had not been impleaded in any other state. Safeguards to seek to ensure a fair trial would be introduced to govern the extended scope of the Bill.
There is a long list of speakers. With the leave of your Lordships, if the need arises, perhaps I may return to raise another point or two in connection with my Motion.
In conclusion, perhaps I may respectfully say that there is no assurance from the Government as to the acceptance of any amendment. There is no viable prospect that any amendments would be accepted by the Government. The rope around the neck of our advisory role has been tightened with a tourniquet to ensure the entitlement of another place to the Bill as it stands. Our delaying power, duly exercised, is spent, to no avail. Why should noble Lords opposed to the Bill pretend on a free vote to consent to a Second Reading? My Lords, enough is enough. Let us have done with it.
3. 58 p m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I rise before this very full House in order to make my position clear from the start. I stand at the Dispatch Box speaking personally, expressing my own view and having no power other than to make a recommendation most respectfully to the House and especially to noble friends who sit behind me.
There are two requests which we ought to make. The first is that the debate is conducted as we normally conduct our debates, with respect for each other' s point of view. The second is that nothing should be allowed to cheapen one of the darkest chapters of the world' s history in which millions suffered, not least millions of my own people.
I incend to be brief out of consideration for the many speakers who follow me. I wonder whether those speakers intend to go over old ground and old arguments. I should not have thought that that was a worthwhile expenditure of your Lordships' time. We have heard the arguments. They have been recited again in part by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, who talked for example of Cabinet records. I shall make only one brief reply. I could quote a whole speech by the Minister of State at the Home Office as recently as
630
18th March in the other place. He called for research to be done. There was no such record at all and no such decision was ever taken.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am much obliged. The noble Lord is mistaken. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, kindly sent me, at my request, publicly expressed in the House, a copy of the Cabinet records. I was quoting from them.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that a Cabinet record was produced to him which referred to the cessation of any trials in the United Kingdom? That was my impression of what he said. I have no doubt that I am right in saying that there is no such record. The noble Lord the Leader of the House nods his head in assent. Those words are used for the purpose of Hansard.
I turn at once to what I think is the issue here. We had our debates in our usual way. We respected each other' s opinions. We voted in a different way from the other place. If I remember correctly, there were three debates in our House. There were six debates in the other place.
I listened with great respect, as I always do, to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. On the last occasion when we debated the matter, the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said in an appealing way: old men forget. He could not have been thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. Addressing the House without a note, as he always does, with an eloquence that is quite remarkable and with a memory of events that occurred even when he was at a tender age in his teens, he recalled clearly the reactions to the Parliament Act and many other such matters.
However, is not the kernel issue, negating what the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Houghton, said, our relationship with the other place? What is the position of your Lordships' House? Is it cowardly, as was suggested, and is it giving in to an open threat? This is an issue of judgment. It is an issue of principle in regard to whether or not certain events should be forgotten or brought before our courts, if a Director of Public Prosecutions thinks that it is right to do so. We all have faith in our judges and in the integrity of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
But the issue is this. The elected House, voted by the people of this country, having listened to all that your Lordships had to say, having seen the vote of your Lordships and having read the speeches—and they were quoted—concluded by 254 votes to 88 that the Bill should have a Second Reading. I reiterate: the other place considered it six times. Is it right that we, trying to serve our country as we do in this place and with a great tradition behind us, should stand up and, talking about open threats from the Commons, say, "We shall not give in to open threats. We shall throw out the Bill which has twice passed through the Commons"? Is that the job of this House? Is that the duty of this House or are we, as we have always said, the revising Chamber. Yet we try to deprive ourselves of the very power to revise.
The noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Campbell of Alloway, say, "Let us throw this out at Second Reading and throw it back in the face of the

631
other place. We are not going to try to amend by giving this a Second Reading, whether we agree with the principle or not, as we do so many times". According to the Salisbury doctrine, we do not throw out a Second Reading even if we object to the Bill. My noble friends have had sufficient opportunity to look at Bills that they hate the sight of. But we pass them at Second Reading and try to revise them.
I conclude with a recommendation to my noble friends. We have debated the matter. The other place has debated it. The elected representatives of the people voted by a large majority. Let us not in this Chamber for heaven' s sake refer to abstentions and absent Members; we should get a very bad press if we did. With all due respect to him, my recommendation is that the resolution put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, should be defeated. So should the resolution that will be put to the House in due course by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading.
How odd it is that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, should talk about Japan when he knows perfectly well that not one instance of a Japanese war criminal who is resident in this country or who has taken citizenship of this country is known to us. With regard to his reference to Saddam Hussein, do we want the message to go to him at this of all times that the House and our Parliament say that if you manage to cheat the immigration authorities and, even though you have murdered, you remain unknown but suddenly are discovered, Parliament says that you escape? Is the advice, "If you do those things, try to go to a country where you will not be justly tried" to be our contribution to history?
4. 8 p. m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I have not previously spoken in this series of debates and I have not previously applied myself closely to the issue. I voted against the Bill last year. I did so without much doubt, but, to be honest, without much grasp of detail either. Coming afresh to the subject and having read through all the relevant debates in both Houses, I am left bewildered. I simply cannot understand what force drives the Government on.
How did it arise that it was decided to reverse what had been settled policy since the doctrine of "enough is enough" was promulgated by Attlee and Bevin, and supported with verbal vividness by Churchill when he spoke about drawing a sponge across the crimes and horrors of the past? It is now suggested that a different view would have been taken by all those three had they known that a few war criminals were living in this country or might come to live here. I find that implausible, to say the least. Why it should be thought that those statesmen would have abandoned magnanimity on the continent, where clearly the great majority of the evil doers were living, had they known that a few might be in Britain, I cannot imagine.
It would only begin to make sense to pursue the lesser rather than the greater evil had it been thought that the war criminals in this country might repeat their crimes here. That already looked unlikely in 1948
632
and was simply inconceivable in 1988. So I regard it as incontestable that there was a settled and bipartisan policy for four decades which was overturned in 1988. It was apparently done on the basis of a list of 17 names which grew to 300 and then, somewhat mysteriously, shrank to three, which was supplied by an institute in Los Angeles. That was fortified by a subsequent report of the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry.
I feel that that inquiry has been given an authority wider than was intended, or than those who carried it out would have wished it to have. It was composed of two skilled and experienced prosecutors. It was a good body for advising on the technical feasibility of a prosecution and perhaps on the likelihood of a conviction, though some most brilliant lawyers have occasionally been wrong on that latter point. But it was not a body of a breadth which would be sought if the question at issue were whether the combined wisdom of Churchill, Attlee and Bevin was to be set aside. Yet that is almost the import with which its conclusions have come to be invested.
On that basis, a government Bill was presented to the House of Commons and carried by a large majority on a free vote. It was then met in your Lordships' House by a combination of intellectual weight, legal distinction and practical experience of government at the highest level, such as has rarely been assembled. The two debates of 4th December 1989 and 4th June 1990 taken together constitute one of the most powerful waves of argument that I have ever heard deployed. I can say that without embarrassment because, alas, I took no part in either debate. Not only were the arguments of merit touching upon the integrity of British justice advanced; the constitutional point, showing how far this Bill was outside the Salisbury doctrine, was advanced with great force by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Callaghan, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. The noble Lord, Lord Home, added his voice in the earlier debate.
I would not say exactly that all this had no effect on the other House. The arguments of this House give the impression of having brooded over the Commons' Second Reading debate this year, not so much changing votes as unsettling minds. The most remarkable example was the speech of Mr. Hattersley. He showed himself sensitive to, and indeed persuaded by, the arguments of your Lordships, but then announced that he would vote for the Bill for declaratory reasons and lest it be misunderstood if he did not.
That strikes me as a very odd attitude to legislation, and particularly legislation which the Government preclude themselves from amending because they wish to claim the protection of the Parliament Act. I do not know how many Members of the other place may have cast an equally schizophrenic vote as Mr. Hattersley, but as Deputy Leader of the Opposition he must be regarded as having some influence. But what I think is even more odd is what I would call the quiet decision of the Government. It could hardly be one taken with fanfares when the Prime Minister voted on the other side.

633
But the Bill is suitable to be only the fourth measure over a span of 80 years to pass under the provisions of the 1911 statute, as amended in 1949, but never once since used. As noble Lords will know, the other three measures were the Home Rule Bill and the Welsh Church Disestablishment Bill, which began their particular courses in 1912, and the second Parliament Bill itself. Those were all major controversial measures which had been argued about in the centre of politics for years, even decades, previously. They were exactly the kind of measures which the Parliament Act, highly controversial at the time but since secured from any serious thought of repeal, was designed to protect.
The essence of the Parliament Act—whose origins and passage I wrote of in one of my first books, now 37 years ago—in my view, was to put a safety spring into the Constitution and to enable us to enjoy the benefits (in my view, great benefits) of bicameralism and even the anomalies of your Lordships' House without life being made absolutely intolerable for Liberal or Labour governments.
It was to give occasional relief—very rarely indeed was it used—to such governments from the handicap that a largely hereditary Chamber almost necessarily has a built-in Conservative majority on what one may call the major conventional party political issues of the day. That is the reason why a Conservative Government until now have not used the Parliament Act. If I may say so, it is not because their arguments were more persuasive than those of more Left Wing governments or even that their Bills were conceived with more wisdom; it was because the built-in majority existed and still exists, even, for example, on the poll tax.
But the built-in majority is not at all a problem in relation to this Bill. The problem is that a minor measure in political terms, nevertheless with a major capacity for inflicting damage on the reputation of our legal system, a measure never discussed before the electorate, dividing the highest ranks in the Government, as indeed in the Opposition, too, nonetheless supported in the Division Lobbies, even if perhaps not with equal conviction in argument in the other place, fails on a completely non-party basis to secure the agreement of the great majority of your Lordships' House. The majority has been fortified by the overwhelming preponderance on that side of both those most learned in the law and those who have held the highest offices of state. I think that the use of the Parliament Act in these circumstances is a constitutional monstrosity
If anyone had tried to advocate the need for that Act in 1911 or 1949, in terms of a measure such as this Bill, he would not have begun to be taken seriously in either House of Parliament.
My mind goes back to a time when, as Home Secretary, I was easing the passage of some of the legislation of the 1960s. They were mostly liberalising measures. However, one, majority verdicts in criminal trials, was a toughening measure. Those were not manifesto commitments. They were not unanimously supported in the Government. However, they went through the House of Commons with substantial cross-party majorities. But I remember the tension
634
with which I waited to see what the noble Lords of those days would do to the legislation. It never occurred to me to think: Oh, the Lords don't matter. We can pass the measures under the Parliament Act next year. They were not measures suitable for the Parliament Act. The Bill being debated today is still less so.
It may be said that whether or not the Parliament Act is used depends on what we do and how we vote today; we can always escape it. Yes, of course, we can. We can do so by turning round like squirrels in a cage, not because of a new conviction—I do not believe that there is a single noble Lord among last year's majority who now believes that the Bill has, on its merits, become less objectionable—but because we choose to disguise our impotence. But that would be at the price of making a mockery of bicameralism and of inflicting, with great judges themselves a party to it, a serious and unnecessary stain on British justice. I hope that we shall do no such thing.
I conclude with one brief point on the merits, or demerits, of the Bill. I speak entirely as a layman in relation to the law, but as a layman who has twice had responsibility for dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice. A high proportion of the most difficult cases related to verdicts which had turned on identification. That led me to set up the Devlin Committee of 1974 which improved the position, but also pointed out the inherent uncertainty involved, even when dealing within a timescale of a few months or a year.
It also led me to refuse, although under great pressure, to have a full rehearing of another case—that of James Hanratty, who had been hanged in 1962. It was a case which turned on identification. I could not convince myself that one would get nearer to the truth on identification after a substantial lapse of time after the event. In that case 10 or 12 years had gone by.
If the Bill becomes law, either there will be no cases—in which event the controversy will have been a sad little farce which makes its unflagging pursuit by the Government so mystifying—or cases will have to turn on identification evidence not 10 or 12 years on but nearer 50 than 40 years on. I cannot believe that that would assist the cause or the reputation of justice.
4. 24 p. m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, it is not within my competence by many miles to follow such a powerful speech as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, on the constitutional issue. I should like to turn attention towards another area of debate which has not been much rehearsed so far.
On an earlier occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, congratulated the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on mentioning forgiveness and chided the Bench of Bishops for not doing so. Of our previous debate, he said:
"There has been no philosophy. There has been little religion"—[Official Report, 4/6/90; col. 1131]
Let me therefore say at the outset that forgiveness is central to my understanding of the Christian faith and indeed to the way in which God deals with each of us, whatever our faith. It is therefore central to the way in which we should try to deal with each other in our

635
personal relationships. But it cannot be a substitute for the rule of law in a country or a community. Nothing in the teaching of Jesus Christ suggests that the place of law is redundant. What can and must be said is that we should always strive to be merciful and compassionate to those found guilty under the law as God is merciful in his dealings with us. The desire for vengeance must never be the reason for bringing people to justice. Punishment declares the community's abhorrence of the crime but should also point to restitution. Of course in that context it follows that the administration of justice must always be as fair as we can possibly make it.
I do not believe therefore that one can deal with the issues presented by the Bill simply in terms of forgiveness versus punishment. As the Leader of the House emphasised, the fact that war crime trials were abandoned by this country in 1948 does not quite settle the matter. Those against whom the Bill is aimed may indeed be very old by now but the crime remains. There is no statute of limitations on any kind of murder in this country or elsewhere. I have to say that there is no religious ground for arguing for one in this case. There are of course many substantial and practical reasons for doubting whether it would be possible to prosecute successfully, apart from the one or two cases on which the Hetherington-Chalmers Report seems to rest its case so confidently.
However, reading once again the reports of the debates in your Lordships' House and in another place there is no doubt that many people are deeply offended by the suggestion that serious, horrific crime can in any sense be overlooked because of the passage of time. The question of forgiveness or mercy may properly arise after a person has been found guilty, when considerations of age or infirmity will have to be taken into account. But those considerations belong at that point in the process and not earlier. I believe that it does not demonstrate a lack of theology or compassion to make that point.
Your Lordships are well aware of the depths of emotion running once again beneath the surface of this debate as we struggle to find the right way to respond to the issues raised by the Bill and to cope with the constitutional question that is also presented to us. On the one hand, there is insistence that something must be done and seen to be done in the name of justice for those who died and for the sake of generations to come; and, on the other hand, there is profound and cogently argued doubts that this is the right way to do that.
I have talked to people, as have other noble Lords, who feel passionately that no good will come from mounting this kind of trial. There are doubts about the legal nature of the offence with which people may be charged since the crimes were more to do with cold-blooded extermination of large numbers of people on racial grounds than with war crimes.
There are the widespread difficulties in obtaining a fair trial, of which we may hear much again today. There is the well-founded resistance to retrospective legislation. Others are much more competent to speak of that than I. But I have also been talking to those
636
who feel, with equal if not greater passion, that the horrendous nature of these crimes cannot be just put aside by technicalities, as they see it, which was an argument put once again today most movingly by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
As a Christian minister I can only plead for resolute attention to the facts in the midst of our emotions if we are to resolve this matter graciously enough to avoid further division and to provide a basis on which more recent crimes against humanity can also be brought to some kind of court, as the noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Campbell of Alloway, are proposing.
The first fact which strikes me is that the matter has come to a head partly because of persistent research which has revealed that some major war-time criminals actually escaped the Nuremberg courts and are resident in this and other countries. If we now do nothing, will the problem go away? I doubt it. It is important to recognise that the mood has changed since 1948—even I am old enough to remember that—partly because we are now much more aware of the sheer extent of crimes against humanity and of the way in which they are still occurring in many places today. Many people now believe that it is essential to declare our abhorrence of such crimes in more than words. Clearly, trials, even of people in their 70s and 80s, seem to be a way of doing that. I would differ very hesitantly with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in saying that I do not think this shift of mood has been sufficiently recognised in some of what he said.
The second fact is that we are forced to debate the possibility of holding a fair trial with one hand tied behind our back, so to speak. Most of the noble and learned Lords in this Chamber said earlier, and I have no doubt some will say it again today, that it is no longer possible to hold a fair trial. The Hetherington-Chalmers Report, written by two distinguished lawyers, suggests that it will be possible in those cases they have researched if this legislation is passed, and the full weight of government has been placed behind that conviction.
At the end of the day, how shall we know until and unless a case has been brought? As has been said, the evidence from Canada and elsewhere suggests clearly that it is unlikely to succeed. Where will that leave us? All this puts us in an acutely difficult position when trying to vote wisely.
If we are genuinely concerned with morality, as I know we are, we need to remind ourselves how easy it is to focus moral outrage on the past as a means of avoiding in part what needs to be done in the present. Crimes against humanity continue unabated throughout the world. I wish that it were not so. What are we doing about those? What can be done?
There is a need for an international court, working within an extended corpus of international law, before which mass murderers, among others, can be brought. That must be the long-term aim to which I believe some of the popular support for this Bill in another place is probably pointing, rather than just trying to extend the jurisdiction of United Kingdom courts in this case.

637
In the short term, something has to be done about the handful of cases still extant and now before us. I still believe that extradition, not retrospective legislation and trial in a different country, creates fewer difficulties provided that there are safeguards of the kind I tried to suggest last June.
If we pass this Bill, I should like to ask the noble Leader of the House whether it would be possible to revise it in such a way as to make such a course of action possible. Are the objections to extradition really so much greater than those which attach to this course of action?
I shall listen to your Lordships with great care once again as I struggle to decide how best to vote, because I believe that the purpose of a debate of this kind is to help us to make up our minds. I am still struggling, as are many others, with the enormous difficulty of doing that in what I believe to be a just and realistic way.
4. 36 p. m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I have been a Member of one or other of the Houses of Parliament since 1938, and I have never addressed myself to a debate with more reluctance or with more sadness. I happen to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that it would be extremely wrong-minded of another place to exercise its rights under the Parliament Act. I shall come back to that point very shortly.
There cannot be a constitutional issue for this House Since the Parliament Acts have been passed it must surely be the duty of this House to vote in accordance with its conscience. Not to vote in accordance with its conscience just because other people with greater legal powers than ourselves take a different view would be to vote against our conscience, which is the voice of God, in order to please man.
Having said that, I come back to the merits of the Bill. As your Lordships have been reminded, this is not the first time that the issue has come before your Lordships' House. On the two occasions that I remember most clearly your Lordships' House decided by an overwhelming majority that this was a bad and irremedial measure, and although I heard my noble friend the Leader of the House say—I doubt not with complete sincerity—that he would consider any amendments put forward if there were a Committee stage, the reality is that the Bill is unamendable, as everybody knows. It is too late now to talk about amendments. Either the Bill is wrong in principle or right in principle. If it is right in principle the Second Reading is the right course and amendments can be proposed, but if it is wrong in principle and cannot be amended, it is a waste of time to say that amendments will be considered if they are put forward.
The weight of opinion against the merits of the Bill was well summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, whom we are all anxious to hear, has said that it would be an indelible stain on British justice if it were passed. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, now speaking from the Liberal Benches but then a junior Labour Minister, testified to the decision deliberately arrived at by the international community and by all
638
parties in the House of Commons that the book should be closed at the end of the Nuremberg trials. With great respect to my two noble friends on the Front Bench, one does not have to delve into Cabinet minutes such as have been disclosed in order to know that. I was a Member of the House of Commons at the time and I know that not a single person in that House but supposed that the book would be closed at the end of the Nuremberg trials. No one suggested it, and it was universally believed. Therefore, that must be a bad point.
The objections to the Bill can be summarised, first, on the grounds that it is retrospective. My noble friend the Leader of the House, choosing his words carefully but with complete accuracy, may have believed that it does not create a new offence and that what is alleged against these people, if any such still exist, is against international law. It is an offence against English law to commit murder or manslaughter and there is no statute of limitations. All those are indubitable contentions.
However, the whole Bill is retrospective. There is not a clause, subsection or schedule which is not retrospective. If it were otherwise, there would be no need for a Bill at all. The British courts have no jurisdiction to try these people for what they did in what is now Soviet but was then German occupied territory. The whole procedure provided for in the schedule, which messes up our law of committal, is retrospective in its effect. Therefore, the Bill is retrospective in its essence and is discriminatory in the respects which have already been announced.
If that were all, I should regard this Bill as objectionable. Of course, on previous occasions we were treated to a number of speeches by a galaxy of Law Lords—and I know that my noble and learned friends on the Cross Benches will forgive me for so referring to them—explaining why in their opinion, as it was also mine for what it was worth, it is impossible to guarantee a fair trial for the proposed defendants; that is, partly because it would be totally impossible to charge their own memories after so long a delay but also because it would be totally impossible to identify or compel the attendance of potential defence witnesses.
It is perfectly true that there is no statute of limitations in respect of crimes. I know of no case in English jurisprudence—though I stand to be corrected in this company—where a serious crime of homicide has been tried longer than 27 years after the event. That was a domestic crime. There may be some but I do not know of them. No doubt the reason is that they could not be effectively prosecuted. There is no statute of limitations but the possibility of a fair trial is precisely what is at issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, referred to the Australian and Canadian experiences of such legislation. One case was in Canada. It took eight months to try. The judge summed up for a week and the jury acquitted without the defendant being able to go into the witness box. Then, by some curious quirk of the patriated Canadian constitution, there

639
were parallel proceedings to demand a new trial by those demanding vengeance. That is not a very happy experience of this legislation.
One case was heard in Australia. The old gentleman—if those are the right words to apply to a person who is not proven to be guilty—who was in the dock was found to be unfit to plead because of his state of health. At any rate, that was the only issue tried. Those proceedings ran into the sands and have never been determined at all. In parallel, a new set of proceedings was instituted under some quirk of the Australian constitution to prove that the whole legislation was ultra vires the Australian Act. That is not a very happy precedent in this context.
I return to the fact that no case has been put forward for the Bill which was not put forward on the two or three previous occasions when the proposals were under consideration. So what? The first thing to remember is that the Parliament Act was never passed for this sort of purpose at all. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, made that point and I shall not labour it. In 1911 or 1949 the idea that a case of this kind should be brought forward would have been treated with ridicule and contempt. That is the first thing which one is bound to say.
Secondly, it is a free vote of the House. I do not know whether my noble friend, for whom I have the deepest respect, has ever thought of this point. Is it not rather hypocritical to say, "You may vote as your conscience dictates. Indeed, it is your duty to do so. However, it will only count if you vote in a particular way"? Remember that that applies not only to the Second Reading but also to the Committee stage because under the terms of the Parliament Act the Bill must go through unaltered except by such amendments as the House of Commons approves. That is not much of a free vote.
That brings me back to my starting point. The Parliament Act freed the House of Lords to express its opinions on the merits of legislation on Second Reading as well as in Committee. It did that by securing the power of the Commons to assert its supremacy if it chose to use it and if it thought it was within its conscience to do so. If the Commons must do that against the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and for what it is worth my own, let it do that. However, let the Commons not ask us to go against our consciences by saying to be true and right what we believe to be untrue and wrong.
I end on this note. To suggest the contrary is the cloven foot of populism. Populism is the enemy of justice, the enemy of freedom and, ultimately, the enemy of democracy. There is nothing in common between populism and democracy and those things in which we believe. Populism destroyed the life of Socrates and forever left an indelible stain—to use the expression of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, about this Bill—upon the reputation of Athenian justice.
It was populism which led a Roman ruler to give in to rent-a-mob when he said,
"if thou let this man go, [thou] art not Cesar's friend".
640
It was populism which led the principal speaker from the Opposition Benches in another place to say that he voted one way on the first Bill and another way on the second, not because he had changed his mind about the merits but because it was said, forsooth, that he was afraid of being accused of forgetting the holocaust. Note that he did not say that he had forgotten the holocaust; he said that he was afraid of being accused of it. He was afraid of appearing not to be Caesar's friend.
The truth is that this House has a plain moral duty. Some people may disagree with what I have been saying on the merits of the Bill. They are entitled so to do. Some people will agree with me; but let each man, each noble Baroness and each right reverend Prelate follow his conscience into the lobby and not be terrified into folly by a false view of our constitutional position.
4. 50 p. m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I rise to follow with gratitude what has been said by my ecclesiastical friend. This is essentially a moral question and therefore I presume to think that from the standpoint of the faith I hold it is entirely appropriate that the issue should be judged as far as possible within the framework of a moral consideration. I am reminded at the very insistence of this argument that in the teaching in the New Testament there is a clear representation of the obligation of those who judge that they should recognise also that they are being judged.
The illustration of the mote in one eye which prevents a clear understanding and a clear statement of justice because it is shared by a beam in somebody else's eye, is the introduction with which I find it imperatively necessary to begin to criticise the essence of the Bill. It cannot provide a fair trial and I therefore oppose it.
I oppose the Bill on the ground that there are so many elements of retrospection involved which do not necessarily combine to produce an accurate memory or recollection. I am completely convinced by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said; that it is impossible to provide a principle of justice when dealing with matters that occurred 40 years ago, and particularly one produced by those who to some extent are themselves involved. I for one do not find a profound difference between the abominable behaviour towards the children of Israel and the bombing of the children in Dresden. A little later I shall turn briefly to the consideration of what is the underlying problem with which today this House must be involved.
It seems to me that the House is involved with the whole question of what we mean when we speak of war crimes. We know that within the general framework of warfare some of the most sublime expressions of human courage are demonstrable. We know that decent people do many decent and splendid things in the arbitrament of warfare. However, I am increasingly convinced that we miss the point unless we examine far more rigorously what we mean by "war crimes"

641
I shall include in the debate this afternoon my own reluctant conclusion that war itself is a crime and that we are missing the opportunity of declaring a full-scale and entirely full-sighted perception of the nature and inevitable consequences of warfare today even more consequential in terminal conditions than any warfare in previous generations. It is to that that I invite your Lordships' consideration.
There is overwhelming evidence that it is impossible to baptise any of the necessary programmes of warfare as if they are consonant with Christian principles and can be. carried out in love. I do not believe that to be possible. Once again I reiterate how profoundly I admire; those who are courageous and self-sacrificing within the general framework of warfare.
I remember long ago as a young cadet I became a bayonet-fighting instructor. I loved it at the time and remember winning some kind of prize for writing an essay on the nature and substance of bayonet fighting and how imposing it was to grunt as one stuck the bayonet in. That had a profound effect upon me, though it was not apparent at the time. It was the recognition that unless we spoke in absolute terms of what we meant by warfare we could dissolve the whole argument into a sentimentality, on the one hand, and an arbitrary exclusion of the facts on the other.
I believe therefore that in this debate in your Lordships' House and indeed in whatever decisions are made—I for one shall abstain—there is need for the presentation of the argument that not only are there war crimes but that essentially the practice of war should be condemned as being totally wrong. I look forward with some hope—it may be a fairly extensive idea—that even in my old age this House or some suitable combination of people who want to do the right thing may perhaps take the unprecedented step of saying that under no circumstances is it possible from the Christian standpoint, nor from any other standpoint, to justify the arbitrament of violence, particularly in an age when we have the terminal possibility of destroying almost everything.
I defend my argument in terms of what I find in the New Testament, and which I cordially invite your Lordships to consider. It is the same Jesus who said "Love your enemies" and who said "Those who take the sword will perish by it" Reference was made to the trial of Jesus. What perplexed the scoundrel Pontius Pilate, though a somewhat amiable scoundrel, was that he had found a revolutionary leader who repudiated the way of violence. He did his best—though subsequent historians on the Christian matter made little of it—to obtain some kind of acquittal for Jesus. It was impossible.
I do not believe that the Christian Church could have emerged in the symbol of the cross if at the same time it had been prepared to walk the way of the contemporary resistance leadership. I have therefore taken, and apologise for reiterating this so often, the confident view—more than ever established in contemporary experience—that we are on the threshold of a tremendous adventure. When we are prepared to say that under no circumstances can war
642
be described as anything less than a crime, we shall make a breakthrough in a world which is now almost drowning in violence.
I spend a good deal of time in large and open spaces. I conclude by reminding myself that over a period of more than 60 years of talking to people in the open air I have been increasingly convinced that though vox populi is not vox Dei, there is an inner certainty of truth and a readiness to accept it on the part of ordinary people if we can only encourage them sufficiently to think in depth and not to obscure their thoughts by circumstances which can have little final effect on what they say or believe.
There is another aspect to the matter. In the judgment that is made there is increasing relevance to a truth that we are made for God and that our destiny is in Him. This is not a neutral universe into which we human beings alone have the capacity to inject moral principles. Therefore, those who say that it will be completely false to let this matter lie and do nothing about it assume unfortunately that in this universe there is no prospect of it being dealt with. It may sound quaint for me to remind myself, and to dare to remind this House, that the teaching of the Christian church is the existence of Hell and that those who do wrong are not left to enjoy the fruits of their wickedness but sooner or later will pay the price of it.
I believe that is the recognition that when we have failed, as we repeatedly do, in presenting a fully just programme for human society our best efforts will be rewarded by the confidence that we are moving in the direction of a world redeemed. It is for that reason that I have presumed to put into this debate at this stage—no doubt other noble Lords will react as best they can and probably better than I have done—the proposition that we are facing not the question of war crimes but the emergence of a society which once and for all has repudiated war as being the supreme crime of organised society and pray, God, the day will soon dawn in which that society will repudiate it.
5. 2 p. m.
Lord Shawcross: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, was good enough to refer to the speech that I made to your Lordships when this matter was discussed last June. I shall try not to repeat myself too much. It is not easy because there has really been no change in the situation since that time that should lead us to alter the conclusion at which we arrived with such a large majority. The only difference is that the Bill now comes to us for the second time with an indication—I will not say a threat—that the Parliament Act will be used to pass it into law if we repeat our rejection of it.
That seems to me to present no kind of constitutional problem and no problem of principle. There is one restriction on the right of this House to disagree and veto measures that have come down from another place and that is not by law but by convention. That is known as the Salisbury-Addison convention. Nobody has suggested that that convention has the slightest application to this case. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading nods his head. If that is so, by implication it follows that it

643
is our duty and constitutional right to express our own independent view. That is the right and duty which is left to this House under the Parliament Act. We should exercise it for the public expects us to discharge it by taking an independent view of those measures that come down to us from another place and to say exactly what we think about them.
There is nothing to suggest in this case that if we did so on this Bill we should be doing anything to thwart the views of the electorate as a whole. But even if that were so, and even if there were the slightest evidence that the electorate as a whole is in favour of this Bill, it would still be our duty to vote against it if we believe that it is wrong. As your Lordships know, the Bill has not excited a great deal of public interest. It was passed again in another place. The number voting for it on the second occasion was slightly less than the number of those who previously did so. That number included young men who had not experienced the horrors of war. The number was less than the majority of the Members of the other place. If there has been any movement of public opinion I suggest that it is marginal. On the whole, it appears to be against this Bill. Our clear duty is to vote according to our consciences in the matter.
I oppose this Bill not merely on legalistic grounds but on grounds of principle; on moral grounds. As I believe the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said when introducing the Bill at Second Reading last year, on that there can be no compromise, no pragmatism. Pragmatism may be used to water down a principle in order to make it politically expedient, but the principle will have been lost. If we now suggest pragmatic amendments to go down that route, we shall be in grave danger not only of losing the pragmatic amendment, but of losing the right to stand on principle by rejecting this Bill as a whole. This is not a House of Wimps, this is the House of Lords. We are expected by the public to express our view honestly and clearly. I hope that we will. As the noble Earl put it in his admirable speech when introducing the Bill last year at Second Reading, this is,
"a matter of fundamental principle and indeed philosophical intuition".—[Official Report, 4/6/90; col. 1081.]
He went on to say that there could be no compromise about it. My philosophical intuition is that this Bill violates the great traditions of English law. It cannot satisfy—and no trial under it could satisfy—the requirements and canons of fairness and justice. Last time I dealt at some little length with the two basic reasons why I had reached that conclusion. It was partly the nature of the evidence, being evidence of identification which is the most frail form of all human testimony, and partly because of the lapse of time. I shall not go into that now, but I ask your Lordships to look with me, for a few minutes, at the practicalities of the matter and then ask yourselves whether any trial could be fair.
The Hetherington-Chalmers Report sets out some of the difficulties which the team of lawyers, detectives, interpreters and the rest experienced in its investigations. It was provided with the sometimes enthusiastic support of the Soviet Government. It had long lists of
644
witnesses from the Wiesenthal Centre. The Soviet and Israeli authorities supplied other lists of witnesses. The team visited, and saw witnesses, in the Baltic states, Russia, America and Canada. It took a very long time. Often the witnesses were seen in the presence of the local police.
The team members said that the greatest difficulty was the age of the witnesses. But not only that; they found few eye witnesses. Those who had witnessed the atrocities were usually themselves killed. However, many were able to help with circumstantial and hearsay evidence. Some were able to identify suspects from photographs. Circumstantial evidence perhaps, but hearsay and identification from photographs have not previously attracted much favour in British law. How is that evidence to be given? Apparently few, if any, of the witnesses are willing to travel to this country and they cannot be compelled to do so. Their evidence will be given by television, by video, on commission, or in some other indirect way.
There is a curiously vague reference in the report to evidence of a documentary nature. However, the report in that context suggests that experience in war crimes proceedings in Federal Germany and America indicates that documents from the Soviet Union had not been forged and the witnesses had not been coached. As one who had to listen—I remember it vividly—to the persistent efforts made by Mr. Vyshinsky and chief prosecutor Rudenko at the Nuremberg trials to prove that the Germans had committed the Katyn massacres, I found that particularly naive and hard to take. There is no doubt at all that a good deal of false evidence was given and many false charges were brought.
The authors of the report say that the investigation of crimes committed so long ago is fraught with difficulty. However, it must also be clearly said that this report has been rightly praised—and I have joined in the praise—for its clarity, detail and comprehensive historical account, but it is written from the point of view of a prosecuting authority. The difficulties which the prosecution would have to face are set out and alterations in the law are suggested in order to mitigate. However, little if anything is said about the much more serious difficulties which would face a defendant. That is not surprising, because highly distinguished as the two authors of this report certainly are, their distinction lies in having held high office in the law enforcing departments. Sir Thomas Hetherington was a most able Director of Public Prosecutions for more than 10 years. He served in other departments of government. However, he had never been in private practice and he has never had to defend an innocent man who has been wrongly accused. Mr. Chalmers, it is true, did practise as a solicitor for two years, but his high distinction lies in having held high office as Procurator General in Scotland. The whole point of the inquiry was to advise whether the law of the United Kingdom should be altered in order to make it possible to prosecute these people.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me, as one who has defended innocent people falsely charged, just for a moment to consider the position of a defendant in a

645
case of this kind. The defendant is arrested somewhere in Northern England or Scotland and cast into prison. He is charged with murder 47 years ago, say in Byelorussia. He is innocent. Your Lordships must assume that he is innocent, because at least that presumption of English law is not wiped out by the proposals in the Bill. What does the defendant do? He applies for legal aid and is assigned a solicitor on the local list. They discuss together how to conduct his defence. He wants first to test the evidence of the prosecution, which is what the advisers of defendants always wish to do. However, he cannot do that because the preliminary hearing before the magistrates, which is such a very important opportunity for a defendant to test the evidence against him, is abolished by the Bill. The evidence is to be given by video or television and the jury will be deprived of the opportunity, in the vast majority of cases, of seeing the witness face to face with the accused and judging which is the more reliable of the two.
The defendant wants to show that the evidence given mistakes his identity. Will he be given the money and the time to go to Byelorussia and cross examine the witness who has given evidence on the video? Perhaps the prisoner wants to put up some affirmative defence. Perhaps he wants to show that, while he was there when the alleged crime was committed, the incident was very different from that described by the prosecution witness. Perhaps, although he saw what happened, the killings were committed by somebody else. Perhaps something was done in self-defence. How will he find his witnesses? The Wiesenthal Centre will not help him with a list. Your Lordships will hardly expect the Soviet Government to come forward with enthusiasm—a government who do not recognise in practice the principle that people are assumed to be innocent until they are found guilty. Nor is it likely that in Byelorussia where, as the report says, there is strong pressure for convictions, the public will rush to help.
Perhaps the wretched man wants to prove an alibi. He wants to show that in fact he was in the German forces at that time, but was in another part of Europe. Who will find out and produce the records which will establish that? Will this man be allowed an investigating team to go to Byelorussia and seek out evidence to prove his innocence? There is not sufficient money for that in the whole of the legal aid fund. Nor would he be granted the months of time that an inquiry of that kind, even if it were possible, would involve.
The fact is that this man will find it impossible to get affirmative evidence from Byelorussia to sustain his defence. He will stand alone. He will stand facing a jury who will know that this man in the dock is the man of whom a weighty inquiry costing millions of pounds has said ought to be put on trial; that this is the mart whom the British Government, with the authority of the Attorney General, have said ought to be charged with murder; that this is the man whom the British Parliament has solemnly decided should be brought to justice. How is he to hope for a fair trial?
We should not attempt in a cowardly way to shrug off our responsibility by passing it on to the trial judge.
646
This man stands as an island surrounded by a hostile sea. We remember that John Donne told us that no man is an island, he is part of the main. We share in that man's difficulty and if injustice is done to him we ourselves are diminished by it. That is why I agree with what was said in this House by Lord Reading and Lord Simon in 1940 when they were discussing the possible trial of a German general. I shall not quote it again as I referred to it when I spoke on the previous occasion. They thought that a delay of four years would prevent a fair trial. This is 47 years—it will not do.
Perhaps I may just make one other point. It has been said, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, that we have a duty to ensure justice for the victims as well as for the accused. That involves, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, a certain sophistry. Justice cannot be done to the dead. They did no wrong; their characters do not have to be restored; they are beyond our help. We must hope that some higher power has given them solace, peace and the spirit of forgiveness. When we talk about doing justice to the dead we mean retribution for the wrong which has been done to them. However, retribution and justice are two very different things. Some of the relatives of those murdered realise that and so should we.
I conclude by quoting part of a letter—and I receive many—which came to me after my previous speech. It came from a Jewish refugee who came to this country, became a solicitor and has established himself here:
"I agree. Our family lost twenty-one members in the Holocaust but we have no desire to be burdened with a re-hash of a sordid episode unique in its extent though not in essence of bestiality and sadism. We do not require' further and better particulars' and our judges ought not to be encumbered with presiding over a ghastly chapter of contemporary history"
As to the effect of deterrence, a recital of names—Amin, Gaddaffi, Khomeini, Ceausescu, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, et al—suffices.
"to what extent gentiles can gauge the suffering of Hitler' s victims from the moment of being collected from their homes in the middle of the night to being forced into the gas chambers, is something I cannot answer. Retribution is both evil and futile. This is England. We do not indulge in show trials, however fairly conducted. The Bill should be thrown out"
5. 20 p. m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, this is the first time that I have had the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House. Previous debates on this subject took place during the lifetime of my late brother. I have come new to what was said on those occasions and, consequently, have read the reports of the debates which took place both in this Chamber and in another place.
The lifetime of my brother reminds me, because it was one of constant suffering, of the fact that this Bill relates to people. Indeed, that is very much so. Among his papers, tucked in with the Writ, was a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, who congratulated him on his fortitude in taking his seat.

647
That letter obviously encouraged him greatly. It links me with the fact that here today we are dealing with the fate of individuals.
I read the Bill with increasing puzzlement. It is short and, as was said earlier by noble and learned Lords, has but a single purpose; namely, to try any suspected war criminal who has become a Briton during the period of roughly 50 years since the end of the war. It seems to be beyond doubt that at the end of the war it was accepted, after a very short time, that it was impossible to try even a small proportion of those who were suspected, or known to have been, war criminals. Many of them escaped in the fog of war, as it is so truly called. In the intervening years, very many of them will have perished from one cause or another.
Latterly, the Bill has been introduced with the aim of catching all those who are left. It has already been questioned in your Lordships' House as to why it is so urgent and so compelling that this should be done now, so many years later. I fear that I have found no answer. The big fish were caught in Nuremberg. Before that, in the heat of war, summary justice had been envisaged on the basis that there would be about 100 international outlaws who, when they were caught and properly identified and certified as such by an officer of the rank of major-general or above, could be shot within the hour. That never happened.
In that chaotic situation at the end of the war, when the whole country of Germany was overrun from East and West, there is no doubt that some war criminals—if not a large number of them—got away. Some of them are, rightly or wrongly, believed to be living among us now many years later. The Bill proposes to try them by retrospectively enlarging the jurisdiction. I fear that I may be saying in less eloquent words what has already been said. I have never heard in any company such elegant expositions of a complicated subject.
However, perhaps we should look for one moment at retrospection. The Bill is enacted from 1st September 1939, which is about 52 years ago. If we imagine ourselves on 1st September 1939 and turn back 52 years, we find ourselves in the year 1887 which was the year of Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee. Can we seriously say that in 1939 we would have contemplated the prosecution of someone for any offence committed in the year of the Golden Jubilee? I have to say that I think we would regard it as amazing were we to do so.
Another aspect of the matter is the change in the procedure to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, referred. I entirely agree with what he said. The change in procedure by abolishing committal creates a much greater chance that the wrong person may be charged and will go through late in life, entirely blameless, a most fearful experience. That seems to me not to be a good idea.
Further, the Bill provides for different categories of evidence to be adduced, which were not previously regarded as being admissible. That has already been explained. In order successfully to convict someone, it must be proved that the chap who is in the dock has actually done the deed. Someone will have done it or
648
may have done it, but it must be proved that it is that chap. I do not think that there is any great likelihood with linguistic difficulties, differences in culture and this enormous lapse of time that that can be done. Moreover, the defendant will be arraigned under the special procedure and, as has been said, everyone will know that Parliament passed a special Act to ensure that such people were tried. Those concerned have been described in the report in terms which leave little doubt as to their guilt or expected guilt. That, in itself, is unfair.
It seems to me that the Bill proposes to create a new class of outlaw. Having checked the word "outlaw", I see that it is a crime which was discontinued a long time before it was finally abolished in criminal proceedings in 1938. I believe that it would be a great mistake to attempt to revive it. On these grounds, if no others, I feel that the Bill should be rejected.
5. 28 p. m.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech. The noble Lord has much experience as a businessman, as a farmer, in banking, in the leisure industry, in the boy scouts and, to crown it all, he is a commissioner of income tax. I hope very much that he will make that vast experience available to us in future debates. We hope to hear much more from him.
I did not intervene in the last debate, but I do so on this occasion for two reasons. First, it seems to me that the debates which have taken place in this House and in the other place have been dominated by lawyers and judges. It is most important that the layman should also be heard. Surely this is a matter for the conscience of all of us. Secondly, I believe that the Government are absolutely right to reintroduce the Bill in its original form and so serve notice upon us that if we do not give it a Second Reading, it will, in any event, become law.
For almost half a century it has been universally recognised that this House is a revising Chamber. Its major function is to examine and, if it thinks fit, to revise what the other Chamber proposes to do. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross—I see that he has left the Chamber—said that the Salisbury-Addison convention did not apply to the Bill. I could not disagree with him more. He said that the noble Lord opposite nodded his head. I hope that he did not. I am sure that the Salisbury-Addison convention applies to the Bill and to any other Bill passed by the other place with such a majority.
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, interviewed in the current issue of the Field magazine, said:
"Although the Lords are entitled to amend a Government Bill substantially they would not reject it out of hand at Second Reading. In recent years, this has been adopted to cover wrecking amendments".
To defeat on Second Reading what the other place proposes—the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, used the word "convention", in constitutional terms a much stronger and firmer word than "agreement"—is a breach of the convention. So it almost amounts to being unconstitutional. The convention has operated for half a century.

649
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is strictly in order but amounts to a rejection of the Second Reading. It is the classic wrecking amendment. The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, would give the Committee power vastly to extend the scope of the Bill. Although permissive it gives the Committee permission to act as proposed—the power would deny the Government their tingle-purpose Bill. Both amendments are in clear breach of the Salisbury-Addison convention. To pass them and so negate the Second Reading or radically to alter the Bill, passed by the other place by the considerable majority of 254 to 88—and if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, does not believe that to be sufficient, I do not know what is—would be wrong.
If the House of Lords has a future—I am not sure that it has in the short term, although I hope it has—it can be only as a revising Chamber. Let us not jeopardise that future by listening to the siren songs of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, which would lead us straight on to the rocks.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon said that he hoped we would not go over the old ground again. I have sat through debates and heard our learned lawyers—my noble friend Lord Mishcon, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and others—going over the old ground. I believe that it is right and proper that for a few minutes they should listen to one of the ordinary, non-legal Members of your Lordships' House going over the old ground and saying what he thinks about it.
The second part of the report contains a record of the investigation of 301 cases. Rightly, that part of the report has not been published, but some Ministers, including the Leader of the House and the Home Secretary, have seen Part 2 and are shocked by it. The Home Secretary has said:
"It is a chilling story of cold-blooded murder on a horrendous scale—committed not in the heat of battle, but in circumstances which have no possible connection with military objectives"
The report describes crimes so monstrous that they cannot be condoned, not even after 50 years. Again, the report states:
"There is detailed evidence implicating people of certain ghastly and horrible events which are so serious that passage of time, however long, cannot blot them out".
The alleged perpetrators of those crimes are the people who could be brought to justice by the Bill. Let me emphasise "brought to justice" It is not retribution, despite what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, said. It is not vindictiveness; it is bringing them to justice.
I suppose that no one in this country is more experienced in deciding whether a body of evidence is sufficient to justify a prosecution than Sir Thomas Hetherington. Some of us went upstairs to hear him before the previous debate. He and Mr. Chalmers have examined the evidence with meticulous thoroughness. As a result they recommend:
"There is sufficient evidence to give a realistic prospect of conviction"
650
The Bill, as the Leader of the House pointed out, would not create crimes retrospectively. That, I agree, would be intolerable. The acts alleged in the report were a clear breach of international law at the time they were committed. Had they been committed then by British citizens, those British citizens would most certainly have been prosecuted years ago. Had the alleged criminals remained in their own countries, they too would have been prosecuted or extradited years ago. But they did not remain in their own countries. They were admitted to the United Kingdom by some means or other. They acquired British nationality by some means or other. By so doing, they evaded prosecution. Thus we have the intolerable situation of a native-born British citizen being liable to prosecution had he committed those crimes in the 1940s but a naturalised emigre from Europe who committed similar offences not being liable to prosecution. I find that intolerable. I do not understand how the Bill' s opponents can defend that situation.
Moreover, in 1957 Parliament ratified the Geneva Convention. The British courts were given jurisdiction from that date in war crimes, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrators or of the victims, or of the country where the alleged offences took place. So we have a second intolerable situation. If a naturalised emigre from Europe committed a war crime at any time from 1957 he could be prosecuted wherever the crime was committed, whatever his nationality at the time and no matter how many years had elapsed. But had he committed the same crime before 1957, he could not be prosecuted. That is an indefensible situation which would be rectified by the Bill.
There are genuine fears as to whether anyone prosecuted under the legislation could have a fair trial. I listened carefully to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, and to the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice on the previous occasion. It is worth pointing out—far be it from me to defend the Government—that the Government have gone to some length to include in the Bill arrangements to ensure a fair trial. For example, there is the right of the accused to appeal to the court to have the trial set aside, and there is the power of the Attorney-General to sanction prosecution. With the safeguards that the Government have provided, I believe that I have sufficient faith in our judges and courts—I have a great deal of faith in them despite the criticisms that they have encountered in recent years—and in British juries to believe that anyone prosecuted under the Bill would have a fair trial.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark pointed out, there is no statute of limitations in criminal matters except of course for those gentlemen from Europe who have escaped justice by acquiring British citizenship. Apart from those gentlemen, anyone else can be prosecuted at any time for a war crime wherever committed. Let me postulate two cases. First, let us suppose that evidence comes into the hands of the police that Mr. X committed a minor crime—let us say a minor fraud

651
—50 years ago. Would he be prosecuted? Of course not. It would be held that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute.
Suppose that evidence came into the hands of the police that Mr. Y, an apparently respectable citizen, had committed a quite horrendous murder or series of murders 50 years ago. Would he be prosecuted? Should he be prosecuted? Of course he would, and so he should. Why then do we make exceptions in the case of people alleged to have committed quite horrendous crimes 40 or 50 years ago? These were crimes against which most others pale into insignificance and for which the otherwise attractive plea of "Forgive and forget" can have no possible application.
Sad and repugnant though it may be to have the Bill—it is extremely sad but the evidence is there—we owe it to the memory of those who suffered so appallingly to see that justice is done to their memory. In spite of what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, I believe that we can and should do justice to the memory of the dead. That has nothing whatever to do with retribution; it is a matter of justice.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as the representative of the Opposition Front Bench in regard to the Bill, I rise to make a short intervention. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, knows of my intention. He is always fair. However, he made a reference to my right honourable friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place and the reason he had given in Parliament for the vote that he cast on the Bill. I have shown the noble and learned Lord the excerpt from Hansard relating to the reason that my right honourable friend gave. I believe that the noble and learned Lord wishes to say something.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me this opportunity. I was not the only person who attributed that sentiment to his right honourable friend. It was clearly in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead; he nods his head.
If I have defamed or misrepresented the right honourable Member in any way, I can only say that I am extremely sorry. Quite independent of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, I was under the distinct impression that I had received a report to that effect. I have not been able to study Hansard in detail, so whether this took place in Parliament or outside I do not know. I find at cols. 30 and 31 of the Official Report for 18th March 1991 this passage:
"I do not want it to be possible for anyone—no matter how ignorant, prejudiced or malicious—to have the slightest opportunity of arguing that the House has either forgotten the holocaust or forgiven. This is not the time to appear in the slightest degree tender-hearted about those who commit war crimes or are complacent about anti-Semitism."
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, this is not in order.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, if I am not in order, I apologise. I intervened at the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Denham: My Lords, perhaps my noble and learned friend will forgive me. I believe that these are rather special circumstances but equally it is not in order to quote directly from Hansard the remarks of a Member of another place.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I apologise to the House for having done so. I was tempted and did eat.
5. 44 p. m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I do not intend to repeat the speech I made last time, but since this is very much a matter of conscience I must restate my position with regard to the principle. It is that which was ably enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, at the end of his speech. In memory of the appalling crimes committed in the holocaust and in the last war, it appears to me quite impossible for any government or person to ignore the fact that evidence has come forward that there may exist in this country people who may have committed those appalling crimes.
The Government were quite right to appoint the two distinguished lawyers, steeped in the traditions of law in this country—prosecutors though they may be—to investigate and provide the money for so doing. The investigation by those two distinguished and honourable men led them to conclude that a case could and should be brought against the men in this country. They had come here and were now citizens.
The Government have introduced legislation to allow evidence to be brought under new circumstances. Most distinguished lawyers have said that the essence of retrospective legislation is to invent a new crime which was not a crime when it was committed. With that I wholly agree. However, this crime is universally admitted and universally and rightly detested. Therefore I take the simple view that the Government were right to try to do something about the situation which was pointed out to them. They investigated it and found it to be real. That is the reason for my supporting the Bill.
I shall now admit that it is embarrassing to try old men. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, referred to "the old gentleman in the dock" It is embarrassing, but that is no excuse for saying that because it costs a lot of money and is embarrassing we should not do it. There would be an excuse if it were thought that these people could not have a fair trial. However, the noble, distinguished and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, gave us ample evidence that any barrister—even an average British barrister—can put a convincing case after a lapse of time and with the precedents at his disposal. We have been shown that where trials have been set up it has been impossible to secure a conviction. That is embarrassing. Nevertheless, not to try would be even worse. That is my position.
I come now to the constitutional question. I was much impressed by the arguments of my noble friend

653
and Leader Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I was impressed by the force and skill with which he put them, not with the arguments themselves. To say that because 40 years ago Churchill, Attlee and Bevin were all agreed that in their time, and with the problems facing them, they should ignore the matter is not a proper argument. Nor is the argument that this House has a right to upset legislation in the first place; that it is not primarily an amending House and that this would be the right thing to do
I like this House. I came into it 17 years ago. I have enjoyed my time here. I may have done some good. However, I am under no illusions as to the powers of myself or this House. By custom and acceptance this is an amending House. It can amend and advise, but it is not the forum of the nation.
In a striking phrase, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said once, "Some of us are here because of political patronage; some of us are here because we are the sons of our fathers" That is a striking and funny way to put it, but I do not believe that either of these qualities—in my case, political patronage and, in the case of the hereditary Peers, a system of random selection and breeding which no cattle breeder would ever think could produce hereditary legislators—is sufficient reason for us to believe that we can upset the freely expressed will of the House of Commons. In my opinion, it is much more important than the will expressed under the threat of the Whips.
In my view, there is nothing wrong with people thinking again about this matter. Like others, I have thought long and hard about it and have realised all the snags that it entails and all the fiascos that may occur. However, there are two principles involved. First, I believe it would be wrong for any government not to do something when clear evidence was adduced that these people were British citizens and lived among us. Secondly, we as Peers should not upset the principle accepted in a free vote by the elected forum of the people.
5. 50 p. m.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, your Lordships' House never fails on an occasion when great issues are at stake to provide examples of great oratory. Today we have heard in this Chamber splendid and moving oratory. I confess I was deeply moved by the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in which he spoke about conscience being the voice of God. I do not wish to ask anyone to vote against his conscience. My conscience is clear on this issue and I shall express it.
I was also moved by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, with whom I served in another place. I served in another place with most of the noble Lords who are now on those Benches. I never heard one of them at any time say that this House somehow had the right on a major issue—this is not a small issue—to tell another place that the House of Lords has the last word.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, we cannot do that.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord must not spoil my speech. I was quiet during his speech although I admit that I bit my tongue once or twice. The noble Lord the Leader of the House has come to this House from another place within the past 12 months. Today in cogent terms he made it clear to us that the Cabinets of the 1940s—the Attlee Cabinet and the Churchill Cabinet—thought only in terms of war crimes committed on the continent of Europe.
I was also in Parliament in 1945. Who of us believed that those who had committed crimes in the concentration camps in Europe were living in our country? We looked down our noses at those Latin American countries where those rogues were fleeing for shelter. We used to be proud of the fact that we in Britain stood for different values and, above all, for the respect of human dignity. The issue that is before us tonight involves human dignity.
There are two reasons why I wish to speak in this debate. I spoke in the previous debate on this matter. The first reason is that I visited Auschwitz concentration camp and saw the half burnt remains of human beings. I also visited the gas chamber. Therefore I know we are not dealing with a small issue tonight when I think of the millions who died. We may be old, but surely we have not lost our values. Surely we have not revised our belief that evil is not to be tolerated. Are we to say that because time has passed evil is now excusable?
I listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross. He used the word "sophistry" in connection with my noble friend the Chief Rabbi. However, I must say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, gave the best example of sophistry that I have heard tonight in the way he damned with faint praise Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. Chalmers. That was said within the hearing of us all. The noble and learned Lord used every histrionic device that he employed long ago when he practised in the law courts of this land.
My noble friend Lord Glenamara was the Leader of the House of Commons when I was the Speaker. That brings me to my second reason for speaking in this debate. My reason for being here and for sitting on these Benches is that I was the Speaker of the House of Commons, and a primary responsibility of every Speaker has been to guard the rights and privileges of the elected representatives of the people in that House. If noble Lords in this House try to push aside the wishes of another place, the other place can apply the Parliament Act. The Parliament Act is there to protect another place from this House. That is the sole and simple reason why our fathers fought to vest power in that House, where it belongs. Another place is answerable to the nation whereas we in this place are answerable to ourselves.
It is correct to say that some of us are here because centuries ago our forefathers served our nation well. Some of us are here through luck, and some of us are here as a result of political service given in another place. No one who has served in another place can say with his hand on his heart that he believes the House of Lords has a greater authority than another place, or

655
has a moral right to force another place to use the Parliament Act to enable the will of the people to prevail.
I promise to be brief as a great many noble Lords wish to speak. I, too, received letters after the previous debate on this matter. I received a letter from a Methodist minister. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Soper has had to leave us as I have spoken on platforms with the noble Lord for over 40 years. The letter I received from the Methodist minister asked me whether I had remembered that forgiveness is at the heart of the Gospel. Those words went through me like a knife. But, am I being asked to forgive on behalf of the 6. 5 million people who died in gas chambers and in torture chambers? I have no moral right to forgive those who committed those crimes. No one in this House has the right to say he forgives those who committed the crimes on behalf of those who were murdered and put to death.
Finally, is a fair trial possible? We either trust our judges or we do not. I was surprised to discover such little trust on the part of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross. He referred to a letter he had received which stated we should not place responsibility for this matter on the judges as though they were a lot of weak wimps. I use the cultured language used by the noble and learned Lord. There is every guarantee that no one will be punished, under the protection that is provided, unless the case against him is proved. I believe that the Government have done an honourable thing. The House of Commons has lived up to its responsibility. I shall support the Government on this Bill.
6 p. m.
Lord Pym: My Lords, it is my good fortune and pleasure almost always to find myself in full agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, particularly on parliamentary matters. However, on this occasion there are some things that he said with which I am not able to agree.
The weight of argument against the Bill was deployed most forcefully last June. The vote at the end of that debate reflected the conviction of this House. Like other noble Lords, I was surprised and dismayed when the Government decided to bring the Bill back a second time. The arguments against the Bill are continuing to be deployed with equal force on this occasion. I should like to add my congratulations on the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Cochrane who added substantially to that argument.
I do not intend to delay the House by repeating those arguments in my own terms. However, in the intervening 11 months we have witnessed the appalling events in the Middle East, including the Gulf war and particularly the crimes against humanity perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and others, and the suffering of the Kurds. Those events dominate the news every day and, in my view, make the Bill even more irrelevant than before.
This is not a party political issue, as everyone agrees. Both Houses have had free votes and each House has come to a different conclusion. If we were
656
dealing with a matter which was important to a government' s programme, then of course the will of another place would prevail. The Parliament Acts are there to make that possible. However, on a non-party matter of this kind there is no question of the Government's political programme being involved. In those circumstances, I believe that the government of the day ought to secure a broad measure of agreement in both Houses before proceeding.
In this case, I should have thought that the scale and quality of the objections to the Bill were more than enough to cause the Government to pause. There is no doubt that the Government are entirely within their rights to bring the Bill back, but the question is whether it was wise to do that. My feeling is that to do so is against the spirit of our parliamentary practice for dealing with non-party issues of this kind.
We do not know what the outcome of this debate will be, but it would be extraordinary if the conclusion was any different from last June. Nothing has happened in the meantime to cause anyone to change his mind, so far as I can see. If it is the same, the Lord Privy Seal has told us that the Parliament Act powers will be invoked. I urge him and his colleagues to think again about that. The Parliament Acts were introduced to prevent a minority party in another place from using its majority in this House to frustrate the will of the elected government. In this case we are not dealing with the will of the elected government. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself, in another capacity, voted against the Bill in the last Session. We are dealing with an issue on which there was a free vote on all sides.
The Parliament Acts have been invoked on only six occasions. Three have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, when three Bills were passed without the consent of your Lordships' House. Three Bills have been enacted through the use of Section 2(4) of the 1911 Act. However, so far no Conservative government have ever invoked the powers of those Acts. It can fairly be said that they have had no need to. On this occasion for the first time they could do so. The Government have that right. But again, would it be wise? I want to say as forcefully as I can that I think not.
To use those powers for a purpose different from that for which they were granted would be a very dangerous precedent. The will of the elected government is not being challenged. No question of government policy arises. Therefore the Parliament Acts are totally inappropriate here. I endorse very strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone said. The use of those Acts, if the Government so decided, would be highly authoritarian and dictatorial. Indeed, I feel that it would be an abuse of power. I sincerely hope that it does not come to that.
The arguments against the Bill are very powerful and widely held, on a non-party basis. If the decision of your Lordships is the same tonight as it was last June, the Bill should then be left on one side. Let us get on with the real problems facing not only our own country but the world, and let us concentrate on the

657
future and not the distant past. As I voted against the Bill in June, so I shall do the same again tonight and support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
6. 6 p.m.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, when this Bill was before the House last year I both spoke and voted against giving it a Second Reading. This year I propose both to speak and vote in favour of giving it a Second Reading. When your Lordships have heard me out, I hope that you will not conclude that by saying that I condemn myself either as a wimp or as the cloven-footed populist of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham' s vividly mixed metaphor. A charge to which I must plead guilty, if it is a wicked thing to be, is the charge of being a pragmatist.
The reason I have changed the position that I take in relation to the Second Reading of the Bill is not that I have changed my opinion of the Bill. It is because the effect of denying the Bill a Second Reading this year will be radically different from the effect of doing so last year. Last year we had the power to prevent the Bill reaching the statute book, which we exercised. This year we no longer have that power.
Especially in view of what we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pym, I must try to dispel a total misapprehension about the position under the Parliament Act. There is no question of the Parliament Act not being invoked. There is no question of the Government changing their mind and deciding not to invoke the Parliament Act. The language of the Parliament Act, which will become applicable to the situation produced by a rejection of the Bill on Second Reading in present circumstances, is perfectly clear. The procedures to attract the Act have been followed; the formalities have been complied with.
To dispel misunderstanding I shall read the provision which now will become applicable:
"That Bill shall"—
not may—
"on its rejection for the second time by the House of Lords, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, be presented to"
Her Majesty and will become law. A direction to the contrary under that provision would require a fresh vote in the other place to reverse the votes which have been cast already in favour of the Bill. Even if the other place was invited to do so by the Government, there is not the slightest prospect that it would do so.
Therefore, whether we like it or not, the Bill will reach the statute book. To describe the resort to the Parliament Act in those circumstances as a constitutional monstrosity does not prevent that fact. We cannot prevent the Bill becoming law by denying it a Second Reading. What we can do is to improve it by amendment. That is what I believe we should do.
The object of the amendments, which I and some of my noble and learned friends on the Law Lords Corridor would be minded to table after the Bill had been given a Second Reading, would be precisely to mitigate some of the objectionable features of the Bill which have provoked such passionate opposition to it from so many of your Lordships. As so many speakers
658
have sought to disparage and discount in advance the possibility of improving the Bill by amendment, I shall not apologise if I take a little time to say something that has not yet been said and to try to explain to your Lordships how the Bill can be beneficially amended.
I have always thought that the gravest ground of objection to the Bill lay in the near impossibility of securing a fair trial for any man charged with an offence which he is alleged to have committed not less than 46 years ago. All the reasons for that have already been explored in the speeches that your Lordships have heard today. The courts have an inherent jurisdiction to order a stay of proceedings where they are satisfied that delay in bringing a prosecution has caused serious prejudice to the defence, or otherwise created a situation in which a fair trial will not be possible.
I was greatly encouraged today to hear from the noble Lord the Leader of the House that it has always been the Government' s intention that that power shall be available in cases under the Bill. But, unfortunately, I am clearly of the view that it would not be available under the Bill as it stands. The jurisdiction rests on the underlying principle that to bring a prosecution after a very long delay amounts to an abuse of the process of the courts.
If Parliament expressly enacts, as the Bill proposes and as it will do if it becomes law unaltered, that the courts are to have jurisdiction to try offences committed not less than 46 years ago, then, unless it embodies an express saving clause to preserve the jurisdiction of the courts to stay proceedings on the ground of prejudice by delay, no court would say that the delay of 46 years amounted to an abuse of process of the courts when, ex hypothesi, no prosecution could be brought because the courts had no jurisdiction to entertain it.
It therefore seems to me that the one absolutely vital amendment to be made, which would meet one of the major objections that prompts opposition to the Bill, is the introduction of an express clause. We can now take it, from what we have been told by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, that such a clause would not be opposed by the Government, providing that the court would have the power to stay proceedings in any case where the lapse of time since the commission of the offence was such as to cause serious prejudice to the defendant in the conduct of or preparation of his defence or otherwise, such as to make it impossible to ensure a fair trial.
That power would have to be exercised on a case-by-case basis. As I apprehend it, whether or not in any particular case a stay would be ordered would depend on the nature of the evidence relied on by the prosecution and the nature of the issues raised by the defence. I realise that to require judges to make the decision on that issue will put a very onerous responsibility upon them. That is why I contemplate tabling a further and related procedural amendment which would give an express power of appeal to either side—to the prosecution or the defence—against a decision by a judge of first instance as to whether or not to order a stay of proceedings on the grounds of prejudice by delay. The object of that would be so that

659
responsibility for this in some cases difficult, and in all cases sensitive, decision would not rest ultimately on the shoulders of a single judge, but on three judges in the Court of Appeal.
To take the course that I contemplate in relation to these two amendments is not to shuffle off responsibility from this House on to the shoulders of the judges. It is to resort to the only expedient we have which can ensure that, in a case in which a fair trial will not be possible, the suspect will not have to stand trial.
Looking at the clock, I realise that I shall have to be much more brief with regard to the other, as I believe, beneficial amendments that I contemplate tabling with the support of my noble and learned friends. The first would be to exclude the admissibility of evidence by television link. That would accord with the view that your Lordships' House expressed, as some noble Lords will remember, in Committee stage of the Law Reform (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Provision) Bill in May of last year. I do not know whether that would be acceptable to the other place.
The other two amendments that I have in mind address the very problems highlighted in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. We all recognise that evidence of visual identification is liable to error. The most honest and convincing witnesses may claim to identify someone and be mistaken. Two amendments need to be made in relation to evidence of identification. Lest the other place were not prepared to agree to the exclusion in all respects of evidence by live television link, we should at the very least offer it the alternative of an amendment which provided that evidence of visual identification should be admissible only if given by a witness present in court before the jury, so that the jury could hear that witness tested in cross-examination in the flesh.
Another problem arises. There is the gravest danger of juries arriving at erroneous convictions where the prosecution case, which seeks to identify the man in the dock as the man who committed the offence charged, relies wholly or mainly upon evidence of visual identification. Obviously, that danger will be greatly magnified in those cases. It is present even in trials of recent offences. The law as it stands already requires the judge to give a strong warning to the jury of the danger of mistaken identity in a case where such evidence is wholly or mainly relied on by the prosecution.
When the problem is seeking to identify the man in his seventies or eighties in the dock as the man who, when he was in his twenties or thirties, committed one of those horrifying offences, a further safeguard will be needed. I regret to say that I have not yet discussed this matter. I have in mind an express provision putting upon the judge a duty at the conclusion of the prosecution case, whenever it relied wholly or mainly on visual identification to establish the necessary identity, to consider whether that evidence was capable of supporting a conviction, of satisfying a jury and of establishing that identity was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
660
Some of your Lordships opposed to the Bill will say that there is no guarantee that the other place will agree to any of those amendments. That is true and, if it did not, our labours would have been in vain. However, I am optimistic in that regard. The tenor of the debates in the other place in support of the Bill seemed to me to have been activated primarily by two considerations. The first consideration is that it is important to affirm the principle that perpetrators of the hideous and monstrous crimes with which the Bill is concerned must remain answerable for those crimes wherever and whenever they are found. The second consideration, which on reading the debates it seems to me would certainly have moved a number in the other place, was the consideration—particularly now that following the Hetherington-Chalmers report the Bill has acquired, so to speak, a momentum of its own—that if Parliament failed to enact the Bill it would be a condonation of the offences.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to speak for a moment. He is making a most persuasive case that some of these amendments would undoubtedly reduce the very great reluctance with which most of us go along with this Bill. I hope that he will allow me in intervening to say that I think that he is being a little over-optimistic perhaps in believing that the Government will give way because we are so rational and reasonable.
I ask him therefore whether it would not be preferable—this debate has several hours yet to run—if he were to press the Leader of the House, who sits here now, between now and the end of this debate to consult his colleagues in government and come back to us when he winds-up the debate with whatever he can say in reply to the noble and learned Lord's proposals in general. That might influence the vote of some of us who certainly do not want to see the Bill carried in its present form but, on the other hand, fully recognise the very great case that is made in favour of the general principles.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: I shall not repeat what the noble Lord said. The noble Lord the Leader of the House will have heard it. I am sorry if I take up too much time, but as no one has canvassed the question of amendments I thought that I was entitled to do so. I believe that there is no necessity to anticipate that supporters of the Bill in the other place will object to the proposition that those who cannot be fairly tried should not have to stand trial, or will object to the kind of stringent safeguards intended to guard against the danger of wrongful convictions which the amendments that I have in contemplation would be designed to introduce.
I appreciate that the great majority of noble Lords are opposed to the Bill. Those of us who think that it can be improved by amendment are part of that majority. The sole practical effect of denying the Bill a Second Reading will be to deny us that opportunity. We believe that we have the opportunity at least to ameliorate the effects of the Bill, which is a significant and well worthwhile one.

661
I appreciate that many noble Lords find this Bill so repugnant that they would not feel able in conscience to cast a vote in its favour. But I invite noble Lords to consider it from a pragmatic point of view. I hope it will be concluded that a vote to deny the Bill a Second Reading is neither necessary for conscience sake, nor able in practical terms to achieve any useful purpose whatsoever.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, for reasons which will become apparent I am greatly encouraged by the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, whose position is not very different from my own. Two weeks ago I stood in front of the memorial to the victims of the Holocaust in the ghetto in Venice. A few days later I read Sybille Bedford's stark and moving account of the trial, a quarter of a century ago in Frankfurt, of 22 former staff of Auschwitz and the events that led up to it. Those two happenings confronted me with the arguments in favour of the Bill.
Sybille Bedford wrote:
"They had to be judged because it would have been indecent to condone and forget offences such as theirs. What was at stake in Frankfurt was the establishment of truth: a unique opportunity of testing what many Germans, and non-Germans, still like to evade, in the hardest, straightest arena of all, an open court of law. A German court it must be repeated, not at Jerusalem, not at Nuremberg under an alien code, but under the German criminal code as established nearly a century ago".
She went on:
"Pity and anger are inadequate. The law is inadequate … Comment is inadequate. Expiation will be inadequate. And yet letting it go, looking aside, would be an offence against justice, morality, the sense of fate itself. That is why the Frankfurt trial had to go on to the weary end".
In August 1966, two and a half years after the trial began, the truth was unequivocally established. Seventeen were convicted. There can therefore be no looking aside or forgetting, no way of closing our eyes to the evidence—to use the words of my noble friend the Leader of the House. The trial took place 20 years after appalling events and the judge spoke of the difficulties that that fact dictated. Since then the time span has more than doubled: another 25 years have passed. If it was difficult between 1963 and 1966 in Germany to hold a fair trial, it becomes in my view impossible a quarter of a century later. That above all others is the reason why I cannot vote for the Bill. The possibility that perhaps two or three old and wicked men may escape conviction is a lesser evil than that further injury should be given to our system of justice.
Some argue, indeed my noble friend the Leader of the House argued, that the judges will maintain the integrity of the system and call off the trial if the truth cannot be safely established. But by then the world will have heard the charges and the allegations will have been made. I can think of no greater travesty of justice than to level an accusation knowing that its truth can never be tested.
I cannot then vote for the Bill. But, for the reasons that we Eave just heard, if I join with others and defeat it, under the parliamentary procedures approved by another place the Bill will become law in any case. I am surprised—I am rather shocked—that it has been
662
decided to proceed in such a way with a Bill of this kind. The procedures have only been used on a handful of occasions. As it happens, one of them was the Act to disestablish the Welsh Church which was passed after prolonged constitutional debate in which my great-great uncle the Bishop of St. Asaph, later the first Archbishop of Wales, played a central role. The circumstances on this occasion are wholly different.
I have to offer an apology to the House that because of a longstanding engagement I cannot be present for the concluding part of the debate. I apologise both to the House and to my noble friend who will reply; however, I shall feel no great sense of regret at being absent when the vote is called. I cannot vote for the Bill. If I vote against it, it will pass in a wholly unsatisfactory form. I feel unable to support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway.
There has been reference to disguising our moral impotence and pretending to assent. It is because I wish there to be no pretence that I have chosen to speak. If the Bill passes I hope that the House will use all its considerable skill and wisdom to amend it so as to remove what faults we can. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone said that the Bill was unamendable. But we heard a contrary view in the encouraging speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich. Thus encouraged, without daring ever seriously to challenge the legal opinions of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, I still hope that some steps can be taken to make improvements and provide some safeguards to make the Bill the best that can be achieved in wholly unsatisfactory circumstances.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords,I sympathise with the dilemma expressed by the previous speaker. I find my position somewhat easier than it might have been. I am delighted that, with our tradition on this side of the House of freedom of speech, we are free to vote as we wish.
On the last occasion I said that this was the most revolting Bill that I had known—and I am on my way to nearly half a century of attending this House. I reaffirm that position now. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested—not obscurely—that the right action for all noble Lords sitting behind him is to support the Bill. I have an unbounded admiration for the noble Lord. If ever I were in bad trouble I would ask him to represent me—although I do not believe that I should be able to afford what I understand to be his enormous charges. However, he might make an exception for a colleague, even if it were unsatisfactory.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, there is legal aid.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I suppose I might receive legal aid but that is problematical. However, I have the greatest admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Luckily, there is no dilemma for me as there is for the noble Lord who has just spoken. Cardinal Newman was once asked whether it was possible for

663
him to drink the health of the Pope and of conscience. He replied, "Certainly. I drink the health of conscience first and of the Pope afterwards". That is my position, in this case the Pope being the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I have no dilemma. I speak, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, according to conscience.
I shall not dwell in these few minutes—and they will be few—on the so-called constitutional issue. I do not believe that there is a constitutional issue. As I remarked in one of our endless debates, I was a junior Member of the Government who introduced the measure which restricted the delaying power of the House of Lords to a year. It was never contemplated that that meant nothing. We have a delaying power of a year. That is our constitutional right. Therefore, let us have no talk of a constitutional issue.
It is generally agreed that no fair trial is possible under the Bill. The previous speaker agreed with that, but seemed to share a hope expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in some way or other, by some extraordinary sleight of hand, that the Government might be persuaded to make the measure quite different so that a fair trial would be possible. I do not share that optimism. I see no grounds for it. Therefore, I am wholeheartedly in opposition to the Bill.
In these few moments, I shall do something that I seldom do: that is, to enter into the minds (I am not being sarcastic) of those who support the Bill. It takes some intellectual effort but I make that effort. I have been associated over the years with certain well-known criminals—people who have been convicted of murder. I am well aware that the relatives of murdered people cherish in some cases—though by no means in all cases—an undying antagonism to the murderers. It is understandable. Loyalty comes into the situation. There is the feeling that someone's child has been murdered and that one would be betraying that child if one did not pursue the murderer to the ends of the earth. That is a strong feeling which I have encountered at first hand. That aspect is relevant on the wider scale today.
I am aware that the past sufferings and atrocities inflicted on the Jews are unexampled in world history. I know of nothing to equal those appalling atrocities. One has to ask, therefore: what are the consequences over the years? I agree with the decision of the Labour Government in the 1940s, supported by Sir Winston Churchill. However, considering the matter more generally, can one understand the feelings of Jewish people in the face of those unexampled atrocities?
We were told on 4th June where this matter started. It comes from the Wiesenthal Centre. The centre has pursued remorselessly all over the world those who may be thought to have committed some of the appalling crimes. The initiative therefore is Jewish. There is no doubt about that. It is very understandable, but it is Jewish. The majority of those in this House who supported the Government on the previous occasion were not Jewish. There were a number of Jews but there were others. I understand the feelings of the Jews, in the sense that if I were a Jew
664
I would probably feel the same. But it is impertinent to pursue that aspect further. However, I am puzzled by the attitude of people who have not themselves suffered directly or indirectly. I therefore appeal to them. I do not refer to Jewish people whose sufferings have been unparalleled.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive my interrupting—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, yes, but perhaps I may finish my sentence. I understand the feelings of the Jewish people whose suffering has been unparalleled but those who are not Jewish have to explain themselves more clearly than they have done up to now.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps I may—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I shall try to enter into their minds, including the mind of the noble Lord.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I was about to explain my mind to the noble Earl. I find it very difficult to understand his mind if he is saying that one or one's family must have suffered before one can understand the suffering of others.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I had not meant to intervene, but I cannot resist it. As a Catholic, I remind my noble friend that Hitler was a Catholic too.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, he was not what is called a practising Catholic. I do not believe that he had access to the Sacraments unless there was a lenient priest. However, let us leave that aspect of the argument.
I am trying to enter into the minds of people who have not themselves suffered but who nevertheless feel that these old gentlemen—some are almost as old as me—have to be pursued to the ends of the earth. Medical certificates have to be dredged up. All that process has to be gone through, but in the interests of what? We may say that it is in the interests of the victims or relatives of the victims. What good will it do the relatives of the victims? I put that point to the noble Lord, and then I shall finish this sentence before he pops up again. We have to think about the issue carefully.
I have often been asked how I would feel if one of my children had been murdered. How would I feel about the murderer? I have always said, "I cannot tell you how I feel but I hope that I would not argue that my feelings should be the basis of the just punishment of the murderer". I do not consider that the feelings of the victims should be made the basis of the punishment of the murderer. That is an individual case, but I take that position over the world scene. That is what I assert in the face of any argument and opposition.
We come to this question: what good can we do to the victims? On the previous occasion several speakers said that they supported the Bill because they were trying to do justice to the relatives of the victims. God knows those relatives need justice done to them and very few people have done much to help them. Those

665
who speak on the matter have not always done as much to help them as one would wish. On the whole, the relatives of victims have had a pretty raw deal over the years. But what good will it do them by persecuting the murderers?
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, "prosecuting".
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I said "persecuting" them. It is a matter of opinion. It is a free country. The noble Lord has made a speech and I make mine which will not continue for much longer.
What good will it do the victims? In the end talking about helping the victims becomes humbug. I do not speak of people whose emotions are deeply aroused by the sufferings of their own community. I do not believe that one does any good to the victims by persecuting, or even prosecuting, the old people in question. That is where I take my stand and why I shall certainly vote according to my conscience against the Bill today, or on any other occasion that the opportunity occurs.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, like so many other noble Lords I rise also for the third time to contribute a few thoughts to our third debate on this agonising subject. There might seem to be very little that one can add to what has already been said. Indeed, one is reminded of the biblical preacher's words in the book of Ecclesiastes:
"This is the end of the matter. Everything has been heard".
Is it the end of the matter? Everything may have been said but has it been heard and answered? These days we hear much about dialogues, about different parties, groups and faiths talking to one another, but I believe more important than talking is listening to one another
In listening to the debate for the third time I hear many persuasive arguments. Yet I am not convinced; nor, quite evidently, have I convinced others. Therefore, I shall try again, encouraged as I am by some of the contributions to which I have been privileged to listen and felt most humble in doing so; notably that of the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, and the sterling address of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy.
Naturally, we all speak from the vantage point of our own particular training and experience. Lawyers are conditioned to think of legalities, pragmatic politicians of practical difficulties. I suppose that professional preachers like myself are conditioned to think and speak in moralistic terms. All these diverse voices should be heard and carefully considered. In fact, we even hear the pleas for those who are alleged to have committed these horrendous crimes—that they are old and decrepit; their memories are fading, and is it not time to forget and forgive?
But I have an oppressive feeling that there is one voice transcending all others and we do not hear it. When the first murder in history occurred and Cain slew his brother Abel in cold blood, Scripture tells us:
"And the Lord said to Cain, where is your brother Abel? And he said: I do not know; am I my brother's keeper? And the Lord said: what have you done? The voice of the blood of your brother cries out to Me from the earth!".
666
Thousands of voices cry out from the earth. They ring in this Chamber. Shall their voices not be heard? Just as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, put himself into the mind of one who directly sustained the suffering, will not your Lordships understand if I, as the nearest kinsman to most of the victims, cry out in their name; transmitting the voice that rings out from the blood-stained earth where, in the famous poet Yevtushenko's immortal words in his poem Babi Yar, "all screams in silence"?
No one suggests that the accused shall not be given absolutely fair trials. Where that cannot be assured further proceedings should be stopped. I find myself in sympathy with the proposals made to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge. I submit that as legislators our task is to ensure that by our default the law will not exonerate the horrendous crimes of which we speak, letting the thousands of voices of the martyrs crying out from the earth go unheeded and unanswered, or perhaps be met with the response "Are we our brothers' keepers?"
As we have already been reminded, since our last debate two things have happened. Contrary to those who have mentioned them, I believe that they both reinforce the argument for the Bill. One is that the war crimes trials in Canada and Australia have come to grief. It has been argued that this speaks against the proposed measure. I believe the opposite. The failure of the two prosecutions has not convinced the parliaments in Canada and Australia to repeal their legislation. What matters is not whether the prosecutions are successful but whether the statutes proclaim the offences as criminal. The second event is the Gulf War. Britain and others are now proposing that Saddam Hussein and his henchmen be charged and tried as war criminals. Shall Hitler's executioners be deemed more acceptable to civilised society? That would only encourage future Hitlers, Saddams and their successors.
Finally, to those who have argued that the crimes we are discussing were not committed on British soil, not by British subjects, I can only reply by asking whether we should stop aiding the Kurds or the millions starving in Africa simply because neither they nor their oppressors are British nationals? Are we really our brothers' keepers only if we hold identical passports? Surely this Mother of Parliaments should show a noble example of human fellowship and not lag behind the legislation already passed by the daughter parliaments of the United States, Canada and Australia. I hope that in all our debates we shall keep our eye not on the trees of detail but on the wood of the overall objective of ensuring that never again in the future shall we have cause for such a debate.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, one can well understand that to the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, and to many of us, this is an agonising subject. I can only admire the courage and clarity with which, nonetheless, he spoke. However, I thought that he went a little far when he was beginning to suggest that it did not matter what the outcome of the trials were provided the accused were put on trial. It seems to be

667
carrying the argument extremely far to suggest that we should incur the immense trouble, not to say expense, of proceeding in cases where there is no possibility of a conviction.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, I was misunderstood. I did not say, "Provided the accused were put on trial". I said, "Provided that the law is on the statute book and the crime is registered as a crime, irrespective of whether or not prosecutions proceed".
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I believe the argument remains the same. To put something on the statute book which one does not believe is likely to be enforced or enforceable surely is to make a mockery of our law. I should have thought that the amplification which the noble Lord has just given of his observations makes them, with respect, even worse.
I commend to the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, whose feelings I fully understand, the speech on 4th June last year of my noble friend Lord Bauer, which seemed to me to embody the ideal approach to this problem. I shall quote his whole speech. He said:
"My Lords, I am of Jewish extraction. My father was killed by the Nazis. I emphatically support the amendment"—
that is, the amendment to reject the Bill:
"This Bill is another step towards the erosion of the rule of law".—[Official Report, 4/6/90; col. 1144.]
I am bound to say that I found that very short speech by my noble friend Lord Bauer, the most moving of all the speeches made in last year's debate.
This year's debate has been extremely interesting. However, I should like to enter a protest, as my noble friend the Leader of the House is here, at the way in which it has been compressed into one day. It is not a subject on which it is easy to make a short speech. It is a subject of great interest and importance and to compress it into one day seems to me to be treating this House less well than it should be treated. I say that to my noble friend with an easy conscience because, as he knows, I represented that to him a day or two ago.
The case for deferring the latter part of this debate and the vital votes to another day is very much strengthened by the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich. The attitude of many of us would be affected by knowledge that the Government were likely to accept the amendments which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, indicated that he will table if the Bill receives a Second Reading. That will be a highly relevant consideration.
Equally, it is not fair to ask my noble friend to give an answer for the Government this evening. However, if he will at an appropriate moment move the adjournment of part of this debate and the vote to another day, that would give him an opportunity to seek the approval of his colleagues. If that approval is given, that must plainly affect the attitude of many of us. Therefore, I beg my noble friend not just to persist in carrying on this debate, as it will be carried otherwise, into the small hours with a vote of great importance taken in the early morning hours. In the light of the additional factor of the proposals by the
668
noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, I ask him at an appropriate moment to move the adjournment of the debate.
I share the view expressed—and therefore I need not take much time over it—that the threat of the Parliament Act on this Bill is outrageous. As has been made clear, the Parliament Act was framed to prevent a party with a majority in this House thwarting the major policies of a government of another party in another place. That is how it arose originally when this House was foolish enough in 1909 to reject the budget of the then Liberal Government.
However, to invoke the Parliament Act on a measure of great psychological importance which raises moral and difficult issues but which does not affect the policy of the Government of the day or the working of the national economy seems to me to be an abuse of the powers given by the Parliament Act. I very much hope that if your Lordships' House, either on Second Reading or later when debating amendments, reaches decisions then the Government will think again. I hope that they will realise that to use the Parliament Act in this situation is not in accordance with our traditions, is not fair to this House and is not a proper working of our constitution.
As has already been pointed out, this Bill was not in the Government's election manifesto. It was carried by a vote on the last occasion by fewer than half of the Members of another place. It seems to me that it would be very unwise for this Government to build it into a great constitutional issue involving the invocation of the Parliament Act. That is the more surprising when one can see clearly that this Bill has never been the declared policy of the party of which the Government are composed. It has already been pointed out that last year our present Prime Minister voted against it in another place, which shows what a sensible person he is. On this occasion, he abstained from voting. Therefore, I urge my noble friend the Leader of the House to convey to his colleagues that relations between the two Houses will not be improved—and may well deteriorate—if the great bludgeon of the Parliament Act is invoked, whatever may be our decisions on the Bill.
It is an extraordinary Bill. To come forward with a proposal after nearly 50 years to try people for offences committed when they were young men a long time ago and in another country is quite extraordinary. It involves reversing the policy—because it has been the policy—of all governments for the past 40 years; namely, to leave the issue alone. It is not yet clear to me what suddenly sparked the Government on this occasion into introducing this Bill with the idea of bringing to trial a number of old gentlemen—and as they have not been convicted, I believe I am entitled to refer to them as gentlemen—who have been living in this country innocently and quietly for many years.
What is to happen if we incur the very substantial expenditure involved? That money could be much better spent in other directions, and I could make suggestions to my noble friend as regards that. What is to happen if this becomes law and a handful of those old men are tried in our courts? From what one hears

669
from noble and learned Lords, it is very unlikely that they will be convicted. The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, does not worry about that, but the rest of us do. To have this supposed great measure of justice produce a series of acquittals (as has already happened in Canada) is a waste of time and effort. Moreover, it somewhat denigrates the working of our political and legal system.
What is to happen if they are convicted? What is the judge to do when someone who is probably in his mid-seventies or older is brought up for sentence? Theoretically for an offence of this sort the judge should impose an enormous sentence because the crimes are enormous. What is the point of doing that to a ma.n of that age? In this context, I cannot help recalling the late Mr. Justice Avory whom some of your Lordships may remember—and I see the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is indicating that he recalls him. There v; as no age limit for the retirement of judges. I heard Mr. Justice Avory sentencing a man of about his own age to 14 years' penal servitude at which the man from the dock cried out, "My Lord, I shall never live to serve it". "Well serve as much of it as you can", said the judge. And no doubt he did.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I interrupt the noble Lord only for the purpose of accuracy. The very witty judge said, "Do the best you can".
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if I can avoid it, I never argue with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. But I was actually present in court on that occasion and made a note of what was said. Therefore I must stick to my own version which, in tribute to Mr. Justice Avory, is the wittier of the two remarks, if one can regard it as wit to be quite so brutal when sentencing someone.
What is a judge to do under the Bill when he sentences someone of that age? He is aware that if he gives an imposing sentence, which the gravity of the offence would undoubtedly dictate, under our penal system that means the old man would probably be placed in the prison hospital for a few months and then quietly released. The whole episode would be a fiasco. It would be a great pity to have a fiasco of that sort on an issue about which so many people feel so deeply, as the debate indicates.
I suggest that the Bill is a great mistake. After all these years, it is wrong to seek to try people who we may well not convict; and if we do convict them, there is little that we can do about it. As I said in the debate last year, if the sequel to a conviction was to be what happened in the case of an ancestor of mine some 240 years ago when, as a result of conviction, he had his head chopped off on Tower Hill, there might be some point in it. But we do not do that kind of thing nowadays; all we do is sentence them to prison, which means in practice the prison hospital at this age. The futility of the operation becomes apparent.
That raises the final question of what your Lordships' House should do today. If we had a real understanding that the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich—which would prevent anybody being convicted under the Bill—were accepted by the Government, there would be an
670
arguable case for allowing the Bill to have a Second Reading and for accepting the amendments. In the absence of that and a clear assurance to that effect—which I very much doubt we shall get—your Lordships' House has no option, for the sake of its own self-respect, but to say, "We think the Bill is nonsense; we shall reject it. If you care to use the Parliament Act to enforce your will, so much the worse for you".
7.3 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am not given to writing dissenting judgments. In five-and-a-half years as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary I have written four; in none of those appeals was my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge a member of the Appellate Committee or the Privy Council. Therefore it is with special regret that I feel obliged to express my dissent from what he suggested. Quite simply, it is my submission to your Lordships that the Bill is beyond redemption. There is no point in seeking to tinker with it by way of amendments which may or may not achieve the Government's approval.
Let me explain why I reach that conclusion. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, reminded your Lordships, the Bill is the product of a careful and painstaking report by two former senior prosecutors of great distinction. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, wisely observed in the last debate in June—without any histrionics may I emphasise—the two senior prosecutors asked themselves the wrong question. That was wholly understandable because they asked themselves the stock question which prosecutors do ask themselves; namely, is there sufficient evidence to give a realistic prospect of conviction? In the quite extraordinary context of these crimes, which they were considering prosecuting some 50 years after they were committed, the vital question is, "Can a fair trial be guaranteed?" I hasten to say that that is not proposing a test which is too high. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said in the debate on 4th December 1989:
"justice includes … guaranteeing a fair trial for any accused".—[Official Report, 4/12/89; col. 610.]
Had they asked the right question they would have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect, let alone guarantee, of a fair trial after such a passage of time unless—I emphasise "unless"—first, the quality of the prosecution evidence was outstandingly high, and, secondly, the accused could in practice enjoy the same facilities as the prosecution for gathering and testing the evidence.
With regard to the quality of the evidence the report concedes that, first, the investigation of crimes well over 40 years after the event, "is fraught with difficulty". Secondly, those who witnessed the atrocities had, for the most part, themselves been killed. Thirdly, some of the witnesses who exist are unwilling to come to this country and some are clearly not fit enough to do so. Fourthly, the transmission of evidence by live television link may in practice present very considerable difficulties; for instance, where the

671
witnesses are not fit to travel from their remote villages to one of the major centres in the USSR. Lastly, identification is the crucial issue.
Your Lordships may recall from the speeches made in the last debate that it was the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1972 which said in terms,
"by far the greatest cause of actual or possible wrong conviction"
is mistaken identification of the accused. How is that to be remedied? How is the quality of the evidence to be enhanced by the amendment proposed? What has been suggested is that in regard to identification, as far as I can understand it, the judge should be particularly careful. But he has to be particularly careful now.
My noble and learned friend Lord Bridge did not go so far as to suggest that the identification evidence should be corroborated. No doubt he realistically did not make that proposal because he was anxious to obtain the Government's consent, and the prospect of corroborative identification in these types of cases must be remote. In addressing your Lordships last June I referred, and shall not refer again, to the other problems of identification.
I move on to the second requirement of a fair trial; that is, the facilities available to the defence. Your Lordships will appreciate that we are concerned with facilities which will or will not be available in what is now Soviet Union territory. In considering whether the accused can in practice enjoy the same facilities as the prosecution for gathering and testing evidence, I content myself with drawing your Lordships' attention to the delicate euphemisms, the quasi-diplomatic language, used by the report in paragraph 9.54 when advising against extradition proceedings—the very point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. It reads as follows:
"Despite recent welcome advances towards a 'rule of law', we are advised that the Soviet Union is still a long way short of having a system of justice comparable to that in this country. We could not be confident that a person extradited to the Soviet Union would necessarily receive the fair trial to which we consider he is entitled".
That is a fair indication of the co-operation which the defence can expect in trying to marshal material to defend the charge. What amendment is proposed to remedy that? None, because there can be none.
In opening the debate last June and in closing it, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, observed:
"There is nothing [in the Bill] to prevent any judge from stopping a case from proceeding if he believes that a fair trial will be impossible".—[Official Report, 4/6/90; col. 1204.]
That has been emphasised by the noble Lord the Leader of the House today. It is that matter which my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge wishes to be enshrined in the Bill itself. But my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge said at col. 1186 of the June debate, that he recognised that there was a possibility of amending the Bill so as in terms,
"to give to individual judges a discretion … to rule that on account of delay the defence has been so greatly prejudiced that the prosecution should not be allowed to proceed."
He then observed:
"But what an intolerable, onerous and invidious task that would be to place on the shoulders of individual judges".
I entirely agree. The media interest in the quality of the administration of justice lags depressingly far behind
672
its paramount concern with fighting the circulation wars. It is not difficult to anticipate the media campaign against a judge who deprived it of such valuable copy. "Judge usurps jury's function" and "The judiciary frustrate the will of Parliament" will be the more moderate banner headlines which one can expect. The suggestion that the judge's decision has been endorsed by the Court of Appeal and that that would take the heat off the judge overlooks the fact that it is merely four judges then whom the media will attack rather than one. If one wants to see a recent ignorant and offensive attack, one has only to look at what was said on a centre page of The Times this Monday about five or more Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. The amendment proposed is an amendment which places a wholly unsatisfactory and unacceptable burden on the judge.
I have said enough to condemn the Bill if only on the basis that it will dilute or devalue, diminish or debase, or, in a word, degrade, our standards of justice. There are other major defects which are beyond redemption. I can mention them very quickly. First, there is the "selectivity" which inevitably gives rise to the justifiable accusation of double standards, namely, ignoring Italian and Japanese war crimes and others. Secondly, we are apparently to bend our procedural rules. Evidence by television link or the by-passing of committal proceedings, was never contemplated in this category of case. Thirdly, the legislation is clearly retrospective in character even though its retrospection is confined to the jurisdiction of the courts. Fourthly, it entirely ignores the decision made in 1948 to close the files on war crimes. Fifthly, there is the inordinate cost in investigating and launching these prosecutions which involve an excessive demand on limited resources. The annual estimated expenditure in England and Scotland of £12 million to service the proposed legislation just cannot be shrugged aside.
Some of your Lordships may have attended that most interesting debate last Wednesday when the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, attempted to have the teaching of swimming made compulsory. He pointed out that 160 children died last year because they could not swim. But he conceded that it would take £4 million a year to remedy the situation which is one-third of what it is anticipated will be necessary to put by annually for the prosecution of a few elderly men for whom, may I make it perfectly clear, I have not the slightest sympathy.
There can be no escape from the inevitable results of this legislation if it is passed. There will be an irresistible pressure for prosecutions to be mounted. To have this measure on the statute book and to say, "Further investigation has shown that it is unnecessary" will be wholly unacceptable. The trials will become show trials and irrelevant issues, such as I believe arose in the Canadian trial concerning the challenge to the very existence of the Holocaust, could well arise. Wholly misguided sympathy could be directed towards the elderly and perhaps ailing accused and, by way of a backlash, anti-semitism could insiduously raise its loathsome head. The trials

673
will turn out, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, warned last June, to be nothing short of a farce.
The stimulus for the legislation, the emotionally charged statement in paragraph 9.18 that
"The crimes committed are so monstrous they cannot be condoned."
—as if anyone was considering condoning them—can so easily result in a deeply wounding anti-climax, the supreme; irony, the awful trivialisation of the memory of the 6 million victims of cold-blooded murder which we all so emphatically condemn. If that were to happen. then we would indeed be travelling along the road to fiasco mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I for one would not wish to take that path.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, today's debate takes place on a significant anniversary. It was on 30th April 1945 that Hitler committed suicide in his bunker. Had he not taken his life he would have been tried before the Nuremberg tribunal. Noble Lords may ask why I remember that. I was wounded the day before and as I then spent a year and three months in hospital I am unlikely to forget those dates. I do not intend to repeat my speech of 4th June although the Bill has returned to us again for a Second Reading as I then foresaw.
I hope to help the House over some misunderstandings that appear to exist about what happened in 1948 and the decisions of the United Kingdom Government. I was in a position then to know about them and I can now shed some light. The essential point is that the United Kingdom Government were involved in two processes of bringing alleged criminals to trial. One was the Nuremberg International Tribunal; the other, the trials in the British occupied zone of Germany. The Nuremberg trials ended in 1948. It had not been intended that that international tribunal, established by the Allied victors in Europe, would be a permanent institution.
As regards the second process, the United Kingdom did not bring the trials in our zone to an end. The responsibility for prosecutions was handed over to the new democratic authorities emerging in Western Germany. Prosecutions for war crimes have been initiated in Germany from time to time ever since. Only three months ago (last January) a former SS guard was convicted of murdering gypsies at Auschwitz. We should remember that the Nazi regime classified gypsies as enemies as well as other categories, although it was the Jews who were the most numerous of their victims. The convicted man was 71 years of age. His state of health was taken into account in the sentencing.
I return to the first and at the time the most important war crimes court, the Nuremberg tribunal, which was especially established for the purpose.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, who spoke again most eloquently today, is probably the most eminent living British participant. He reminded us on 4th June last year at col. 1097 of the Official Report that his part related only to the trial of
674
so-called "major" criminals at Nuremberg. He added that the so-called "minor" criminals were not his responsibility. I also use the term "so-called" because, whether they were major or minor, the alleged crimes were horrifying atrocities. The former category were, in the main, well-known or notorious, and their accomplices. The second, the so-called "minor" criminals, were of less, if any, notoriety.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, in that speech, broadly divided the two processes in which the United Kingdom Government were involved. He had the responsibility for the first—the Nuremberg tribunal. It is the second process which has continued ever since in Germany and it is the so-called minor war criminals to which the Bill generally applies whatever the atrocious nature of the allegations. In 1948, in the three years after World War II, the Nuremberg tribunal dealt with the Nazi leaders—Goering of course committed suicide during the proceedings—and, as the noble and learned Lord has reminded us, the major criminals. They had caused the war in which millions had lost their lives and they had the ultimate responsibility for massacres and deliberate executions of prisoners; for example, British SOE and commando servicemen captured behind enemy lines. They were the ultimately responsible Germans.
By 1948 most of the big fish who were in custody had been dealt with and some of the small fry were in the dock there too. There was also a feeling that there must be an end to retribution. The "British public was beginning to feel doubtful about the validity and propriety of victors' justice"—that is another quotation from the speech of the noble and learned Lord on 4th June 1990. "Victors"' was the significant word. Nuremberg was a special purpose court set up by the wartime allies. The time had come by 1948 to hand over to the new German courts of justice, where suspicions of retribution harboured by ex-enemy victorious countries, would not arise. That is what happened; and so-called minor war criminals, such as the ones who might have concealed themselves in the United Kingdom, have been before those courts from time to time ever since. Personally, I welcomed the new relations with Germany in the late 1940s and I played, if I may so modestly, a leading part in post-war reconciliation, such as participating in the early K Önigswinter conferences.
The book was not closed. I think the use of that expression can be misleading. The United Kingdom withdrew from the proceedings in continental Europe, but did not close the book. The trials which had been going on in the British zone continued.
Nothing was done in the United Kingdom. That is a point which has been brought out in the debate. Nothing was done about war crimes' trials because there was no evidence that there were any such criminals in this country. That, admittedly, left a gap.
Until 1957 there was no law in the United Kingdom under which a prosecution could have been started, and then it was only for years subsequent to 1957. While there was no evidence then, it was possible that some little known perpetrators of war crimes could have concealed themselves, with false names, records

675
and papers, among the thousands of refugees who came to the United Kingdom from Eastern Europe. The screening of these people was by no means thorough. It was very difficult because there was a dearth of information about what had happened in Eastern Europe during the war.
I was working in the Foreign Office in 1947 and 1948 on Europe. In case it is asked how I suddenly popped up there at that time, I should say that I had been successful in the Foreign Office exam and in the medical, while still in a wheelchair and on crutches. That explains being there after a very long time in hospital. Had I been asked in 1948 whether it was possible that there could be minor war criminals in the United Kingdom, I would say, "Yes it was possible that there were some among the many refugees", though there was no evidence at that time about it.
During that period the suspected war criminals with whom I was dealing directly in the Foreign Office were the Yugoslavs. There were a number of accused Yugoslavs in British hands. We had the difficult problem of deciding whether any should be returned to Yugoslavia to face a trial there.
We enlisted the help of my friend and later colleague in the House of Commons, Sir Fitzroy Maclean, who had been the wartime leader of the British mission to Marshal Tito. He assisted with the screening and inquiry procedure, which was the best we could devise. Some of those Yugoslavs were sent back to Yugoslavia. As I was concerned with that part of the war crimes post-war arrangements, I naturally had to be familiar also with what was happening in Germany.
I supported the Second Reading of the Bill on the last occasion and I shall do so again today. I have listened to all the criticisms made of the legal side of it, notably from distinguished noble and learned Lords and again from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, today. I shall simply summarise my views by saying that any trials must be fair, and that there may be very few prosecutions. That is my view and my forecast, and I have made it before. As I said on 4th June last year, identification is crucial and the horror of the crimes must not colour the proceedings. I support the Bill in establishing a means of bringing prosecutions, even though, as I foresee, there are likely to be few. I would support the principle of the Bill if there proved to be no prosecutions. It must therefore be asked: why go to the trouble and expense? I have a personal reason.
Among other things, I was for four years Secretary of State for Scotland, and therefore Home Secretary in addition to other functions, for that part of the country. I personally find it sickening to hear rumours in Scotland that at least one former refugee has conceded—after a few drinks, probably—that he concealed his identity and is boasting that nobody can touch him now and that nobody can charge him for wartime offences. That situation should not be allowed to continue. There should be jurisdiction to allow that kind of situation to be tested. Either there is no evidence and no case, or there are fair trials, though I foresee no spate of prosecutions.
676
I turn to my other point, which is the objection that alleged war criminals are now too old and frail to stand trial. There is no limit in this country on the time for prosecutions for murder. If a British born national resident here were now to be accused of murder in the United Kingdom in 1939 and all the necessary evidence became available, perhaps including a confession, would there be no trial in this country simply because he was 70 or 75? Of course not. Age should not affect trials for murder, though the mental and physical state of the accused should be taken into account in his treatment and sentence.
I mentioned earlier the war crime case in Germany which ended in a conviction three months ago. As reported in the press, the arguments in that case were not about identity. The defence admitted he was the person who had been at Auschwitz. The arguments were about conclusive proof of the nature of the accused's acts in connection with the victims'—gypsies'—deaths. No one suggested that he had not been there or involved. His state of health was, rightly, taken into account.
However, age is not a determining factor. Several of my noble friends on these Benches are in their eighties, but nothing stops them from making lively and penetrating contributions to our debates. They lead extremely full lives. But we learn from reports in the press that Mr. Ernest Saunders, lately of Guinness, is suffering from Alzheimer's disease which is also known as senile dementia. He was a small boy during the war years and I believe that he is still under the age of 60.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who today demonstrated his state of health in mind and in everything else, is 92. I congratulate him along with everyone else on that. I very much hope that I am in possession of all my faculties and able to stand up to any counts on which I might be charged in a court. I was in the army full-time just before the Second World War started and I am still under 70. I have clear recollections of the life and death episodes in which I took part during the war. I am sure that victims and witnesses of lethal treatment from war criminals would also find that their memories served them well.
Anne Frank, the Dutch girl who wrote the famous diary, died in Belsen. If she were alive today, she would be several years younger than me. I was in the 15th Scottish Division which, with our accompanying tanks, found Belsen in mid-April 1945. It was the first concentration camp to be discovered in the West. However, we were too late, tragically, for Anne Frank and many others. A few days ago, the Belsen exhibition was opened as a permanent part of the Imperial War Museum on the other side of the Thames. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, as chairman, presided. He invited me to the opening because he knew about my military connection. I hope that noble Lords will find the time to visit the exhibition.
As regards the constitutional issue and the amendments, I respect the right of everyone to vote against the Bill. I do not think there is a constitutional issue involved. I must remind your Lordships that I was the Peer who was most concerned on the previous

677
this House rejected a Bill in 1976 and when it was reintroduced by the Government of the day. In that case, the action was rewarded by the Government later withdrawing the Bill and accepting what had become known as the "Campbell" amendments. Of course, at that time, they were "Campbell of Croy" amendments because my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway had not yet come to this House.
My object today has been to provide clarification of some of the events in the 1940s which affect the Bill. By chance I was close to some of them. It has been said that supporters of the Bill are moved by emotion. I can understand that in certain cases. However, it does not apply to me. My arguments are coldly logical. In particular a criminal should not escape, by deceit and cunning, when his companions in the same crime of murder have had to face trial.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I did not participate in the Second Reading debate which took place last year, but I did speak in the preliminary debate of December 1989. I was then in my eighties and therefore entitled to the benefit of the indulgence of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I then gave reasons why I had perhaps some qualification to talk about war crimes, having been in the zone, in Berlin, and in the control office. I shall not expand upon them. I believe that your Lordships will give me credit for no wrong or soft feelings about war criminals: I was too close to it; I have seen too much of it; I have been to all the places; and I am deeply filled with as much horror about what was done as are many noble Lords. I shall not repeat what I said in December 1989 because my point can be very briefly and shortly stated. I remain convinced, as I was then, that the Bill is so morally and legally wrong in principle that we should not be parties to its going through this House.
In June 1990, this House took the very exceptional step of denying a Second Reading to a Bill. It clearly endorsed that position so taken. It would not have taken that exceptional step of rejecting the Bill on Second Reading except on grounds of principle and conscience. I suggest to your Lordships that those grounds are equally valid today. Indeed, to abandon this moral ground and the position taken so firmly a year ago, would be both humiliating and damaging.
I shall leave to others who are more experienced than I the task of dealing with the constitutional aspect. I shall try to frame my attitude accordingly. However, I must say that I was deeply impressed by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Pym. I should like very shortly to summarise the four points of principle—I emphasise the fact that there are four of them, not one—which impel me to regard the Bill as irremediably tainted. The first is the retrospective argument; and one can state that very shortly. I know that there is another view about it of a sophisticated kind. However, it is in essence retrospective, as has been endorsed by no less than two former Lord Chancellors in this House. I agree with them and others who have expressed the same view. I do not
678
think that your Lordships would dissent from the proposition that, if something is retrospective, it is contrary to the spirit of our laws.
Your Lordships know that in 1957 and in 1969 Bills were passed that became enacted which dealt with war crimes and genocide respectively, making both war crimes and genocide triable in this country. Those Acts were not retrospective. However, what we are now asked to do is to abandon that principle in relation to this particular type of case. The retrospective argument is simple: either your Lordships accept it or you do not.
The second point is that the Bill is targeted. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner used the word "selective". I prefer to use the word "targeted". It is aimed specifically at particular people. It will not be passed in order to cure some defect in the nationality law or, as one honourable Member said in another place, to cure a quirk in our nationality laws. That is not the case. It is a question of directing a new law against a limited class of persons who are resident here, who have been in a particular place between certain particular dates and who have committed particular sorts of war crimes. It could not be more targeted or, as my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls said in the previous Second Reading, tailored to meet a particular case. For that reason, it seems to me to be deeply offensive.
The third point is whether it goes back on a decision consciously and deliberately reached in 1949. Noble Lords are aware of the material on that and of the speeches made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, on the Second Reading. I should like to add a further quotation which has not been recently used. It came from the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, who spoke in the debate on the report. As your Lordships may recall, he was head of the Northern Department of the Foreign Office up until 1949. He said:
"We consciously and deliberately stopped prosecutions in 1948 or 1949".—[Official Report, 4/12/89; col. 669.]
There is no doubt that the picture is not clear. However, it seems from the quotations which can be read in the report from Mr. Churchill and from what was said about Mr. Attlee, Mr. Bevin and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, that at that time it was decided to draw a line under the war crimes. In an attempt to escape from that argument, it is said that no one had in mind people living in this country. They were not mentioned. Surely that argument will not do. It was a general decision taken on general grounds that enough was enough. It covers all cases. You do not have to cover every particular case thereafter. It was perfectly well known then—and the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane, mentioned the point in his excellent maiden speech—that there were thousands of unprosecuted war criminals. Indeed, Lord Wright, who was chairman of the United Nations War Crimes Commission, said in the debate which took place in this House in 1945 that it would be more than satisfactory if 10 per cent. of all criminals were dealt with. Paragraph 3.55 of the report states:
"The target of prosecuting 10 per cent. was not achieved, even of the identified war criminals".

679
So the general decision to stop trials must have included identified war criminals. Is it to be said that it did not cover unidentified war criminals? I find that argument extremely weak, and the argument about what was and was not done in 1949 extremely strong. Those three points are strong points of a conscience nature and of a moral nature against proceeding with the Bill. None of them is touched in any way by any suggestion that we have heard as regards possible amendment of the Bill. They are there and will not be removed.
We come now to the impossibility of fair and proper trials. That point has been dealt with by a number of speakers, and I need say no more than that I agree totally with what has fallen from my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. We are offered what is called a pragmatic solution. I am with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, on this point. To me, pragmatic means abandoning one's principles for a possible advantage. As things stand, I cannot wear that.
I can sum up the way the matter looks to me in this way—it is much the same as my noble and learned friend said. The Bill is totally unacceptable in a way which applies to all trials by their very nature and by the purpose of the Bill: because we are now 45 years on. That is the purpose stated in the explanatory memorandum in respect of Clause 1; because trials relate to, and are intended to relate to matters far away—a thousand miles away—where there were no British troops or officials to tell us what happened; because, as the report says, most of the direct witnesses are dead, having been killed in the atrocities in question—that is apart from any question of old age—and because evidence is necessarily circumstantial and hearsay, and in addition is probably unobtainable.
No amendment can alter that position unless it makes such inroads into the requirements for trial that no one could be convicted. My noble and learned friend made that point—that if the amendments went that far, it is clear that the Government would not accept them. The basic fact is that it is our responsibility as legislators to decide whether such a trial, in the framework of the Bill, should be allowed. That is our responsibility. It is one from which we cannot escape.
Perhaps I may quote a few of the pungent comments made on the previous Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, whose words on the subject deserve to be heard, said that he regarded the Bill as damaging a great institution and the rule of law in this country. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, whom I do not see in his place, said that we could not escape deciding whether this is a good Bill upon which justice could be soundly based. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said:
"The objections are fundamental. They cannot possibly be cured by tinkering by way of amendments … My noble and learned friend Lord Bridge dealt conclusively with that matter".—[Official Report, 4/6/90; col. 1192.] in his speech.
So he did in Hansard (col. 1186), part of which was cited by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner.
680
It is our responsibility. It is a question of principle. As things stand at the moment, I cannot believe that any amendment—although no doubt much work could be done to improve the rules of evidence, cut out television links and so on—would go to the essence, nature and irremediable character of the Bill. The noble Lord said that the Bill is amendable. Of course it is. It is equally true, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said, that the evils of the Bill are irremediable. Both facts are true.
One may ask—I follow the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits on this—what is the overall objective? On that, one cannot do better than to refer to the telling speech of the right honourable gentleman who led for the Opposition in another place, Mr. Hattersley. It was a sincere speech, and he was struggling with some difficulties.
At the end of his speech he said that there were five possible objectives in passing the Bill, the first four of which could not be remotely applied. Those first four were: first, whether it was a deterrent. He said that it was clearly not. Secondly, it could be for the rehabilitation and reform of the offenders. Again he said that it was certainly not. Your Lordships will remember that that is someone supporting the Bill.
The third point was whether it was needed to lock away criminals to protect the public. He said that it was not that. The fourth point was retribution. He said that it was not retribution; that was too close to vengeance. His fifth point—the only point upon which he fastened—and the final justification, was the demonstration of collective revulsion against the crime and the criminal. That was his ultimate justification. In the end, that is what is wanted: to send a signal, as some would say, to rehabilitate the credibility of the Holocaust; and to place before the public a full record of all that was done. That is what has been said, but that is not a justification for setting up a trial, and a series of trials of individuals. The fifth ground cited by the right honourable gentleman goes against that even more clearly than do the others.
There is just one other point which is of some practicality and which has not so far been mentioned. In passing the Bill, we are not just authorising the prosecution of probably three, said to be elderly, gentlemen against whom there seems to be some evidence; but the report recommends that if the Bill were passed there would follow the investigation of 75 other cases. Let us just think of the expense. I suppose we must not count the pennies. Let us think of the manpower that would be involved in searching over many years in all the archives all over Europe, America and other places where records are kept. Let us think of the turmoil that would be caused to other people's lives. So apart from the question of whether those three gentlemen, or any of them, can properly be brought to trial under any circumstances, I ask your Lordships to bear in mind the wider implications of the Bill if it were passed. I shall vote for the amendment.
7.47 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, mentioned the subject of expense. When my noble friend replies to the debate will he give us some idea of what the whole exercise will cost, bearing in mind the complaints we constantly have about education, hospitals and so forth? The costs must be weighed against what we could do with the money in other areas.
I shall I quote one passage from the Cabinet papers of 4th November 1946 in support of what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said. They stated that the discussion showed that the view of the Cabinet was that they should do nothing to support the holding of a second international trial, and in general should advocate a policy of discontinuing trials for war crimes. The paper goes on to say that if the United States demanded a trial it might be considered.
The report shows that Lord Jowett thought that if justice were spread over too long a period it began to look like vengeance, and that that is different from justice. That was the position then. There is no reason to suppose that the 10 formidable Prime Ministers who followed could not have raised the issue had they wanted to In no case did they choose to do so. In those circumstances, it is doubtful that we shall benefit anyone by continuing the trials. I am conscious—and I know a certain amount about it—that for 20 years the Jews and others were bullied by Hitler and his crew. They deserve every consideration, but the answer is not to try people by jury. The answer is through the rise of civilisation; that is the essence.
We have reached a corner of the 20th century where all kinds of things happen. There is hardly a country in the world where some form of major or minor revolution is not taking place. I wish that the Foreign Office would show more keenness about the next 50 years than about the past 50. There is little we can do about them, whatever we may wish. We must concentrate on the next century, the 21st century, and make it totally different in character from the 20th. We have had to deal with a century of terrible bloodshed. It is partly a matter of understanding, religious understanding and faith in each other, as well as civilisation. Those qualities will make the century better and will give races in different countries a better chance.
I do not mind whether the Bill is passed. I do not believe that it will do the slightest good to anyone. If we reject it, we shall probably do the House of Commons quite a good turn. It will make them think again, but we shall get nothing out of it. I do not propose to say any more at the moment.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, much has been said in your Lordships' House on the morality involved in the debate. It is my view that morality does not enter into the matter at this stage. No one who heard the speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord
682
Tonypandy, and the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, could be other than impressed with the factual basis on which they presented a formidable case.
We are dealing not with morality but with facts, the facts of life and death. The death of many millions was described by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. We cannot hide behind esoteric discussions of morality in this debate. We must get down to the facts of whether the people responsible, if they are still alive, can be caught and prosecuted in a fair manner. That is what I believe the Bill and these procedures are all about. I shall come shortly to whether the Bill is a proper procedure.
The Bill—retrospective in character or not—is short on detail, particularly relating to court procedure. That has been demonstrated by the contributions from noble and learned Law Lords in your Lordships' House, and in the law to be applied in obtaining evidence and dealing with it.
The thought of embarking on a major trial or trials of international significance with this legislation as the procedural basis must set legal alarm bells ringing all over the place. I may have misheard the noble Lord the Leader of the House as I was standing at the Bar. However, I understood him to say that the Bill was primarily concerned with mass murderers and he wished to make that clear. A reading of the report indicates that it finally homed in on that point.
If the Bill is merely designed to catch mass murderers, then why is it not limited to that? If that were clear there might be more sympathy for it, but it is not at all clear. It confers upon the courts of the United Kingdom powers of jurisdiction. I have not heard the courts screaming for such powers since 1948 and, but for the Government's action, they would probably not have sought such jurisdiction.
The Bill is defective in many ways and I shall not weary the House with Committee points, except to raise one or two in passing. First, jurisdiction is given to United Kingdom courts concerning any person who was on 8th March, or has subsequently become, a British citizen or resident in the United Kingdom. What on earth does the second qualification mean? What is meant by "resident"?
Shall we apply the test of residency as it applies to tax exiles, who can come back to the country for a certain number of days without being taxed in the UK? If a person comes to visit his granddaughter, or perhaps great-granddaughter, in the United Kingdom he may come to London, Manchester or Edinburgh. He may be recognised as a possible war criminal. Is he to be arrested at that point and charged with war crimes under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts? To produce a major Bill with no definitions at all and no interpretation clause in a field such as this is absolutely monstrous. It cannot be conducive to justice.
There is one other strange point. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to the preamble which states that the Bill is:
"An Act to confer jurisdiction on United Kingdom courts in respect of"—
note the next three words—

683
"certain grave violations of the laws and customs of war committed in German-held territory during the Second World War; and for connected purposes".
so that is the purpose of the Bill and that is why the preamble exists.
What happens when we look at the Bill? The word "grave" has disappeared. Clause 1(1) deals with murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide, and the jurisdiction is conferred if the offence was committed during a certain period in a certain place and if it—as paragraph (b) continues—
"constituted a violation of the laws and customs of war".
Why has the word "grave" disappeared? Is it not precisely what the noble Lord the Leader of the House was getting at when, deliberately or inadvertently, he mentioned that what the Government seek in the Bill are mass murderers. They are the people who have committed grave violations of the rules of war.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to the report which mentions the crimes committed. As I read it, it refers to the crimes for which there is a sufficiency of evidence, in the view of Mr. Chalmers and Sir Thomas Hetherington, that those crimes are so monstrous—I emphasise that word—that they cannot be condoned. Prosecution for them could—not would—act as a deterrent to others in future wars.
The words "monstrous", "grave", and "mass" are used. This seems to me to indicate that the Bill has gone off the rails and has tried to be all-embracing, to cover homicide of any kind in the course of war. There are minor violations of the laws and customs of war where death occurs. Is the Bill meant to give the Government power to chase everyone, anywhere within its context, whoever caused anyone's death?
Perhaps we may take an example in recent times. What would the Government do if the Bill related to the recent war in the Middle East? What about the American pilot who carried out his turkey shoot? That was the most monstrous piece of hooliganism in the war sense that I have ever heard. There was the blood curdling pronouncement by an airman that, "It was like a turkey shoot, so we just shot them up". Will he be prosecuted for a violation of the rules and customs of war or is that just one of the things that happen in war? What about the British pilot who said, "It was just like people coming home from Brighton after the long weekend. They were there in a line. You just picked your target and shot them up"?
Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House give an example of manslaughter or culpable homicide which falls within the definition of,
"grave violations of the laws and customs of war"?
Why is there no guide in the Bill as to the domicile of the person who will be charged since we have separate legal systems within the United Kingdom? The Bill and the speeches in your Lordships' House seem to be completely centred on the idea that the Attorney-General or the DPP will decide who is prosecuted next. I can tell noble Lords within these confines—there are no confines in the House, because there are microphones—that the most likely place for a prosecution to take place is Scotland. There is no mention of what will happen there. Why is there no definition of domicile in the citation for the crime?
684
The Director of Public Prosecutions has no locus in Scotland. What happens if he decides that for show trial purposes with a person living in Scotland the case must be tried at the Old Bailey? How will he get that person down from Scotland? If he manages that feat, he is taking the accused from one jurisdiction, which has one system of law, into another jurisdiction with a different system of law. It is difficult to envisage on what basis such a person could be shifted.
In the Scottish courts, judges do not have the power to stop a trial because they think it unfair or unsafe. If they have that power, they certainly do not exercise it. They are bound by statutory rules on the sufficiency of evidence. If the evidence is sufficient, it is presented to the jury.
After much contemplation on this matter, I have reached the conclusion that war crimes, as referred to in the preamble to the Bill, should not in principle go unheeded, however many years may have passed since they were committed. Allied to that fact there must be a fair procedure within the courts to ensure that fair trials take place, if that is possible. I do not consider that at this stage this Bill in its present form, and in view of the present state of international relations, is the correct vehicle to pursue such trials.
Having listened to what has been said in your Lordships' House during the course of this fairly long day, it appears that 50 years after the crimes were committed, it would be almost impossible for a domestic legal system to cope with the necessary legal procedures. That is why I concurred with what my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby said earlier. I believe the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark also agreed with that. We must look to the international arena to sort out this matter. If these people are still on the loose and deserve to be prosecuted, let the international community deal with the matter.
If the Gulf War has demonstrated anything, it is that for once nations can get together—this is the first example of such co-operation in a long period of time—and do things together. We should at least think about establishing an international tribunal to deal with these affairs, and give the families of the victims the satisfaction of knowing that a decision has been reached on the culpability of the accused, whatever may have been done. If that does not happen, we are driven back on to this Bill with all its amendments.
We then have to consider three propositions. First, what does one do with a person who has lived and worked here openly and has maintained his own name, and against whom evidence has been available which the state has ignored? Is such a person to be prosecuted? Secondly, what does one do with such a person against whom recent evidence is now obtainable? Is he to be prosecuted? Thirdly, what does one do with a person who has hidden himself from the world in the guilty knowledge of what he has done? He obviously should be prosecuted because he has avoided prosecution. It might be more appropriate for a tribunal to make those decisions rather than a single judge.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, referred to costs. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum makes the

685
quite astonishing proposition that to implement the provisions of the Bill will require an additional 35 members to be recruited to the public service manpower. It further states:
"Additional full-year costs of the order of £7.6 to £10.3m per annum at 1991–92 prices are anticipated to arise in England and Wales, including the costs of conducting any trials; for Scotland, total additional expenditure is expected to be £3.6m".
I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will tell us what tasks the 35 people will perform and why there is a difference in expenditure of £2.7 million for England and Wales. Legal aid is involved in this matter. I am not sure whether those figures include expenditure on legal aid.
If this Bill is to pass on to the statute book, even though it is inadequate and lacking in content, so be it. As has been said, this House can only do its best to improve the Bill before it goes on to the statute book. However, this House is renowned and respected by the public for the quality of its debates and for the knowledge of its Members. If we are determined to set our face against the Bill and stop it after it has passed through the democratic process—on the previous occasion the vote was 273 to 60—we may well be playing with constitutional fire.
We have to ask who we are in parliamentary terms. In one sense we are nobodies. We have no manifesto, no mandate, no constituency and we are answerable to no one. In many places we are regarded—probably with justification—as being an outdated historical hangover which is still imposed on a democratic process, albeit through powers that are enshrined in statute. We must be careful how we move in relation to the elected representatives in another place.
The Bill has many rights and wrongs, but we must not take the risk of going against it and going to the constitutional wall. I hope I may express the matter in that way. Such a risk is not worth taking as this is not a great constitutional issue. It is a major issue, but it is not a constitutional issue against which this House should set its face. I will not support the Bill in its present form, unless the noble Lord the Leader of the House can confirm at a later stage that the amendments contemplated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, will at least be considered by the Government.
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, much has been said forcefully by many noble Lords. We are discussing the cruel murder of 20 million innocent men, women and children of 40 different nationalities, faiths and races who were killed between 1935 and 1945 by vast members of the Gestapo and the SS.
During the war on the direct orders of Himmler—the head of Hitler's SS—special action groups were created to follow the invading German armies to the East and systematically mop up the people that the Nazis decreed to be undesirables. By the end of the summer of 1941 the four units were responsible for 500,000 square miles and clearly needed assistance from the local population. Many volunteered their services willingly and enthusiastically.
After the war under schemes such as Westward Ho!
686
and Balt Cygnet, organised by the Minister responsible for labour in Britain, arrangements were made for the recruitment of suitable labour from among the displaced persons in Europe. The Hetherington-Chalmers war crimes inquiry confirmed that 200,000 men and women were brought to this country after the war. Among the majority of innocent people who made up the displaced persons population in post-war Europe were Nazi collaborators trying to escape justice. While I worked in the various camps I was a witness to the labour schemes. I realised to my great dismay that the people who were volunteering were being accepted with little or no screening. Whenever possible I made strong protests to the British authorities. Furthermore, I saw with my own eyes that tattoo marks under the armpits of many Germans and non-Germans who had been recruited, or had volunteered to serve with the SS, had been successfully and easily erased. The tattoo marks were a mark of SS membership and were removed in case anyone was examined. However, that rarely happened.
Now it has been discovered that people are living in Britain who are alleged to have been involved in atrocities during World War II. We are now wondering what we should do about those people. I should mention that I have attended war crime trials in Germany. I am well aware of the legal side of this issue. There is no question of putting frail old men in the dock. As in any other criminal case in this country, if the defendant is unfit to mount a proper defence the case will not proceed. Health and fitness, not age, are the determining factors. Many democratic countries choose to elect 70 year-old heads of government. If age does not bar a person from public office, it should not provide immunity from prosecution.
I believe that there is only one survivor in this Chamber—the noble Lord, Lord Kagan. Although I was never arrested nevertheless I was a witness to the horrendous crimes committed in different parts of Europe. Many noble Lords have asked how accurate are witnesses' memories of events that happened so long ago. They asked that question during the earlier debates and have asked the same question again today. They have said that old men forget. Since the war I have lived and worked with and I have nursed thousands of survivors of all ages, nationalities and creeds, especially in Poland. I believe absolutely that many of those who have suffered have not forgotten and cannot forget their persecutors, whose faces are etched in their memories, and in mine, for ever. We wake screaming in the night remembering them.
With the permission of the House I should like to quote a witness of the crimes:
"They do not know the meaning of pity or any kind of warm fellow feeling. They seize every opportunity to terrorise the prisoners entrusted to their care, especially those against whom they have a personal grudge. No regulations, however strict, will restrain them in their evil ways. Only supervision can limit the torment they inflict".
That account, recorded in The History of the Second World War, appears in the memoirs not of a camp prisoner, not of an unlikely survivor, but of Rudolf Hoess, who from 1941 to 1944 was commandant of the infamous Auschwitz extermination camp where 4

687
million people, including 1 million children, of over 40 nationalities died. Needless to say there was no supervision to discourage the cruelty.
Is the United Kingdom prepared to stand alone in the world and not bring its alleged murderers to justice? Or is it to follow the lead set by Canada, Australia and the United States and change its laws so that it will not become, in the words of the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry, a haven for war criminals? If war criminals are allowed to think that by lying low they will escape justice the cause of justice will have been weakened. It is not just a question of the man or woman who has committed a crime being brought to justice but of letting the world see that whoever commits a crime against humanity will ultimately face justice. The passage of time in no way lessens guilt.
I ask those who oppose me, though I witnessed those dreadful scenes, do you really believe in your hearts that a man who has committed crimes against humanity should be brought to justice, even though time has passed, or are you seeking a way of letting him off through legalities?
I could say far more, because from 1944 onwards I was involved, and I served in the Special Operations Executive during the war. Political expediency has covered many of the crimes. What I have heard many noble Lords say has shocked and sickened me because I was there. It is impossible to describe the scenes.
As Edmund Burke wrote, for evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.
We seem to express an arrogance and total lack of understanding of genocide on a scale unknown before or since. That is probably because we have never been occupied. How in heaven's name can we ignore the indescribable suffering and death of millions of people during those 12 long years? If we do we encourage more Hitlers, including Saddam Hussein.
As a witness I beg your Lordships never to forget that we do not have the right to turn our backs on the millions who were slaughtered and those who died so heroically. Some of us chose to fight for them during the war and afterwards. Please, please let it not all be in vain.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Blake: My Lords, it is impossible not to be moved by the speech that we have just heard. However, surely no one in your Lordships' House doubts that the most appalling crimes occurred. I do not believe that there is a single dissenter on that point. There were appalling crimes, and the noble Baroness was a witness to them. We could well believe it from all that we have read. The noble Baroness made a most impressive speech, but I am afraid that she did not convert me.
The point is whether or not a fair conviction can be obtained at this distance of time. It is not that I have a desire to forgive any of those miserable old men. However, one wants to be in a position to be able to identify them with certainty. I do not believe that at this distance of time that will prove to be possible. I am sure that immense evils were committed, but the
688
point that we are considering is whether or not one can establish guilt. I have been much impressed by the speeches that I have heard today from many noble and learned Lords who are pretty well agreed that it is not possible to have a proper trial at this distance of time.
I do not want to repeat the speech that I made on the subject on 4th June. I spoke against the Bill then and voted against it: I shall do so again. Nothing has happened in the interval to cause me to change my mind. I expect the same is true for other noble Lords. The Australian and Canadian experience, which I did not know about when we debated the matter last time, only confirms my view about the inadvisability of proceeding with the Bill.
I still regard the question of retrospective legislation with the gravest of misgivings. It is contrary to the British tradition of the rule of law and I believe should never be adopted. To say that this is not retrospective legislation is pure logic chopping. It is retrospective legislation by any sane definition of those words. If noble Lords are in favour of retrospective legislation that is another matter, but those noble Lords who regard it as a pernicious and dangerous encroachment upon our principles of justice should be in no doubt that it is retrospective.
I agree that the amendments which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, suggested would improve the Bill. If I were being cynical I should say that almost any amendment would improve it. However, there are two aspects which cause me misgivings. One is whether the Government will pay the slightest attention to those amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, expressed considerable scepticism about that. He expressed the view that the Government would probably go through with this whatever happened. I cannot read the Government's mind and it may be that my noble friend the Leader of the House will have something to say on that important point. My feeling is very much akin to that of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead; namely, that this is a bad Bill which no amount of amendment can make acceptable.
I was immensely impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. The noble Lord said almost everything that I wanted to say; so I have made up my mind to be brief. Several of your Lordships opened their remarks by saying that they would be brief. They were not brief, but I intend to be. I shall sit down in one moment.
The only remaining point that I wish to make is not a new one and I should like to associate myself with those who have already made it; namely, the constitutional question. There is no constitutional question here. I thought that my noble friend Lord Pym and many other noble Lords made the point very well. There is no constitutional problem in this context. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, almost made the point the other way round when he suggested that the other place would be behaving unconstitutionally if it used the Parliament Act to railroad through a Bill for which it was never intended. It was intended for a different type of Bill. If there is any constitutional impropriety, it stems from the other House, but I do

689
not thank that the constitutional question arises. We have the right to do this and to exercise the power, and we should do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, wrote a very good book about the House of Lords' crisis of 1911. As far as I can remember, its title was Mr. Balfour's Poodle. Let us not be poodles to this Government.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I did not speak in previous debates on this issue for one very simple reason I did not think that I had very much to say about the matter. I shall not pretend to be an expert on the technical and legal side.
What has attracted me to the issue is the matter of principle involved. I am far too young to remember any of the events concerned, but I still have opinions about what happened. I hope that most people here will agree with me when I say that the atrocities that we are discussing set a standard of brutality and ritualised sadism never matched before or since. There is a tradition of that kind of atrocity. It is worth remembering that the great Christian heroes of the crusades used to start off with a Jew-burning party. We should remember that we have a disgusting heritage in Europe.
We should take every opportunity to make anyone who committed those crimes pay for them, regardless of age. Many elderly people with excellent minds have occasionally run me down in this Chamber. I do not regard my comparative youth as an excuse for committing any action. I am over 21 and I am therefore an adult in every respect and regarded as such. Adults must be responsible for their actions. People who were adults in the 1940s and were working with the German forces must therefore be regarded as being responsible for their actions. The fact that they are now elderly does not mean that they lose that responsibility. We cannot therefore excuse anyone of those crimes on those grounds. If they cut a pathetic figure in the dock now, that is just too bad. The price for not prosecuting will be far higher.
The Bill may need a great deal of amendment. I bow to all the legal expertise which says so. It would therefore be a great folly to throw out the Bill or attempt to stop it at this stage. If we want to reform it, everyone who has the knowledge and will to do so is here. We must certainly have it back to discuss again.
I shall follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Blake, and be equally brief. I conclude with this observation: we must ensure an even-handed approach to all those crimes. We must ensure that we regard them in the full magnitude that they deserve. We cannot make exceptions. We must prosecute people who have been proven to have committed those crimes. We would commit greater injustice by not attempting to convict the people who have committed those crimes, ignoring them and hoping that the will die soon anyway.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, great play has been made during the debate on the decision in 1948 to end war crimes. Great play has also been made of the fact that we are now engaged in retrospective legislation. It will perhaps be helpful if I recollect what it was like in the Control Commission immediately after the war and the events which led up to the 1948 decision.
In the Control Commission we were engaged not merely with war crimes but with denazification. Britain, alone among the three powers in the West, tried to have a legal, just system of identifying former Nazis and of judging how guilty they had been. We had courts and appeal courts and, from having been in 1945 the most popular of all the occupying powers, we became by 1947 the most unpopular.
The reason was that we were trying to do legal justice in what was essentially a political matter. We were disgusted by many of the proceedings and the inability often to be completely sure that the right criminals had been identified. We were disgusted by the denunciations by Germans who tried to pay off old scores against other Germans.
There was the case of Herr Abs, the chairman of the Deutsche Bank who had been responsible during the war for dealing with confiscated Jewish properties. He was a Catholic. He was never a member of the Nazi party and had nothing to do with the Nazis. He almost ostentatiously dissociated himself from the Nazi regime, but, because of his position, the Americans insisted that he should be tried. The British refused, but eventually, under quadripartite agreements, we handed him over to the Americans as we were bound to do. They tried him by their own laws and acquitted him. He was a man for whom Sigmund Warburg, our own famous banker of those days, vouched absolutely.
Injustice was one thing, but there was another consideration. The Cold War had begun in 1948 and, from being a defeated enemy, Germany was becoming an ally. Only a short time after that the German army was reconstituted. Reasons of politics rather than of justice led to the decision of 1948. We ought to bear that in mind. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was right to say at Question Time the other day that by that decision we handed over to the Germans the whole matter of war crimes in the British zone.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was also entirely right when he said that the War Crimes Bill merely brought to an end trials in the British zone by British courts. But if in 1948 Parliament had been asked to vote that no one in Britain who was accused of the mass murder of Jewish prisoners in the concentration camps should be tried, would such a measure ever have been passed? That is the issue at stake.
Is there anything special in the cases which have induced the Government to put forward this Bill? Of course there is. It is the remembrance of the Holocaust; the remembrance of the crime of genocide. Genocide is a term that is much bandied about today. Saddam Hussein is in no way guilty of genocide. He is merely a horrible man who exacts the most fearful vengeance on his foes, who happen to be members of the Kurdish population. But at no time has he ever

691
said that he wants to exterminate all the Kurds. Heinrich Himmler said exactly that about the Jewish people.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, made an excellent point when he said that one-third of those who were tried for war crimes were acquitted, meaning by that that so often the evidence fell down. Indeed it did. Perhaps he had in mind the trials of Belsen. Noble Lords may remember that the camp commandant of Belsen and Irma Greese, the woman who made lampshades out of the skins of the Jewish prisoners who had been executed, were of course hanged. But what happened when the guards in Belsen began to be tried?
The British system of adversary justice operated. British officers were commissioned to defend the prisoners. They defended them with absolute fairness, total zeal and a belief in the principles of justice. They put under cross-examination the prisoners at Belsen—poor, wretched, emaciated creatures, who broke down under cross-examination and could not swear to the fact that a particular guard had committed a particular crime. Guard after guard was acquitted.
Is it seriously argued that any of the accused under this Bill will not receive a fair trial in our courts? Do we not trust our judges to ensure that the laws of evidence and the rights of the accused are upheld?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment. Having listened to many of the greatest jurists in the country, I thought that that is what they said: there would not be fair trials here. From listening to the great jurists, I understood they said that there would not be fair trials. The trials would not be fair in this country.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am astonished that they said so. I remember that in June last year the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, drew attention to the fact that on the Administration of Justice Bill we were told time and again by the Law Lords how excellent was the system of justice in this country. We were told that it could not be changed or altered, because, if it were once touched and solicitors were allowed to plead in the High Court, the whole of our system of justice would be in danger. Then, when this Bill came up, we were told that the system of justice was in great danger because we might not have fair trials. That is very paradoxical.
I do not believe it is right to say that our judges are so lily-livered and so terrified of adverse comment that they are likely to swerve from the principles that they have upheld all their working lives on the bench and in the courts. Of course that is not so.
Let me confess that I wish that the Bill had never been brought to this House. I agree with a great many of the arguments put against it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, was enormously persuasive. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was absolutely right to draw attention to the grotesque expenditure of funds that would be needed if there were to be trial after trial. I doubt very much whether a prosecution could succeed if it relied on the witnesses who would have to be brought to this country.
692
I do not in any way want to criticise the Government for bringing forward the Bill. The point is that the accusations were made and a court of inquiry—or whatever one likes to call it—was set up and a report issued. However, I am bound to say that the criticisms made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, of the two distinguished prosecutors who wrote that report were very telling and damning. He said that they asked the wrong questions. They did not concern themselves with the possibility of a fair trial. They simply looked at what evidence was being put before them.
I am reminded of the other case not so very long ago when advice was given to Ministers by the Crown Prosecution Service about Mr. Peter Wright's book, Spycatcher. Ministers were advised that a prosecution could be brought with chances of total success in Australia. Nobody in his senses with a feel for politics would come to such a conclusion. But Ministers were handed a mere legal judgment. The quality of the advice that lawyers give to Ministers is very often deplorable. So in a sense I do not blame the Government, because once the report had been published with great publicity, what were they to do? In a vague way they had to satisfy the public and bring a Bill before the House.
With regard to the constitutional issue, I searched for a bellwether. I found one in the noble Lord who knows much more than most of us about the procedure of the House. I consulted the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, who, as your Lordships know, for many years was Clerk of this House. He gave his opinion to the Cross-Bench Peers. In his view we should vote to give the Bill a Second Reading and amend it in any way noble Lords thought fit to ensure that anyone prosecuted under it would have a fair trial. He thought that it was a great mistake that we had not done that when we debated the matter in June.
That was the advice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, gave. I must say that I was very much taken with his speech. I thought it possible that this Bill could be improved by amendment. As he said: what is the choice? If the Bill is turned down, that will be regarded by the Commons as a challenge and it will be reintroduced and passed. If, on the other hand, it is amended, there is a chance to make it much better and, if I may say so without being derogatory to the other place, to shame them into accepting that the provisions in the Bill as it is now are insufficient to ensure a fair trial.
So reason makes me feel that I should vote for a Second Reading in the hope that the Bill will be amended. But it has been clear in this debate that it is not only reason that sways noble Lords. Emotion sways us. Great emotion and great sincerity were displayed by those who argued that the House should stand on its principles, and show the world that it is not ashamed to dissent from its rejection of the Bill last June. There is another emotion that guides me. The House should not send a message to the world that it has forgotten the hideous slaughter of 6 million Jews. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, said in a speech that I only wish some of the legal

693
luminaries of the House had heard, it should not be forgotten that 40 millions died in the Nazi camps. We should not appear to condone that.
Of course there are many quotations which could be wed at this stage. The noble Lord, Lord Jacobovits, reminded us of Cain and Abel. We could of course have been reminded of another text from the Old Testament:
"Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord".
Somebody else might well quote the Christian sentiment of King Lear:
"Pray you now, forget and forgive".
But, alas, we are in a position where so much water has flowed under the bridge that we have to recognise what will be the effect on public opinion of the decisicn that we take tonight. We cannot be guided solely by our favourite text.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may respectfully correct him on one point. If this House rejects the Bill, as I understand it, it does not have to be reintroduced in another place. It automatically becomes law unless the other place votes against it.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, I shall try to be brief at this late hour. The uniqueness of the crimes that were committed are as follows. In the concentration camps most o f the Germans who took part did not volunteer; they were conscripts. They were brought up in Hitler's schools and perhaps found themselves in the SS or the SA. Even if they did not approve of the situation, if they showed disapproval they subjected themselves to a grave risk of joining the prisoners. In fact, from personal experience I can tell noble Lords that one SS man was sent to the front for giving half a loaf of bread to a girl. That did not apply to the people about whom we are debating, the volunteers. They joined the killing commandos of their own free will and mostly purely for gain.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House knows that when the Germans entered Lithuania—I was there ac the time—they published simultaneously two edicts. One was the usual one in wartime:
"Das pl ündern was mit dem Tode bestraft".
That means, "Looting will be forbidden by shooting". The other edict was that if one handed over an enemy of the Reich or eliminated him, one was absolutely entitled to everything he had. Thereupon the prisons were opened and the criminals came out. The technical situation was that if a Jew was robbed of his watch, the man who did so could have been shot for looting. But if he killed him and his family, he was entitled to move into that man's house or flat. What I am trying to stress is this. These people were not conscripted. They were either lured into it or volunteered.
In fairness, many who joined the German army did so because they were anti-Russian. As soon as they realised their task they resigned or left.
The point was raised about the difficulty of identification. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, referred to it. It was known immediately after the war that the ambition of most of the people from the DP camps was not to come to England but
694
to go to Canada or America where they expected more prosperity and where they had relatives. But they came to England because they knew that in England they were immune. They did not take the trouble to change their names. They did not hide their identity. I spoke to some of them who told me in what brigades they had been, in what killing commando, and in what village events had happened. There is no difficulty in identifying such people because for 25 years they were absolutely certain that they were immune. That is why they did not travel on to Canada or the United States. So much for the difficulty of identification.
I should like to raise the issue of the merit of justice being seen to be done. Only a minority of Lithuanians participated in those events. The majority had nothing to do with them. If one asks today in the new Lithuania—of which Mr. Landsbergis is president; he visited this House recently—whether they would like these war criminals to be brought to justice, 95 per cent. would answer yes, because if the situation remains as it is those people will seem to represent Lithuania. They do not.
One of the great merits of the Nuremberg trial was that it helped the young German generation to be isolated from the burdens and the sins of their fathers. Without it, the question, "What did my father do?" would never have been answered. Identifying the culprits—those who instituted such events and forced the remainder of the nation to go along with them—enabled the new generation to dissociate themselves from such happenings. In one moral megaleap Germany has produced a generation which has more democracy and more anti-militarism than any other country in Europe.
I believe that the biggest achievement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, and his illustrious colleagues at the Nuremberg Tribunal was to have helped Germany back to democracy. If one does not identify and isolate the criminals, one leaves the whole population tainted. That is the important aspect of the issue. In that sense, if we proceed with the investigations and bring the guilty people to trial, we shall help the remainder of the Lithuanians to raise their heads in dignity and allow them not to be identified with those people.
In East Germany they stopped the war trials very early. If you want proof, in East Germany neo-Nazism is now raising its head and there is a big gulf in outlook between the 16 million Germans who joined West Germany and the West Germans. So it is not for the benefit of the victims; it is not for revenge, as was said before; it is for the benefit of future generations in enabling them to dissociate themselves from any wrongs which have been done.
I do not know whether noble Lords have seen a film called The Shadow of the Cross which was shown on television. It showed a service in St Charles Borromeos Church in London where there was a memorial service for the Holocaust. Prayers were said for forgiveness, for the sin of silence, for the crime of indifference, for the secret complicity of the neutral, for not taking responsibility, for the washing of hands, for the ready excuses, for appeals ignored, and for people refused. That service was held in the presence

695
of Bishop Mahon. On the same occasion a Minister, the Reverend Alan Ecclestone from Wast Water, Cumbria, spoke. I shall quote him verbatim:
"We cannot afford to let the truth of the Holocaust be forgotten. It must be permitted to purge out the dross. I believe this to be the religious question that faces us".
8.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I have neither the skills nor the experience to tackle the legal and constitutional issues, so I shall confine myself to tackling the question of the moral issue underlying the central thrust of the Bill. I take that to be to enable those now in this country against whom there is good evidence that they were in part responsible for the horrendous events of the Holocaust to be brought to trial. I was a young boy barely at school when those events took place. I came to know about them later, but as I explore them and read about them they press in upon me with increasing force.
Just over a fortnight ago I was in Jerusalem in Yad Vashem, the museum of the Holocaust on Holocaust Day. I was looking again at the very understated story which is told by that museum. Yet the story is of such force that when one looks at the photographs one is unable to bring one's eyes actually to remain on the horrific scenes, and it is difficult to recognise that both oppressor and oppressed were actually human. Probably everyone who was in my group who went round the museum that day wept a little for the tragedies of that time and perhaps a little for our own personal tragedies. We were reminded that these were events that actually took place, that in the record of humanity's astonishing capacity for inhumane action these events stand as one of the supreme—perhaps the supreme—acts of evil.
I had to ask myself whether the lapse of time made any difference. I cannot argue that the lapse of time reduces responsibility. All of us who belong to the human race are accountable for our actions, and we continue to be accountable. Those who took part in those events continue to be accountable for what they did. One day, according to Jewish and Christian belief, we shall be asked to give an account before a transcendent court. Until then we remain accountable to one another, to humanity, and no time lapse excuses us from that accountability.
To say that events happened many years ago is not to say that I am not responsible for my past, however distant in my life those events may be. Responsibility means being prepared to be called to the bar of justice to give account of our actions. There has been some talk in this debate of vengeance, even an occasional suggestion that vengeance is a motive behind the Bill; and perhaps even further, a murmur that vengeance is a quality associated with the Jewish belief to be contrasted with forgiveness which is an attribute of Christians. I cannot see matters in this way, and I cannot contrast Jewish and Christian in this fashion.
I was recently talking to the psychotherapist in Jerusalem who has been working with the children of survivors of the Holocaust, the second generation, those who did not experience anything of the camps
696
themselves but whose parents did and whose parents survived. The psychotherapist was describing the kind of difficulties with which the children of survivors have to cope, the ghosts in their family, the people absent from the family because they were in the Holocaust, and the way in which those ghosts haunt the family home. He described the fantasies which children had about why it was their parents survived and not others: what did their parents do which actually enabled them to come through? And there was sometimes even a note of accusation from this generation to a former generation: why did you allow this to happen and not rise up? In all of that I heard no element of vengeance. I heard no element saying "We demand the blood of those who did this". As I listen to my Jewish friends, I do not hear that note of revenge. I do not hear them demanding blood in exchange. When vengeance is contrasted with forgiveness, I have to say to myself that forgiveness is only possible when fault is admitted. Forgiveness is not the same as forgetting. Forgiveness is possible only when fault is acknowledged and when responsibility is taken. Then the relationship can be restored, and not before.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, surely Jesus Christ said on the cross "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". There was no question of the people who were crucifying him having repented.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, in response to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, it is true that there is a sense in which none of us know what we do but surely we still have to admit what we are responsible for. We shall stand at the bar of ultimate justice, as I have already argued, and then it will become clear for what we are responsible. But until we are in a position to see ourselves clearly to know what we have done wrong there can be no forgiveness. Therefore, that forgiveness that our Father offers is possible at that bar, but not until we know our faults. I believe that to be the Christian position.
Also, I argue that there is such a thing as the healing of memory. That is a factor which weighs with me. I sometimes ask whether these things that are said somehow make that healing more difficult. Indeed, I remember speaking to the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, about the healing of memory. We agreed that that had to happen. But again, the healing of memory, like forgiveness, is only possible when the horror of an event is recognised and not before.
In this debate I have heard many noble Lords say that other frightful events have taken place; that is true. However, there seems to be an implication that because frightful events have taken place since the Holocaust, we should be prepared to let that past event die down in our memories. Many frightful events take place in our world. I have spoken in your Lordships' House, as have many other noble Lords, about Pol Pot and the events in Sri Lanka which so often are hidden from our western eyes. I believe those to be frightful. However, they do not for a moment take away from the horror of what happened in the Holocaust nor our need to express our horror at what

697
took place then. There is not much that we can do about many frightful events which have taken place except to express our abhorrence but in this matter we can take certain action.
As I have looked at this matter, I have changed my view. I was encouraged to take part in this debate following a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. He may be rather surprised now to hear what I have to say. When I reached this point in my speech I had expected to have a paragraph beginning "However", which would lead on to say that the Bill is not possible or that it has no moral basis. However, the more I try to write that final paragraph, the more I could not find a moral reason for doing so. As I look back to my previous attitude, I believe it was derived from a feeling that it was better to let these ghosts lie. Why disturb that past? The more I reflected upon it, the more it seems to me that ghosts return to haunt us. I have come to believe that I was wrong in that view.
I believe that for all the difficulties of the Bill, which noble Lords have spoken about with great eloquence, the central thrust is right. To say no to the Bill would be either to deny that the acts took place or to deny the responsibility of those who performed them. It is for the courts and for this House in revising the Bill to take account of the difficulties which have been expressed. However, I believe the deep thrust of the Bill to have a moral undergirding to it.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Dacre of Glanton: My Lords, I believe that the crimes committed in the Second World War in the course of the final solution should be neither forgiven nor forgotten. However, the question before us is whether, at this stage, they should be punished.
That is the purpose of the Bill. Since the last time we debated this matter, the House of Commons has again debated the subject. It has debated it in the light of our last debate. The debate in the other place was very interesting. I noticed, as others have noticed, that there was a perceptible shift from the previous position in our direction—not as regards votes but as regards the arguments expressed. We should respect that and equally respect the views expressed by Members in the other place.
The most interesting contribution in all the speeches which I read in Hansard of the debate in the other place was that by Mr. Hattersley which has been already paraphrased—and I must be very careful, especially with the sharp eye of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who sits opposite. That was a rather charming speech, because Mr. Hattersley went through every objection to this Bill which had been made in, this House and expressed agreement with all those objections. However, he stated that in spite of that he would vote in favour of the Bill, because he believed that it would never be implemented; that it was merely intended as a declaratory Bill, because it could not be implemented. It would run into the sands.
I found that rather charming. However, is it not rather odd that this Government have announced that they will mobilise the heavy machinery of the Parliament Act, which has not been used since 1911
698
except to decide grave matters of high constitutional import, in order to pass a Bill which one of its own advocates hopes will be merely declaratory and will not lead to any trials?
Surely the question for us is how far we can accept this Bill, perhaps amended if it can be amended. If we pass it now, it will qualify for amendment. Some of the objections advanced against it do not seem to me extremely powerful. Like the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, I am a layman and I find some of the arguments of our legal friends rather legalistic. I cannot become excited about the question of retrospective legislation. There has been retrospective legislation in the past and special circumstances may demand it. Provided that the quality and substance of law and justice is not altered, and that new crimes are not invented which were not crimes before, I see no great objection in a mere alteration in the frontiers of jurisdiction.
The selectivity of the Act is rather more serious. Even so, that does not alter the substance or quality of law or justice. Therefore, I cannot become particularly excited about those subjects. I do not believe for a minute that the mere passage of time per se grants exemption from justice. The objection to the passage of time is more concrete than that. It is that it renders proof more difficult, perhaps impossible. The mere passage of time in itself, in a matter such as this, is immaterial. However, the consequences of the passage of time are serious and there remain serious objections which I consider to be too powerful to resist.
The Bill presumes that the men to be charged cannot be found guilty by the ordinary process of law. There would be no point in the Bill if it were otherwise. The Bill presumes that in order to find them guilty it will be necessary to use methods of collecting evidence which detract from the quality of the justice dispensed. I find that to be an insuperable argument against the Bill.
This whole matter is about two men. If the two defendants are found guilty by such a process, it will be said with some plausibility that they have been found guilty by an unfair method of trial. If they are acquitted, or if the prosecution fails and the trials simply run into the sand, what will be the point of the operation at all? It will be a waste of time and money and stir up animosities which I would prefer to see unstirred.
At the most it will achieve a totally inadequate penalty at the expense of the reputation of British justice. That is the objection which sticks in my mind and which I cannot lay aside. There is also a secondary objection. It is not a matter of high principle like my first objection; it is a matter of expediency.
By profession I am a historian and like to detach myself from immediate vulgar reality and look at events from a distance. Although I concede that in the short term we might have a trial which would satisfy some noble Lords and perhaps the public, nevertheless what will be the long term results when we look back at the situation from a few years hence? I am worried about that. Although I know other people hold different views and my noble friend Lord Beloff has

699
expressed the opposite view, I believe that, far from quelling anti-semitism in this country, trials of this nature, especially if protracted, could intensify it.
Anti-semitism is a horrible thing but it lurks endemic in most societies—happily less in our society than in many others. But it is there and can be stirred. If it could be said, not without plausibility, that at the instigation of a pressure group outside of this country trials were mobilised which were protracted and wasteful, and which were either unjust if the defendants were convicted or, if the defendants were acquitted, thereby shown to be unjust in a different way, there is a real danger that these embers will be stirred. I would be extremely sorry to think that that could happen in this country as a result of an undoubtedly well-meaning proposal to achieve justice, but which I am afraid I must say was at first inspired by a desire to achieve revenge.
Much has been said regarding the difference between justice and revenge. Of course there is a great difference between them. However, I am afraid that the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is an organisation devoted to revenge. One can sympathise with the emotions which inspire Simon Wiesenthal and his associates, but I cannot help thinking that it is very negative to devote one's whole life to the prosecution of undoubtedly criminal people.
Would it not be better to devote one's life to trying to discover how these horrors arose and how they can be prevented in the future, rather than carrying out this permanent vendetta which will, as a mere practical matter, possibly lead to results which are the opposite of what we wish? For these reasons, if I survive long enough to reach voting time, I shall vote for the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, speaking 33rd at a quarter past nine, with another 22 speakers to go, prolixity would be unforgivable. Therefore, I shall do no more than confirm what I have heard for the third time now from very much the same speakers. It is a bad Bill, setting a bad precedent which will lead to bad law as a result of the bad practice of retro-legislation. I voted according to my conscience last time against the Bill. I shall vote for the amendment on this occasion, again according to my conscience and without regard to any kind of tactical cleverness or expediency.
As regards the Parliament Act, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that fourscore years ago my grandfather, with 20 years' experience on the Woolsack, headed the opposition to the Act and very nearly turned it down. It was always to be understood that the real motive for the Parliament Act was to secure home rule for Ireland. That was the reality behind the tactical manoeuvering. The issue was a sure-fire election loser (it had been lost several times) and your Lordships' House was a sure-fire blockade against it. The Parliament Act removed that.
It has always been understood that the Parliament Act should be used only in very grave circumstances. I do not believe that this is a grave circumstance. I
700
shall pay no attention to whether the Government in their wisdom or unwisdom force this measure through the legislature on the basis of the Parliament Act. I dislike the rather unpleasant backstairs gossip that goes on about people's real motives, as opposed to their ostensible motives, in supporting the Bill. That is unworthy. I am not going to recite the details. I shall be glad to be rid of the atmosphere that it engenders. That concludes all I have to say in following my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, into the Division Lobby on the amendment.
9.16 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, being the 34th speaker in the debate I have no intention of making a speech of any length at all. I strongly support my noble friend Lord Waddington who opened the debate. I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in everything that he said. I also support the noble Lords, Lord Glenamara and Lord Mackie of Benshie, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and, above all, the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, who made a most moving speech at a time, unfortunately, when most of your Lordships were having supper. It is most important that we should stand up for the fact that these evil events, even though they were a long time ago, took place in our lifetime. I remember them vividly. I remember the appalling conditions and events that happened because of the Holocaust. One can never forget them.
It is not right that we should let all these matters go by and have no trial to prove that we are wrong. If, for any perfectly good reason, someone is arrested and not convicted, that person will go free. If convicted there is every reason for the person to be imprisoned. I hope very much that noble Lords realise that it will be a very great mistake if we do not carry this Bill tonight. That will show that we are half-hearted in our opposition to the Holocaust and all that was done in those days. As your Lordships know, I am still a very strong supporter of the Jewish community and the country of Israel. We owe it to all those who suffered so much and who were so tragically dealt with both before and during the war to see that something is done to make it perfectly clear that we are entirely in favour of some kind of prosecution that brings to justice those people who behaved so abominably. I shall not say any more because everything has been said. I strongly support the Government. I hope that your Lordships will do the same.
9.19 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, on two previous occasions I have spoken in detail of the many reasons why I am utterly opposed to the Bill. I shall not bore your Lordships by repeating them. Those of us who are opposed to the Bill are, in the main, opposed for the same reasons. The differences between us are not of substance but of emphasis. I am sure that not one of us in any way belittles the horrors of the Holocaust of which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, have warned us to be wary.

701
Most of us have read a good deal of the horrors of the Holocaust, even if we have not been privileged to read Part 2 of the report of the war crimes inquiry. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, move his amendment and we have heard what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, had to say about the Canadian experience. I shall support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. In that connection there are just two points which I should like to make.
It has been argued that we should give the Bill a Second Reading so that we can amend it in such a way as to ensure fairer trials for the suspects. I do not believe that that argument holds water. Had the Government done what it was suggested that they might do, which was to send the Bill back to us accompanied by a schedule of amendments that would be agreed to by another place if this House passed it, it might have been another matter. The very fact that they have not done so seems to me a clear indication that no amendments of any consequence which we might pass would be agreed to. Therefore if we who deplore the Bill give the Bill a Second Reading against our consciences in order to be able to amend it, we shall be gambling against odds, which I for one do not find acceptable. We shall be selling our souls to the devil with little hope of receiving payment.
However, there is another consideration. This House has already voted three times against the principle of the Bill. First, we voted against the introduction of legislation at the end of the debate on the report of the war crimes inquiry on 4th December 1989. Next, on 1st May 1990, the Government sneakily introduced a new clause into the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill at Committee stage to make television and video link evidence legal in criminal cases in order to facilitate war crimes trials. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, moved an amendment, which was agreed to, to the effect that it should not be used for the purpose of war crimes trials. That amendment was carried in this House. The third occasion was on 4th June 1990 when we denied this Bill a Second Reading.
These decisions received considerable publicity in the country. On all occasions we had a free vote. Now, once again we have a free vote. If we suddenly vote to give the Bill a Second Reading, the general public, who, I believe, are mostly unenthusiastic about the Bill, will not understand. They will think we have turned our coats. They will think that we are afraid that if we do not pass the Bill we shall provoke a constitutional crisis as a result of which we shall be either reformed or abolished. They will, quite understandably, despise us.
There are times when it may be right to be clever and devious. On the other hand, there are times when one should be straightforward and honest and vote as one's conscience tells one, particularly when one has a free vote. This is one of the latter. I shall vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I could not look myself in the face if I did otherwise. We should have no part in passing this abhorrent Bill. This House does not want it. It is the
702
Government and some Members of another place who want it. Therefore let them invoke the Parliament Act in order to have it. They do not have to do so. They could just drop the Bill. However, if they insist upon having it, let the responsibility rest fairly and squarely on their shoulders.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in presenting the Bill to the House this afternoon, the noble Lord the Leader of the House pointed out that, although it was retrospective, it did not retrospectively create any new crime and that it was simply a matter of jurisdiction: it was retrospective in respect of jurisdiction. However, I am not sure that that makes things much better. To assume jurisdiction over people who were not within our jurisdiction at the time they committed the crime for the purpose of trying them for that crime, seems to me to be hardly distinguishable from retrospectively creating a crime. But that is the argument.
The argument was followed up by the Leader of the House stating that the Bill was,
"only before us at all"
because of the recent discovery that people who had committed these horrible crimes have been living among us and that such people are not within our jurisdiction without the Bill. For 40 years we did not know that they were here. The noble Lord then said that it would be unusual to seek to bring in Japanese war criminals at this time—because of course the Bill is limited to Europe—because there is no evidence that they are here. But there was no evidence until two or three years ago that the Baits and the Ukrainians about whom we are now worried were here. Is it unthinkable that there should ever be evidence that there are Japanese among us who were guilty of committing war crimes?
The noble Lord the Leader of the House also said that we were only talking about the 12 years from 1945 to 1957 when a Geneva Convention came into being which, as I understood it, made justiciable in this country all those who might be here and who had committed war crimes after 1945. That set me thinking. I remembered a short list of wars which had taken place between the years of 1945 and 1957. They took place in India on the creation of Pakistan, in Korea, and in Indo-China where war continued over many years. There were also countless wars in Latin America, one in Indonesia, the war in Tibet when China conquered and annexed it and of course the conflicts—I put them no higher than that—which took place in Egypt and in Hungary in 1956. Hungary is in Europe, but Europe is not covered by the Bill as regards any events which took place after 1945.
What reason have we to suppose that there are no Hungarians, Indians, Chinese, Bolivians, and so on, living among us who may or may not have committed war crimes in respect of whom there may be evidence? What reason have we to wish that they should be prosecuted less than we wish that those who committed their crimes on the continent of Europe within the given six years should be prosecuted? We should consider that question. I can find no good

703
reason. The victims in all cases were human beings, and all are equal in the protection they deserve and in the vengeance which may possibly be exacted in respect of them at any distance of time thereafter. That is my opinion. That is why I shall vote for the amendment tonight.
I have one further point to make. It concerns the amendments which the Leader of the House mentioned. I shall not say that he promised them, because he promised nothing. I shall not say that he foreshadowed them, because he foreshadowed nothing. However, he did not exclude the possibility that there might be amendments. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, was being optimistic in thinking that the amendments he proposed had already been the subject of agreement by the Government. I believe that my noble friend Lord Callaghan was wise to suggest that the many hours which remained between his intervention and the end of the debate might be spent on talks behind the scenes within the Government about what kind of amendments could be promised later.
I shall wait to hear whether the Government say that they will introduce an amendment to extend the effect of the Bill from certain Ukrainians and Balts, who over a short period of time in a small geographical area committed war crimes, to all those who, during the time our jurisdiction did not run, but where it now does, committed war crimes against anyone. If such an amendment is agreed, I should be happy to vote the Bill into Committee. If no such undertaking is forthcoming, I shall be with those who will vote for Lord Houghton's amendment on Second Reading.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, I spoke on Second Reading last June. I gave my reasons for supporting the Bill. I shall not waste your Lordships' time by repeating or elaborating those reasons. I wish now to confine myself purely to considering the position in which your Lordships' House finds itself in the light of the Government's intention to invoke the Parliament Act if the Bill is rejected by your Lordships for a second time, and having regard to the two Motions before the House.
In considering those matters, three points must be taken into account. First, there is nothing unconstitutional, and no constitutional crisis of any kind will arise as a result of your Lordships rejecting the Bill for a second time. That is what is contemplated by the 1911 Act and the Act contains provisions expressly designed to meet that situation. Secondly, the 1911 Act is is no way limited to any particular type of conflict, constitutional or otherwise. There are no words in the Act, express or implied, which limit it in that way. The third point which we must take into account is that if we pass the Bill with amendments, that is deemed to constitute rejection under the Act unless those amendments are expressly agreed to by the other place. That is the situation with which we are confronted.
704
The question is: what is to be done? The Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, which he moved with his customary eloquence and spirit, and whose speech I realise made a considerable impression upon all your Lordships, is, nevertheless, as he conceded, tantamount to a rejection. It will be treated as such and so, with the greatest respect to him, that would be futile except as a gesture. The Bill will be forthwith submitted to the Royal Assent, and any possibility of changing or improving it by amendment will thereby be excluded.
I turn then to the second Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, which is in two parts. First, it seeks to extend jurisdiction under the Bill to Japanese war crimes. I understand the motivation lying behind that objective. There is little doubt that the Japanese did some horrible and horrendous things during the war; but, as the Leader of the House pointed out, there is no conceivable reason for believing that there is even one Japanese war criminal in our midst. The only effect of extending it to the Japanese in this way could possibly be to stir up some unwelcome political consequences without any benefit.
The second part of the noble Lord's Motion relates to war crimes during the recent Gulf War. I submit that the Motion is unnecessary in that respect because jurisdiction does not need to be conferred retrospectively in view of the dates when these acts occurred. They are now covered by the post-war legislation which deals with grave breaches of the Geneva Convention. The report deals comprehensively with the matter in paragraph 6.6, as your Lordships may be aware.
To add a word about the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I appreciate that the Motion has been accepted by the Table and it is not appropriate that one should in any way dispute its validity or its constitutionality. Nevertheless as it stands it is a little strange, to put it no higher. First, it appears to involve a direction by the House to the Whole House sitting in Committee, telling it what it is to do. One cannot avoid the question as to whether the House can properly or effectively convey instructions to itself in this way. It seems open to considerable doubt whether the effect of such a Motion is mandatory. Apart from that, the Short Title of the Bill is limited to war crimes in German-occupied territory. Therefore, the Motion seeks to extend the scope of the Bill before the Short Title has been amended. That seems to put the cart before the horse. I venture to think that the Motion is both unsatisfactory and unnecessary.
The conclusion I come to is that the best course for the House to adopt is that which has already been suggested by a number of your Lordships. It is to give the Bill a Second Reading and enable the House to exercise its proper revising function. The House has expressed its disapproval of the Bill by a resounding majority on the last occasion. To make the same declaration again adds nothing, particularly in the context of the Parliament Act. Far better, I suggest, would be for the House now to accept the inevitable result of the Bill proceeding. Then, as the noble and

705
learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, so cogently put before us earlier in the evening, it may exercise its revising function and endeavour to improve one aspect of the Bill. That aspect has given many of your Lordships worry as to whether a fair trial can properly be achieved under the present terms of the Bill. If the amendments are passed by your Lordships, they will return to the Commons. If the Commons reject them, that is the power which has been conferred upon the elected House. The House of Commons has the last word on the matter. If on the other hand in their wisdom Members of another place accept the amendments as they are perfectly entitled to do, the Bill will be duly passed with the amendments. That would be a far more satisfactory outcome than simply attempting to cast the Bill aside. That would be totally ineffectual.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I had some difficulty in deciding what I should say tonight. I have heard many excellent it speeches tonight and many points of view have been expressed as regards what this House should do on this issue. However, I decided I should speak entirely from my own personal experience and from my own conscience and not be frightened by anything that anyone might say as regards the standing of this House and another place. I am sure that was the right decision to reach.
I shall not relate to your Lordships a lot of awful but true stories of people's experiences during the last war. I have personal experience of that suffering. However, I should mention the tortures that were suffered by the late Bishop of Birmingham who was once a Member of your Lordships' House. I remember the he was taken away from a cell in Changi gaol. He had been the leader of an organisation which had been set up to try to obtain money to buy food to save the lives of prisoners who were dying in the gaol.
One night some ships were sunk in Singapore Harbour. It was thought that the prisoners in Changi gaol were responsible for informing the Allies that part of the Japanese fleet was in Singapore Harbour. The expert secret police were summoned from Tokyo and they carried out an investigation in the gaol. They discovered that we had some wireless receiving sets which in those days were of great use in keeping up morale. It was, of course, a heinous offence to pass information to the Allies as regards the progress of the Japanese. The Japanese thought we were responsible for passing on information about the fleet. Then the blood bath started. The late Bishop of Singapore, as he then was, was beaten for six hours on end until there was no skin left on his back. He was then thrown into our cell which contained 10 to 12 other prisoners and had a concrete floor. There were no washing facilities in the cell; just a urinal in the corner.
I have heard it said that the late Bishop of Singapore, Bishop Wilson—I shall always remember his name with great affection and admiration—said to his torturers that they must have been children once.
706
He said that therefore they must have been taught when they became adults to torture people. I shall try to approach this debate with a similar philosophy.
I know from experience that intimidation is rife in a war situation and when there is no government in the sense that noble Lords would understand it. In Singapore people made up cock and bull stories and told them to the Japanese secret police to ingratiate themselves with the police. That kind of behaviour has occurred since then under numerous regimes. When such a situation has prevailed for four or five years—we are talking about a situation that occurred over 40 years ago—it is difficult to obtain evidence which can be trusted and which can be presented to the judiciary of this country.
I cannot bring myself to believe that we should go on with this. Trials were held in Singapore. If my memory is correct, 52 Japanese were executed. They included the general who won the victory over us in Singapore, which surprised me.
In spite of what I experienced and what I know about the circumstances, I cannot bring myself to feel that we should bring those people to trial, wherever they are or whatever they have done. We have had enough of it. I have had enough of it. Fifty-two people were executed for crimes committed in Singapore. Let the matter rest and let us leave the whole business alone. I shall vote this evening for the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, when the Bill was debated on 4th June last year several noble Lords sought to explain the difference in attitude of the two Houses of Parliament. They did so by reference to the different average ages in the two Houses. The mean age in another place after the general election in 1987 was 49. Allowing for by-elections it must now be slightly over 50. I am a Second World War baby and at 49 I am nearer that age than many of your Lordships. Nonetheless, I am opposed to this Bill.
I have three reasons of principle, which have been explained by noble and learned Lords. First, the Bill is retrospective. Secondly, evidence of identity must be very risky after the passage of half a century. Finally, in view of the publicity and circumstances surrounding the Bill there is a danger that for the three suspects described in the Hetherington-Chalmers Report the presumption of innocence would be lost. Accordingly I shall vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
9.47 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, there are Bills and Bills. Some are embryo Acts of Parliament, others demands for payment. This War Crimes Bill belongs to both those categories. I believe that we should make a dangerous error if we allowed it to reach the statute book without considering the price that it demands. It is a price that will have to be paid in two parts, by the nation in general and by us, the House of Lords, in particular. I refer to the damage,

707
in part already done, to the image, reputation or whatever one chooses to call it of the whole system of British justice.
In discussing the Bill with all sorts of people, I have discovered an almost universal dislike of retrospective legislation. However, before going further perhaps I may make it quite clear what that means, because the issue has been considerably clouded by a statement in paragraph 9.27 of the Hetherington-Chalmers Report. It reads:
"In our view, to enact legislation to give British courts jurisdiction over acts of murder and manslaughter committed as violations of the laws and customs of war would not be to create an offence retrospectively".
Of course, but an Act of Parliament does not have to create an offence in order to be legislation. Retrospective simply means looking back into the past.
This Bill looks back into a past defined precisely as between 1st September 1939 and 5th June 1945. If that is not retrospective the word has no meaning at all. That, in the popular perception at least, looks like a parliamentary trick. Some may argue, and indeed do, that it is a respectable and even necessary trick. Many people, and I count myself among them, find it repugnant nonetheless.
It has been said often, and no doubt it will be said again in the future, that that is but one of several aspects of the Bill which inspire dislike arising from a fear of injustice. But it is perhaps the most obvious of them and, even without the aid or support of the others, it is enough to bring English justice into disrepute. By "justice" I mean the whole apparatus of the criminal law, including the courts, the prosecution service and the police.
I question whether there has ever been a time when such dispute has been more damaging than it is at present when we have learned to bandy about such baleful names as the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Maguires and the West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad, just to name but a few. I need say no more to explain why it is my considered belief that the enactment of the Bill will do much to diminish worldwide respect for and the repute of British justice which is at a pretty low ebb just now.
That is part of what I mean by the cost to the nation at large of the Bill. Can we afford it? Perhaps we can, but only at the price of a grievous self-inflicted wound. I spoke also of the price to be paid by your Lordships' House. We refused emphatically to pass the Bill. Are we now to announce that we have changed our minds? If we do, it is certain that we shall not be believed. Is it credible that, without hearing new arguments and bringing new evidence, a three to one majority against it should spontaneously change itself into a majority in its favour? Surely, that can hardly be so.
If we do what we have so far refused to do and give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be said that we have done it to give way to those in another place and it will be right to say that. We shall have done it without compulsion or obligation of any kind. If we still believe that the Bill should be rejected on its demerits as distinct from most of us having unaccountably changed our minds about it, it is not only our right but
708
our bounden duty to reject it again. Such action implies no criticism of Members of another place, nor does it cast any slur upon their integrity or wisdom. We acknowledge their right to pass the Bill without further reference to us while remaining true to our own beliefs. If we decline to do that, thus inevitably exposing ourselves to the eyes of the nation as both ineffectual and pusillanimous, we shall have earned just contempt and almost certainly hastened our own demise.
So much for the loss side of the profit and loss account. What of the profit side? We must assess that, too, if we are to decide whether or not the game is worth the candle. What does it profit us if we pass the Bill? That brings us to the question that has been asked many times; namely, what is the objective of prosecuting with the possibility of conviction and punishment for any criminal offence? I follow others in positing four such objectives.
First, there is the matter of the reform of the criminal and his discouragement from future crime. We hardly need waste time on that point. After 45 years of peace, the scope for multiple war crimes for a septuagenarian must be slight. Secondly, there is the matter of deterrence to others. We might spare a second or two to consider the deterrent effect of the Nuremberg trials on such persons as, for example, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Papa Doc Duvalier, Ceausescu and Saddam Hussein, to name but a few of our more unpleasant contemporaries. Thirdly, there is the matter of the protection of others from the repetition of the crime. It would require a fevered imagination or a nightmare to imagine any such thing. Fourthly, there is the matter of punishment.
The Hetherington Report describes the crimes to which the Bill relates as:
"so monstrous that they cannot be condoned".
That is surely a fair comment. Will spending a few last years of life in an English prison amount to an appropriate penalty for such unspeakable offences? A slap on the wrist is hardly a punishment for rape.
In the previous debate my noble friend Lord Caldecote said:
"Punishment for punishment's sake alone is to my way of thinking synonymous with vengeance, which is as unattractive as it is useless … Whatever the case, the punishment will serve no purpose whatsoever except to settle old scores. That is crude vengeance and has nothing to commend it". [Official Report, 4/6/90; col. 1179].
The Bill is by no means the end of the story. What the end will be if this Bill becomes law has been foreshadowed and illuminated startlingly by the story of the Canadian crime. Noble Lords will remember that after a trial lasting eight months Imre Finta was acquitted by a Canadian jury on four charges of war crimes and four charges of crimes against humanity, including manslaughter involving 8,617 Hungarian Jews. That was an acquittal despite the prosecution having the overwhelming advantage in the matter of money, witnesses and evidence.
Are we to suppose that that jury was so heavily biased in favour of a man accused with apparent justice of such a weight of appalling crimes, that after listening for eight months to the indictments against him it was prepared to set him free? Yes, we are to

709
suppose exactly that. Furthermore, I suggest that anyone accused under the provisions of this Bill will be tried by just such another jury, biased before ever the trial begins not in his favour but in favour of justice itself.
At this point I am prepared to make a personal declaration, though I admit that it would carry more weight if I were not exempt from jury service. If ever I were to find myself as a member of a jury empowered to try such a case, I should insist on a verdict of not guilty and I should be greatly surprised if I were not in the majority. That is what happened in Canada and it will happen here if this Bill becomes law and any of the accused are brought to trial. It is not a question of the judges deciding that the evidence is insufficient; it is a question of the jury simply refusing to convict, as I believe they will do.
I do not want that to happen. I do not give a fig for what may happen to the accused. But I do not want to see government, Parliament and the whole machinery of justice fall flat on its collective face, thereafter rising sheepishly to its feet with that face covered in mud and egg to hoots of derision from the less respectful sections of the world's press. Alas, we cannot prevent that calamity. But there are two things that we can still do: we can say what we think and, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, we can again throw out the Bill.
9.58 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I came to the House this afternoon with the firm intention of speaking and voting for the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. In June last year I voted against the Second Reading. I understood then and I understand now the arguments in favour of the Bill. It is said that we must not send wrong signals to the world. It is said that we must not lend comfort to those who wish to forget the Holocaust. It is said that we must do justice to the victims of the appalling events of those years, although justice in any ordinary sense is of course beyond our powers.
I can understand, too, how offensive it must be to those who had relatives who were involved to be told in this House and elsewhere that we cannot afford the money and that it would be better to spend it on teaching people to swim. I understand all those things but I still intended to vote in favour of the amendment because I said to myself, "This is a criminal justice Bill. It is not only about crime, it is also about justice".
In June I had spoken of the notorious problems involved in identification evidence. Time is a very great healer but it is also a very great distorter of the truth. Worst of all, those who give evidence as to what happened long ago are perfectly honest witnesses; they believe implicitly everything that they say. But they may well be mistaken. When it comes to identification purely on the basis of personal appearance, I suggest that noble Lords consider some of the photographs that we sometimes see in the press of prominent and distinguished citizens, perhaps in
710
their 60s and 70s, and compare them with the photographs that are published showing them in their 20s. They are virtually unrecognisable.
In June I also spoke of the element of intent which can be involved in such criminal trials. It must not be forgotten that the Bill covers manslaughter. The difference between manslaughter may well turn, among other things, on intent. How does one convey to a jury in the 1990s the surrounding circumstances, the pressures and the situation with which the accused was faced in the 1940s? It is a different world. Even people of my age do not really know about it because we were serving in the forces which is an entirely different situation.
I spoke again at that time of the paramount need for a level playing field where the resources available to the defence were comparable with those available to the prosecution. Then I came here and listened to the opening speech by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. He told me that Sir Thomas Hetherington, a very distinguished ex-Director of Public Prosecutions, had considered the evidence—which of course none of us has been able to do—and had come to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to give a realistic possibility of conviction. For my part I do not doubt that he was right, in particular if the defendant did not have the resources to defend himself.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House stated that he had seen the evidence. He told the House that we would not be concerned with individual cases of murder. We would be concerned, as would the courts, with mass murders in the most horrifying of circumstances. Of course, he has seen the evidence and we have not. But I have to point out to the House that the Bill says nothing whatever about mass murders. It refers to culpable homicide and manslaughter which, with all respect to the noble Lord, seems inconsistent with the basis on which he invites us to support the Bill.
He said that we should rely on the good sense and fairness of the prosecutor. I agree; we always do. But there is a vast difference between the point of view of a prosecutor who has spent months getting together a case, weighing the evidence, investigating further and deciding whether or not to go ahead, and that of the impartial observer who may well be a judge.
Finally, he said that judges have inherent power to stop trials which are unfair. As a general proposition, that is undoubtedly true. But all judges have been brought up to believe, to accept and to know that their duty is to subordinate their personal views to the instructions of Parliament when Parliament's instructions are reasonably clear. Under this Bill, Parliament's instructions would be reasonably clear. It states that,
"the judge shall dismiss a charge … if it appears to him that the evidence against the applicant would not be sufficient for a jury properly to convict him".
It is not open to the judge to go outside that and to say, "The evidence is entirely sufficient for a jury properly to convict him, but the unfortunate defendant has no opportunity of producing any evidence to counter it. In those circumstances I decline to let the trial go on".

711
If he did that he would be accused of flouting the will of Parliament particularly as, although we have strict rules about not referring to Hansard in the courts, any judge would be thought to be wholly out of touch with reality if he did not know that this sort of thing had been debated in detail in your Lordships' House, if not in another place.
I have listened to other noble Lords and have been bidden not to precipitate a constitutional crisis. For my part, if it is a question of conscience I have no trouble at all about precipitating a constitutional crisis. Nor do I have any trouble about hastening the end of this House, particularly when I saw for the first time today the strange terms of the Parliament Act 1911 which contains a preamble of special significance. Although it is not directly relevant, I cannot forbear just to remind your Lordships of it:
"Whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for regulating the relations between the two Houses of Parliament:
"And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation".
We have been on probation for a very long time.
I was still minded, despite all those considerations, to protest that really, when one gets down to it, the Bill is designed to bring a small handful of defendants to court but not to justice. Then I listened to the speech made by my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge of Harwich. I had no fore-knowledge that he was going to make any such speech or had any such thing in mind. He brought out the fact, which again I had overlooked, that if we deny a Second Reading to this Bill the result will be that this House and not the other place will invoke the Parliament Act, because under the terms of the Parliament Act if we reject a Bill on the second occasion on which it is considered by this House there is an automatic reference to Her Majesty for Assent subject only to a certificate by the Speaker, which the Speaker would be bound to give. It is only if an initiative is taken, presumably by the Government in the other place, that there is any possibility of the Parliament Act provisions not applying.
Let there be no doubt that if we reject a Second Reading today we shall ourselves be saying that we wish the Parliament Act provisions to be invoked. I venture to suggest that the result will be that Members of the other place will go on their way if not rejoicing at least saying that justice will now be done despite the efforts of the House of Lords.
In considering the amendment of my noble and learned friend, we should not lose sight of the possibility—remote though I believe it to be—that there may be cases in which identity is not in issue. There is perhaps some little justification for that because the other day I was reading that in Scotland a gentleman sued The Times for libel on the footing that he was alleged to be a war criminal; his identity was not in dispute, only the nature of his activities. I
712
believe that there was at least one other case—I do not suggest that any of these people are contemplated for prosecution—where identity would not be in dispute in a prosecution but merely a dispute as to what actually happened.
There may be a situation—though I find this more difficult to conceive of—in which it can truly be said that the resources available to the defence are the equal of those available to the prosecution so far as is relevant to the facts of that case. If that situation existed, are we right to say that although justice can be done by definition there should be no way of bringing those people to justice? I doubt that.
I come back to my noble and learned friend's proposal as regards how we should proceed. Why should we not amend the Bill? We should not produce a whole mass of small amendments so that it can be thought by anybody that we are trying to wreck the Bill. Let us focus on the fundamentals; namely, that there must be no prosecution without the full security of ensuring a just trial.
Let us by all means give to a judge the power to decide, with the right of appeal to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal and, if it is so wished, to your Lordships' House. I was saddened by the comment made by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner that that is a responsibility which judges would not want. I do not believe that for one moment save in the sense that judges never want—and I stress the word "want"—onerous responsibilities; but that is what they are there for and that is what they are trained and chosen for. No judge worthy of his salt would decline to exercise such a responsibility if asked to do so by Parliament.
With that precaution, I believe that it may well prove that no case could ever be tried. However, that is the gravamen of the complaint made by those who support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. They may be wrong. Let us put that to the test. If no case can be tried, we shall have wasted a little time and perhaps a little money but we shall have demonstrated to the world that while we uphold justice, we are not protecting people who can, if there be such people, be tried with justice.
If we do that and the other place chooses to reject those protective amendments, then that will be the responsibility of the other place. Furthermore, it will be the other place and not this House which invokes the Parliament Act because the Speaker must submit the Bill to Her Majesty on the footing that the Parliament Act applies because the other place declines to agree with amendments which this House considers essential.
If that happened, I should believe that I had done my duty and that my conscience was entirely clear. I hope that in the special circumstances, and in the light of the inspirational speech—and I use that word literally—of my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge no one will approve of the Bill this evening, because it is a dreadful Bill, but that it will be given a Second Reading.
10.13 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the devastating attack which the noble and learned Lord made in the first half of his speech, on both the principles and the practice of the Bill, led to a rather surprising conclusion. My noble friend Lord Russell will answer that in due course. There has been no relevant change on thi3 issue since our last two debates. I spoke in both of those and, therefore, I shall confine myself to a very brief attempt to persuade Ministers that they are mistaken on two particular points of fact.
First, they are mistaken in their constant assertion that the post-war Government were unaware of the possibility of war criminals taking refuge in the United Kingdom. Some Members of the House may remember that last week at Question Time I began the refutation of that by stating that in 1945 a Cabinet discussed the question of how to handle war criminals in this country. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, contested that and gave us a detailed and interesting account of a 1945 Cabinet at which the question of war criminals in Britain was not discussed.
I do not deny that there were many such Cabinet meetings. To make sure I was right, I visited the Public Record Office and I confirmed that on 12th March 1945 the Cabinet, attended by Attlee, Bevin and the Labour leaders, had as its principal item on the agenda the handling of war criminals in this country. The discussion centred on a Foreign Office paper laying down the conditions under which we might be prepared to extradite war criminals from this country. The paper ended specifically in the final paragraph with the words,
"The above observations relate to persons who are, or may be, in the United Kingdom".
It is inconceivable that after that discussion Attlee, Bevin and the other Labour Ministers could be unaware of the possibility that war criminals may be in this country.
In addition, they had soon to deal with suspects who had been found in this country. Last week I referred to one Pole whose case went to the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. I answered a Question about the matter in the other place. Thirteen suspects in this country were named by the Soviet Union. The Foreign Office had to demand from the Soviet Government prima facie evidence.
I do not deny that Ministers at that time were more concerned with the thousands of suspects for whom we were responsible in Germany and Austria than with the incomparably smaller number of suspects who might be in Britain. But to say that Ministers were unaware of the possibility, in view of those facts, conflicts both with the records and indeed with common sense.
The importance of that point is that the Government argue that that was the reason the post-war government did not legislate to try such people:in this country; they have said that many times. But that is the second myth. It is true that in 1944 the proposal to legislate was put to the Cabinet by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Simon, and was rejected. I am as certain as I can be that the idea was never put
714
to the post-war government. If it had been, it would have been rejected. Whenever the post-war government were considering the question of war criminals in this country they thought in terms of extradition. If it been put to the post-war government they would have made the same objections as have been made so often against the Bill today—objections of a legal, constitutional and practical kind. The then government would have ruled it straight out.
The Ministers have constantly said that there is no evidence of a collective decision by the post-war government not to legislate. But the truth is simple; the truth is that this was such a bad idea that Ministers never gave it a moment's thought. That is the position. In 1948 the attitude of the British Government towards suspects in the United Kingdom was the same as their attitude to suspects in British-controlled territory in Germany and Austria. How could it be otherwise? How could we have had one policy for Britain and the colonies, and another for British-controlled territory in Germany and Austria?
The attitude was the same in both cases. Three years had been spent securing executions and imprisonment through the Nuremberg system and by British trials in Germany which were responsible for over 200 executions and innumerable sentences of imprisonment. On top of that, there were the extraditions, after very careful screening, of suspects to their almost certain death in other countries for which we were responsible.
After that an enormous groundswell of opinion grew up that we had made a sufficient example and that the time had come to stop. Churchill and all kinds of people in every political party can be quoted as saying the same thing then. Everyone agreed. When the matter was debated in this House seven speeches were made. All seven speakers supported the government's policy of ending retribution. In the other place I made a statement announcing the first stoppages of extraditions. There was one objection to that idea in the form of a supplementary question from one of our two communist MPs following, as usual, Stalin's view on war crimes trials. Not a single Conservative, Labour or Jewish MP objected to the policy of the government at that time.
Now, 43 years later, we are being told that we were wrong. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that the Parliament Act rightly requires us in the end to yield to the other place, but it requires us neither to agree with the other place nor to gloss over with amendments the fact that our disagreement is profound and a matter of principle. Therefore I am strongly in favour of supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. Nothing of substance has changed on this issue to justify reversing the clear-cut decision taken by Attlee and Bevin with the consent of a united parliamentary Labour Party. A vote for this Bill tonight is a vote against the handling of the war crimes issue by our admirable post-war government. The decision that they took was the wise decision. We should support it with our votes tonight.
10.22 p.m.
Lord Templeman: My Lords, I rise to commend to your Lordships the suggestions made by my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge of Harwich—that is to say, that we should pass this Bill at Second Reading and then amend it in Committee. One matter is abundantly clear. If the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is passed, the Parliament Act will take effect.
When the debate was opened there was a good deal of criticism of the Government; an institution towards which I bear an attitude of strict neutrality. On this occasion the Government were much maligned. They were accused of invoking the Parliament Act and of mobilising and operating the machinery of that Act. The fact is that the Parliament Act 1911 provides that,
"on its rejection [of this Bill] for the second time by the House of Lords, unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary, [the Bill shall] … become an Act of Parliament". Therefore, if we reject the Second Reading we shall get the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord must take into account that the Bill cannot become law until it is presented to Her Majesty. The Act says that the Bill shall be presented unless the House directs to the contrary. There is that proviso in the conditions. It is not compulsory. It can be decided to the contrary. Moreover, the word "shall" does not mean tomorrow morning. No Ministers do things under that kind of imperative command.
Lord Templeman: My Lords, I was about to come to the question of,
"unless the House of Commons directs to the contrary".
Think what that would mean. It would mean the Government going back to the House of Commons and saying, "You passed this Bill once as a matter of conscience and because you believed that it was terribly important. The House of Lords disagreed. The second time you considered it and the second time you passed it by a large majority on a free vote. Now the House of Lords has thrown it out for the second time. We hear the trumpets of the Duke of Omnium. We come to you with our whips and say to the House of Commons, 'You may be the only elected representatives, but you had better do as you are told by their Lordships in another place'." No government can try that. If this Government did, I confidently expect that no House of Commons would allow itself to be dominated by the Whips. The fact is that if this Bill is not given a Second Reading tonight we shall get the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill.
Then it is said—here again we get the Duke of Omnium—that this was not intended under the Parliament Act and that the Parliament Act was intended only for Welsh disestablishmentarianism and Lloyd George's pensions. The Parliament Act is perfectly clear. It was passed to govern the relationships between the two Houses.
It was said:
"We shall no longer have an impasse and if there is an impasse the will of the lower House shall prevail as the lower House is elected. The upper House, because it is terribly
716
useful, will not be touched for the time being. If there is a clash after these two meetings then the will of the lower House shall prevail".
It is perfectly true that the House of Commons never has used the Parliament Act 1911, and I hope it never will except to get through a matter on which it feels passionately. This is a matter on which we must accept that the lower House feels passionately. It has voted twice by a free vote. It has voted overwhelmingly. It is not democratic to say in the face of a large majority that they do not mean what they say and that if you ask them they will say something different. We have to accept that they have voted twice by a large majority and that therefore the Parliament Act will take effect.
For my part, I do not accept the comments that have been made that the Parliament Act is only there to get through government business and government arrangements, as though the Parliament Act is a sort of guillotine to be kept in the Whips Office to be trotted out by the Government. It is not. It is there to enforce the will of the Commons and we know in the present case what that will is.
Then it is said, "You can't make any good amendments". Let us look at the amendments which my noble and learned friend is drafting. Let us see how we will be able to preserve the principle of the Bill upon which the House of Commons insists, and yet to give it amendments which I hope the House of Commons would be only too ready to accept because they are amendments designed to see that there is a fair trial.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Does he accept that these amendments were sent to the Government in draft with a note on amendments before the procedural Motion and before the Second Reading, and that the Bill has been returned to us without any amendment at all?
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, I intervene to say that as I have not drafted the amendments they could not have been sent to the Government.
Lord Templeman: My Lords, we must deal with the facts. The facts are that the House of Commons, on a free vote, has twice said that the Bill shall go through. The Parliament Act 1911 says that if the House of Commons says that, there is an end to it. We cannot deal with all these vague rumours. We are faced with the present position. If we reject the Bill tonight we shall have the Bill and we shall have no amendments.
As I was saying before I was interrupted, I hope that the House of Commons will accept sensible amendments. If they do not, then, as my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls said, that will be a matter for them. The onus will be on them for having turned down amendments. It will not be on us.
I can see no good to come out of our not giving this Bill a Second Reading. I can see great harm because we shall have a Bill which is bad in every particular. I can see great merit in giving it a Second Reading without resiling from the view we have expressed in this House about the principle. We can still give the

717
Bill a Second Reading and then we can propose amendments which will improve the Bill. We shall have done our duty in that way.
10.29 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it is just 10 years since I first addressed your Lordships' House. This has been the unhappiest day I have spent in your midst, except possibly for 4th June last year.
I find myself in an extraordinary position because the speeches which reflect what I think and feel affect me painfully. I refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, the remarkable speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, and especially that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon. All those speeches certainly raise one's hopes that the immense moral importance of not appearing to dissent from condemnation of the events about which we are talking is appreciated widely. However, it means recalling these events which, like other members of my race, I have personal reasons for recalling—and also the indifference that I, and perhaps others, showed at the time. It is perhaps painful to have it made clear that what we are doing is reinvestigating our own consciences.
The idea that some noble Lords appear to favour—at least, it seems so from their speeches—that the question of conscience only affects those who are opposed to this Bill, seems to me to be presumption. However, I am equally and perhaps even more disturbed by some of the speeches which have been made against the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, on this as on other occasions, has made himself one of the spokesmen for the opposition. The main burden of his case appears to be that the all-seeing and all-wise government of the immediate post-war years must be regarded as having said the final word on everything and that we are presumptuous in our generation if we believe that these matters could be reviewed again.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has more than once referred to his ministerial position. He was an adjunct of the then Foreign Secretary, Mr. Ernest Bevin. If Mr. Bevin was not particularly concerned about the advent of war criminals into this country—I accept the noble Lord's view that he was not—he was massively concerned with preventing the survivors of the Holocaust from reaching their only safe haven; namely, Palestine as it then was. To ask us to forge the record of that government in relation to the persecuted seems to me to be a curious way of asking us to accept their view of how the persecutors should be treated.
After all, it is a question of the future. It is the impact which our decision is likely to make. My noble friend and fellow professional historian—if I may be so bold—Lord Dacre of Glanton has already said that he and I disagree about the effect that the passage of the Bill I through this House would have on the Jewish position and on the reputation of the Jewish community. I am glad that he has brought that issue into the open, even though he and I disagree.
718
Several noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, referred to correspondence which they received after our debate last summer. I received a good deal of correspondence. All of it abused me for having taken up the cause of the persecuted and all of it—to put it in moderate language—was of a neo-Fascist or neo-Nazi nature. In other words, it was considered that to support a Bill of this kind was to fly in the face of what those people, at any rate, regarded now as being perfectly normal.
Noble Lords may be aware that the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, whose speech I admired, has recently added to his offices that of president of an international association of parliamentarians dedicated to fight against anti-semitism. It seems almost unbelievable that, as we are constantly told, nearly 50 years after the defeat of Hitler, it should be necessary for parliamentarians from many of parts of the world to unite against at least one scourge that we believed the war had brought to an end. So I find it difficult to believe - I think that those who have read the debate in another place with the attention that I paid to it will find it difficult to believe - that it is worth sacrificing one's own opinions about what should be done in relation to the Bill because those who are bigoted already might find a new reason to remain as bigoted as they were before. It is a risk—I agree with my noble friend Lord Dacre—but it is a risk which those of this evening who have spoken as Jews—there are only two or three of us, alas!—are, and should be, prepared to take.
I should also like to repudiate in the strongest possible terms the attempt to confuse the notion of justice with the notion of revenge and retribution. I do not believe that Mr. Wiesenthal is some kind of maniac, rushing about the world searching for war criminals. It is not a nice job. There are the documents that he and his colleagues have to study; the photographs that they have to study, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us; and the people whom they have to interview. There are many nicer ways of pursuing scholarship. People who do that do not do it because of revenge. They do it because they feel, as I should have hoped the House would feel, that there are events about which we should know, which we cannot pass unnoticed, and about which when we have a chance, in some minor way even, to demonstrate our horror, we take it.
That does not and could not mean that I reject the assessment of the difficulties which the noble and learned Lords have put before us about the processes of cases should they come to trial. No doubt it can be plausibly argued that the scales could be weighted in favour of conviction, although it seems to me that some of the arguments that have been put forward, especially in relation to Canada, suggest that the weight would have to be very heavy to persuade a jury to convict after all this time. I should willingly accept, and I believe that those who think with me would willingly accept, the kind of proposals that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, supported by two of his noble and learned friends, has put before us. If the Bill can be improved, and if it can be made even clearer that the purpose is justice and not retribution,

719
no one who feels as strongly on the matter as I do could possibly gainsay that intention. It is helpful and useful that even at this late hour the possibility should be brought to our attention.
I have no pleasure in this. It would have been easier for many of our consciences if these searches had been unsuccessful, but they were not. We are faced with a fact. We must take the differences between the two Houses which the noble Lord, Lord Acton, referred to in his brief remarks. He suggested that the reason for the different outcome was a difference in age. I have never thought that to be plausible and it would be hard to demonstrate beyond peradventure. It is not a question of generation but of the feelings of the ordinary person. Without disrespect to the other place, it is full of ordinary people. The difference in what they feel when confronted with a moral issue—and this Bill is a moral issue, whatever the members of what was once the great Liberal Party may think now—is that the House of Commons in its majority believes it to be a moral issue.
In your Lordships' House a great deal has been said to give the impression of superior judgment, superior wisdom, superior knowledge of the law. On the whole, I believe that we would be right to assume that in this respect the other place is more representative. Of course efforts are being made to destroy the representative nature of its votes. We are told that only a part of the House, about half, was present. However, it is a principle of statistical analysis that unless one can show a reason why those who vote do not represent proportionately the whole, one must assume that they do. No one has produced any evidence to suggest that those who stayed away from the vote in the House of Commons did so because they disapproved of the Bill. If they did so with a passion which some noble Lords appear to hold in respect of the Bill, there was nothing, so far as I know, to stop them voting.
The last point I make is that there has also been a reference to the fact that our present Prime Minister voted against the measure when it was first discussed. Noble Lords may have failed to realise that when our present Prime Minister voted in that way he held an office in the Government—as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think—which would not have entitled him to see the second part of the Hetherington-Chalmers Report. We know from the noble Lord the Leader of the House and his successor and predecessor as Home Secretary how important that accumulation of detailed evidence has been in making up their minds. I have no reason to doubt that it was acquaintance with this body of evidence that made our present Prime Minister change his mind and agree with his predecessor who had seen the relevant evidence.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but none of us has had the opportunity to see the second half of the report. Is the noble Lord telling us that we should change our view because of evidence which has not been made available to us?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I can imagine the outcry from the noble Lord if it were announced that the second part of the report was to be published tomorrow. Then we would be told that it was impossible to conduct fair trials. I should have thought the fact that senior government officers—Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries—have declared themselves to be affected by the report is significant. I was affected by that fact. That may seem unconvincing to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and others who, for reasons that I shall not attempt to investigate now, seem to think that this necessary measure is somehow a violation of the British sense of justice. In my view, it is the contrary.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and with the leave of the House, I hope I may say, in connection with the beginning of his speech, that if I vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I am not voting as a neo-Nazi or as a neo-Fascist.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, the Canadian legislation on war crimes and crimes against humanity has been cited on numerous occasions in the debates that have taken place in this House in connection with this Bill, sometimes in partial justification of the Bill itself. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with a long recitation of what has happened in the Canadian experience. However, I wish to make a few points.
The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, mentioned the trial of Mr Imre Finta, who was the first person charged under the Canadian legislation and the first to come to trial. After a trial lasting eight weeks, during which evidence was presented by witnesses in person and also by videotape, Finta was acquitted on all counts by a jury on 25th May 1990. It is significant that in the course of fighting the charges against him Finta, who is now 78 years old, lost his business and his home.
That is not the end of the story. Canada is one of the few jurisdictions under the British system of criminal law where the Attorney-General can appeal against an acquittal by a jury. That was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, at the beginning of this debate.
Some three weeks after Finta's acquittal, the Crown entered an appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal asking for a new trial on the grounds that the presiding judge had erred in allowing an "inadmissible hearsay statement" to be read on behalf of the defence. The appeal was heard on 25th January this year before the Ontario Court of Appeal and up to today no decision has been rendered. Hence after a lengthy trial, the loss of his livelihood and his home, Imre Finta still has these charges hanging over him.
Although Finta was the first to be tried, he is not the only person to be charged under Canadian war crimes legislation. Stephen Reistetter, who is 76 years old and an automobile worker in Ontario, was charged in January 1990 with helping to send 3,000 Jews to Nazi death camps in 1942 when he was an

721
official in the Berdejov district of Slovakia. Last March, after several evidence gathering trips to Europe by rogatory commission and the recording of videotaped testimony, a Crown prosecutor told the Ontario Court General Division that the charges against Reistetter were being dropped, because a key witness had died and another was unwilling to testify. He said that the recorded evidence of other witnesses raised doubt that a reasonable case could be presented.
Finally, there is the case of Michael Pawlowski, a third Ontario resident who was charged in December 1989 with the death of 490 people in Byelorussia in 1942. Pawlowski has not yet come to trial. Certain evidence gathered by a commission in the Soviet Union was found to be faulty and of 20 witnesses interviewed 10 refused to testify. Part of the evidence was gathered by video tape and there was a problem about certain affidavits acquired by an RCMP police officer.
As a result an Ontario judge has ruled that a fair trial cannot proceed at this time based solely on video-taped evidence of Soviet witnesses. Nevertheless, the Canadian Justice Department has said that it will send a new team of lawyers and Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers to the Soviet Union in an at tempt to iron out the procedural difficulties. It is anticipated that a trial will start within the next year, more than two years after Pawlowski was originally charged.
That, in summary, is the current situation in respect of war crimes prosecutions in Canada, and a sorry record? t presents. Depending on the judgment of the Appeal Court, Imre Finta could be tried again. Michael Pawloski still awaits the resolution of procedural matters.
I appreciate the understandable desire of the proponents of this Bill that even after 45 years the enormity of the crimes committed, on a terrifying scale, should not go unpunished and that justice should be done. But in view of the dismal Canadian experience there is a frightening doubt as to whether that objective can properly be achieved. If we set out on a similar questionable course with results comparable to those in Canada, I ask your Lordships: who can call it justice?
I have listened to the interesting and unusual difference of opinion as to the handling of the Bill expressed by noble and learned Lords, who apparently do not agree on how we should go forward. For my part, I stand with the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Wilberforce. I put the integrity of this House above any pragmatic considerations, and I shall vote for the amendment.
10.54 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, when the last Second Reading; of the Bill took place I came to your Lordships' House not to speak but to listen, convinced that at tie end of the day I would vote in favour of the Bill. However, after listening to your Lordships and recognising the depth of experience and knowledge, the logic was so overwhelming that I voted against the Bill. That was a logical and pragmatic vote.
722
Today I came to participate in the debate and to see whether I could vote on the basis of conscience alone, recognising that the sword of Damocles hanging over us was unjust, unfair and might bias the debate. I realise that I have not the experience of your Lordships. Although age may not come into it, it may interest noble Lords to know that of those speaking today, the average age is around 69 and that over 70 per cent. of your Lordships were adults at the start of the last war. Of those in the Commons very few were adult at the time. It is interesting to note that in general those voting against the Bill in the Commons had more experience of the war, although I do not believe that age comes into it.
Those of us of younger generations have been influenced by hearsay and other people's views rather than our own. I wondered whether I myself had any views. I thought back in my own life to times that I thought I would forget. I was two years old at the start of the war and, like many children, I was evacuated to Canada and left in a school there without my parents for five years because the Germans were coming to England.
I returned to England after D-day because the Germans were not coming to England. I arrived by boat and, with a label round my neck to identify me, ended up at a station in London where hundreds of mothers were looking for their children, many unable to recognise them. I met my mother to whom I introduced myself. There was an air raid and I went to stay with my grandfather somewhere in the country, I knew not where.
Next morning I was introduced to members of the family and people who knew me, although I knew none of them. Then, having some knowledge of languages, I recognised that German was being spoken. There were many Germans around. They were working there. They were German prisoners of war, but I did not know that at the time. I thought that the Germans had come. Within a few days I found that Germans were living in many houses around the estate. I remember my sister and I crawling through the shrubbery and peering in the windows because we were convinced that they were German spies. We went back to tell our grandfather with whom we lived and he said, "No, those are German-Jewish immigrants, poor people. We are looking after them".
I found from my grandfather that, before the war, my great uncle, Stafford Cripps, had asked him, as he was a great lover of Germany and had a great knowledge of it, whether he would assist in the screening of Jewish immigrants coming over here. I think that they worked out of Woburn Place. My grandfather, with his great affection for Germany, did what he could to help. Apparently, what was so interesting was that the immigrants at that time were all basically academics, teachers and those who perhaps had the minds to see what was coming. But even they may have had fear of pronouncing what they thought would happen in the end.
They were living in cottages vacated as a result of all able-bodied men having gone to war. So there I was with German prisoners of war, German-Jewish immigrants and, of course, the land girls. To my

723
surprise, the only British farm workers were all what were called conscientious objectors. I thought that they were spies too. Finally, at Newbury we had the Fourth Airborne Division of the American forces.
I grew up as an inquisitive seven year-old child in that strange environment where we all worked together in the gardens producing food for London with no worries at all. In the evening I would talk to those people. I wanted to know what was the difference between the people who lived in the houses and those who were in prison, because all of them were Germans. If I recall correctly, they said, "You see, the leaders in Germany did not like us and were planning to lock us all up, so we came here". I could not understand why and thought about it for many years. Those people became our friends.
At the time of Arnhem the Fourth Airborne Division took off from Greenham Common and we waved goodbye to friends, many of whom never came back. I had no knowledge of death other than death by war.
Gradually, as the war drew to an end, I came to know people well. My governess was a small, crippled Jewish teacher called Miss Moses who later taught at Newbury High School for many years. We had another governess called Miss Scheer whose family had been doctors to the Tsar and who recited to us the problems and persecution that followed the revolution. I still hardly knew my parents.
In that environment I gradually began to understand that there were not only differences between races, but differences between creeds. When the news began to emerge from Germany that those friends had lost their families, no one knew what had happened to them. I realise that at the time probably no one knew. I have thought about it often and we discussed it in later life. I helped them write to the German authorities so that they could get their pensions. Many of them did; the German authorities seemed to behave extremely well.
I learned a lot from those people. There was no vengeance or bitterness. Perhaps their academic minds had a great understanding. There was no further desire for punishment. They accepted that things had happened which perhaps they should have seen beforehand and themselves have stopped when the rest of the world was denied knowledge. I remember asking what should be done and someone saying, if my German is still up to it: "Mach mal kein Hechmech. Lass dass sein." It means, "Don't make a fuss. It's all happened."
When I search my conscience I do not believe that there is a reason to pursue the matter further. I do not see what good the Bill will do. In order to find out whether I was right I spent the last months when I had the opportunity in Germany, Italy, France, Belgium and Holland talking to friends of different ages and asking what they thought. Almost to a man or woman they expressed surprise that we were planning to bring forward this legislation. They did not see the point. They or I may be wrong. I do not see the point of pursuing this matter any further.
There is however a side benefit. We cannot ever
724
forget and must continue to draw attention to these problems and situations. Maybe one of the best ways of drawing attention to them is not to pass the Bill on Second Reading but to oppose it and see what happens constitutionally. I am afraid my conscience says that I must vote against the Bill.
11.2 p.m.
Lord Morris of Kenwood: My Lords, much has occurred since 1986 when the first allegations emerged that there were Nazi war criminals living in this country. In 1988, the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry was set up. Who could have imagined the strength of its conclusions; namely, that there are a number of individuals living in Britain against whom there exists powerful evidence of involvement in the murder and manslaughter of innocent civilians? Surely those who have been given the high privilege of British citizenship and have enjoyed the freedoms which go with such privilege must not be excused the liabilities.
Since 1861 a British subject who had allegedly committed murder overseas would be liable for prosecution. If we knew then what we know now, would we have granted such people British citizenship? I suspect not. People who committed war crimes after 1957 are already punishable under the Geneva Convention of that year. Prosecutions for wilful killing and torture may take place in the United Kingdom wherever in the world the offence was committed and whatever the nationality of the alleged offender at the time.
Why does the legislation not extend to crimes committed in the Far East during the Second World War? It is simple. As the Government have stated on numerous occasions, there exists no evidence against any person living in this country of involvement in such crimes and nor is there likely to be any such evidence.
Would there inevitably be show trials? As in all criminal cases in the United Kingdom, the standards of evidence would be of the highest quality. Any evidence, where it appears that the accused has suffered prejudice from the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, can be excluded by the judge. If the accused is unfit to mount a proper defence, and if the judge is not totally satisfied that the accused had every opportunity to defend himself, the case will not proceed.
The crimes under consideration were committed out of the heat of battle, often hundreds if not thousands of miles from the war front. These are cases of premeditated mass murder of men, women and children. During the debate last year in this House, it was said that the crimes that we are considering today were committed as acts of state and seen by the Germans as part of the war effort.
With your Lordships' permission, I should like to quote Kitty Hart, a survivor of the notorious Auschwitz concentration camp and a witness in 1989 at the trial of Gottfried Wiese in the High Court at Wuppertal, Germany. She stated:
"Of the thousands who started the journey, only a few hundred were still alive at the next destination. Anyone who

725
lagged behind was shot or clubbed to death. I was lucky in that I only received a depressed fracture of the skull from a rifle butt, and still have a hole in my head to prove the point
Another example of their handiwork took place in the Lublin ghetto during one of the many round-ups. I was merely thrown down the stairs, but others, including children, were dropped from windows. From the ground the dead and the wounded were hurled into lorries like meat. The living were sent as usual to the killing centres or concentration camps. The availability of volunteers from the indigenous population of Eastern Europe was a significant factor in the decision to site the concentration camps in Eastern-occupied territories. Without the assistance of these men it would not have been possible to produce a killing system on a massive scale as was eventually achieved."
Criminal trials remind us that it is individuals who commit crimes, not nations. Individuals are responsible for their own actions, and should be held accountable for their own crimes. The Nuremberg trials after the war taught us that "superior orders" are no defence. It is an irony that a regulation existed in every German soldier's pay book: "Never obey an illegal order".
All the Bill does is to give the prosecuting authorities in this country the opportunity to study the evidence; available. If there is sufficient evidence to merit a prosecution, then it would be a travesty if such a case could not proceed because the mechanism for such a trial did not exist. I urge your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
11.7 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I did not speak in the debate last year on 4th June. However, I listened to the debate and was enlightened. I learned a lot from old men—men who had experienced the period about which we speak. I learned from wise experts in the law and in the field of human relations. That debate was the House of Lords at its best. At the end of the debate I voted against the Bill.
In this debate, I wish to speak about duty and about anti-semitism. First, we in the House of Lords have a duty to come to our own decision without fear or favour of the House of Commons. Otherwise there is no point in our very existence. Secondly, on anti-semitism, many speakers in the debate have been very concerned about the fairness of any trial that might result from the provisions of the Bill. They worry, quite legitimately, about innocent men being found guilty. But it is not just innocent men who might be found guilty and punished. The children of those innocent men would suffer the greatest punishment.
However, I worry that men guilty perhaps by their own admission of horrendous war crimes—crimes against humanity—under the system of British justice could be declared innocent by a jury, not because the jury thought they were innocent but because the jury thought that the Bill was unfair and because the Bill is perceived to be selective and partisan; the product of the Jewish-Israeli lobby. We need to advise the Jewish community that it does its cause no good by the promotion of this Bill.
Effectively, we are asked to say that there was a specially nasty relationship between the Germans and the Jews between 1939 and 1945. I am sure we all agree that in that period the relationship between some Germans and Jews in Europe was absolutely horrific,
726
but it would be to misstate the truth, because the reality is slightly different. It was not the Germans but more correctly the Fascists, and not just the German Fascists but Fascists in other countries in Europe as well, who were nasty to the Jewish population. But they were also nasty to many other people. Twenty million Russians died in that war, largely because the Germans thought of the Russians as Untermensch; second-class citizens, or people with no citizenship rights at all.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. Is he aware that because of that very point the crimes were not just against Jews? It is quite unfair to suggest that it is only the Jews who are concerned about prosecution.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I take the noble Viscount's point perfectly. The problem is that we are talking not in terms of reality but in terms of perception. I agree that we need to talk only in terms of the period 1949–1957, because the following period is covered by different legislation. However, we should remind ourselves that since the war Fascists of various nationalities, including Jewish Fascists, have been nasty to the people who they thought were second-class citizens.
Several speakers have mentioned the fact that there are other ways of dealing with this problem of war criminals. I hope that the Government will listen to those arguments and find a way of dealing with the problem facing us without interfering with the good standing of British justice and without causing a rise in anti-semitism.
I had intended to talk about the amendment suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, but I think the hour is too late for that.
It has been suggested that this House is a revising Chamber; that we are here to revise that which the House of Commons has determined. I argue most strongly against that. We are all summoned here to give advice. If one reads the words of the Summons, it is to advise the Sovereign. We are not summoned here to revise that which the House of Commons has determined. We are asked to give our considered advice. We must do that on the basis of our individual consciences; otherwise we should not be true to ourselves or to our Summons to Parliament.
I shall vote against this Bill tonight. I hope that there will be a majority for that position; to defend the good standing of British justice and to prevent fuelling of anti-semitism. For those reasons, I also hope that the Government will not use the Parliament Act to ask the Sovereign to sign this Bill into an Act.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, when one rises to speak as the 49th speaker in a debate, normally one is obliged to admit that almost everything one had intended to say has been said already by earlier speakers. Unfortunately that does not appear to be the case this evening although, obviously, I have not been able to listen to every single speech.
As one understands it, most of the crimes with which we are concerned took place in 1941; that is, 50

727
years ago. As my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce pointed out when we debated this matter on an earlier occasion, any trial resulting from this Bill would take two years to prepare. Therefore, as one of the distinguished historians who graces the Conservative Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, and I happened to suggest independently on the last occasion, one risks putting on trial individuals who are almost certainly different mentally as well as physically from the individuals they were 52 years earlier. That is nothing to do with their age, but is more a philosophical doubt as to whether one is putting on trial the same people who did those terrible things many years ago.
Can it really be claimed that a man of 70 is the same person as a youth of 18, who may have behaved with extreme brutality while still in his teens, having possibly been indoctrinated at school or by a youth movement with a fanatical suspicion of other peoples? Is a man aged 81 the same person as he was when aged 29? Many of us believe not.
Should your Lordships disagree with that, consider this. Any punishment which the courts can inflict on an individual convicted as a result of this Bill can last on average only five years before death or senility intervenes. The people who will really be punished will be the individual's wife or, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said, his children, his grandchildren and possibly his great grandchildren.
They will be objects of press attention and, quite possibly, public hostility for years if not decades. That hostility is likely to persist even if the accused is acquitted, since most people tend to imagine that there is no smoke without fire. In other words, the punishment will largely miss its target and hit the wrong people. I agree that on its own, that is not a conclusive argument for rejecting the Bill, but it is a factor worth bearing in mind.
What of the other so far unvoiced arguments? It must never be overlooked that we are not dealing with German or Austrian Nazis or their hangers-on, nor with Flemish, French or other Western European collaborators, none of whom could have the slightest genuine grievance against those whom they persecuted and, in some cases, massacred. On the contrary, the Jews in Germany were among its most patriotic and worthy citizens during the First World War, fighting bravely for their country and winning many Iron Crosses in the process.
However, we are dealing not with those people but with the people from Eastern Europe, people whose family and friends may well have suffered horribly at the hands of the Communists, in whose ranks, unfortunately, a particular ethnic group was very heavily represented. The Hetherington report makes that quite plain.
Anybody who has travelled in Eastern Europe in the past 10 years—in other words, since the time at which people started to feel able to speak freely—will know that that fact is very much in the forefront of peoples' minds there, quite excessively so in my opinion. I am not an expert in the history of the period, but I suspect far too much blame for the
728
horrors of Communism has been heaped on the shoulders of one particular group. However, that is a reality and the belief—misconception though it may be—is widespread in Eastern and parts of Central Europe. Is it wise to stir up that hornets' nest at this time? May that not be counter-productive and even dangerous, as the noble Lord, Lord Dacre of Glanton, suggested? This is not to argue that reprisal murders—random murders of a sectarian or political nature—are in any way justified, either legally or morally. Of course they are not. But looking back over the past 75 years, one sees that they have occurred on every single continent, with the exception of Australasia, in every single decade; in other words, we are not talking about something exceptional.
If, after so many years, one is going to resurrect one lot of dreadful crimes, then in justice and consistency we should resurrect them all. Here I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. The last time we debated this Bill the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—who I am sorry to see is not now in his place—who commendably rarely hesitates to call a spade a spade, described the Bill as a racist Bill. Given the selective or targeted nature of the Bill, as my two noble and learned friends on these Benches have respectively labelled it, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was surely accurate. It is racist in so far as it effectively implies that it is not just wicked—of course it is—but significantly more wicked for an individual to murder 10, 100 or 1,000 people of one particular ethnic group than it is to murder 10, 100, or 1,000 Kulaks, Cambodians or Kurds, to name just three groups at random.
If that were not so, the Bill would not confine itself to crimes committed on German-occupied territory. For a start, it would extend to Russian-occupied territory, as well as Japanese; it would not confine itself to Second World War crimes or indeed purely to crimes committed in times of war in general. Why should the millions murdered by Stalin's henchmen and Chairman Mao's henchmen—in peacetime technically speaking—be totally ignored?
Running like a thread through the speeches of so many of those who support the Bill seems to be the subconscious assumption that those against whom the Bill is targeted were, by definition, privy to and even planners of the monstrous secret scheme to perpetrate terrible acts of genocide in Europe. What noble Lords seem to have overlooked is that they have the benefit of speaking with hindsight. Most of the acts we are debating took place before the notorious Wannsee Conference, or at least before the scheme was known of by other than an extremely small number of people. British and American intelligence were not fully aware of the Nazi leadership's genocidal plans until well into 1944; how much longer would it have taken for very junior cogs in the German war effort, belonging to what the Nazis considered to be inferior nationalities, to become aware of it?
We are not debating a Bill targeted at the planners of genocide, the big fry; in other words, the leading Nazis. If we were, I would have no hesitation in voting for it despite any minor reservations I might have. We are debating a Bill targeted at people alleged to have

729
done terrible things, certainly, but deeds which regarded on their own are, unfortunately, by no means unique as has been alleged. Parallels can be found all over the world throughout this bloodstained 20th century. The selective nature of the Bill is its most objectionable feature, though there are a great many others. Therefore I shall be obliged to vote against it.
11.23 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, when this Bill was before us last year, I had intended to speak. However, I was 2.dvised that with nearly 70 speakers already tabled, many of them drawing on considerable knowledge and experience, there would be few points or conclusions untouched by expert hands. There would also be little merit in delaying the vote yet further for the sake of repetition. Thus myself and some other younger Members of your Lordships' House either did not table our names or withdrew during the debate. However, that has been the cause of some regret and I shall briefly bring two points to your Lordships' attention.
First, the comparative silence of younger Members last year encouraged an erroneous conclusion to be put to your Lordships in the summing-up. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in considering the different treatment given to this Bill in another place, confidently stated that with the average age of the Commons being around 40, and with most of those who spoke in last year's debate in this House being above the age of 60, one's response to the Bill was symptomatic of the generation to which one belonged. He gave us to believe that the younger generation was clamouring for its enactment. But many people both within and beyond this House know that assumption to be misleading and incorrect. There is widespread unease among the younger generations at the nature and detail of the Bill. That general unease is more accurately reflected by the vote recorded here than by those votes recorded in another place. I go further and suggest that while this House recorded a near three-to-one majority against this Bill last year, opinion beyond Westminster appears to be that it is opposed by perhaps seven or eight-to-one, if not more. That is not a glib assumption but is based on deliberate inquiry among a wide cross-section of my own generation.
The two principal objections expressed are: first, the possibility of an unjust conviction—the passage of time having eroded the reliability of eye witness identification; and, secondly, the partiality of a piece of retrospective legislation that sets out to catch a small and highly specific number of people without reference to similar crimes that have been perpetrated so many times since. What about opinions among tomorrow's generation; namely, those graduating or who have recently graduated from university and college? Living just outside the university town of St. Andrews and close to the colleges at Kirkcaldy and Cupar, provide accommodation, job opportunities and various recreational activities for students and graduates alike.
They are a diverse bunch with enthusiastic ideals. Yet it is surprising how few support this Bill and how
730
many entertain reservations. Those in their mid-20s today, incidentally, are probably not dissimilar in age to the suspects targeted by this Bill at the time of their alleged crimes. None can be certain that they would have had the courage, as lower ranking officers, to disobey orders and risk not only their careers and families, but probably their own lives in front of a firing squad. Few of this age group, I would stress, doubt that the subordinate who obeys orders is no less responsible than the architect who devises them. But most question whether the subordinate provides sufficient justification for the legal risks and moral doubts involved in quite such belated and selective pursuit.
Thus the suggestion put to your Lordships that the views of this House on this matter are out of touch with those of younger generations is not true. I cannot fail therefore but to comment on the noble Lord's other assertion when analysing the response of another place. According to the noble Lord, its Members were "listening to their constituents"—the implication being that they were representing a majority opinion from those constituencies. I doubt the extent of the alleged consensus in support of this Bill. I do not doubt that Members of another place were listening. As is often the case however the articulate and well-lobbied convictions of a minority can be easier to hear and more awkward to ignore than the general disquiet of a less voluble and less co-ordinated majority.
Surely one of the distinctions of this House is that lobbied opinion can be listened to and considered dispassionately and not within the context of constituency politics. I am not an expert on the legal, historical or constitutional aspects raised by this Bill. However, I can speak for a generation whose views have been misinterpreted and whose doubts are more closely aligned to those expressed in this House than another. That there should be general legislation against war crimes is not disputed. That the specific details of this Bill are compatible with the fundamental legal traditions and Christian principles of this country most certainly is disputed.
11.28 p.m.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, I gave my views on this Bill on the first occasion that we had a Second Reading of the Bill. I shall not repeat them now. I see no reason to change them. I rise merely to raise one point which I did not address previously. I refer to the constitutional point. We are urged to avoid confrontation with the other place. Personally, I do not feel that urge. My reasons are simple and, perhaps as a result of what we have heard in the past two or three hours, they are too simple. The Parliament Act, as amended in 1949, is on the statute book. It ensures the primacy of the other place. It is there to be used. I for one do not see any cause for concern if it is used. I am not sure how much it matters where the responsibility for its invocation may, in retrospect, be held to lie.
It seems to be quite natural that occasionally—perhaps once in every one or two decades—an issue will arise of conscience or of principle on which the

731
two Houses will disagree; particularly if it is an issue that has not been before the electorate and which merits a free vote in both Houses. Therefore, I do not see any reason for this House to be deterred or to reverse itself on constitutional grounds.
I must also say a few words about the amendment issue. We have heard some very persuasive arguments in favour of passing the Bill so that it can be amended. We have heard powerful speeches on the other side of the argument. It is a difficult issue, but I come to the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy; and for the same reason I support the amendment.
11.32 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this has not at any stage of the debate been a party issue. I have only one thing to say on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. We have a free vote, and when we say that we have a free vote we mean it. Noble Lords may find no difficulty in believing that Pierre Laval was not my parents' favourite politician. I can still remember one morning when I was eight finding my parents sitting over The Times at the breakfast table looking absolutely thunderstruck. I discovered that what had so dismayed them was that the night before his execution Pierre Laval had taken prussic acid and been revived with a stomach pump, in order that he should be made sufficiently recovered to be shot.
At the age of eight I found that entirely incomprehensible and unacceptable. I regret to say that I do not find it as incomprehensible now as I did then, but I find it as unacceptable. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that we agree that this is a moral issue, but it is a moral issue on both sides of the debate. One of the reasons why I am anxious about war crimes is the potential effect the process may have on those involved in the prosecution. That story of Pierre Laval may help to illustrate why.
This is extremely emotive material. I was grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for not dwelling in greater detail on its emotive qualities. It is something like nuclear radiation or deep sea diving: our exposure to it should be severely limited. The desire for vengeance is one that cannot be ruled out altogether. It is a deep human emotion. If it is not satisfied, then trouble follows. There are circumstances in which there is a case for giving way to that impulse.
After the Second World War, it was right that some war crimes trials were held. However, my noble friend Lord Mayhew pointed out that there were more than 200 executions. The decision taken by the Cabinet after the war was a sound one. As there has been some argument about the text of the Cabinet minutes, I thought I might, by leave of the House, quote from the Cabinet minute for 4th November 1946. Discussion showed that it was the view of the Cabinet that we should do nothing to support the holding of a second international trial and, in general, should advocate a policy of discontinuing trials for war crimes. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal was technically completely correct to say that the Cabinet did not take a specific decision about trials of war criminals in this
732
country. But I think that the words "in general" should be interpreted in their normal sense. I believe that it was within the scope of their intention.
The desire to put a limit to vengeance is a very proper one. When the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, said that we should let it rest, he was referring to something which is an essential part of the political healing process. Some scope for the desire for vengeance after something of this horror is necessary. The horror is something upon which we are all agreed in all quarters of the House. But there must be a limit to it.
The doubts expressed about the possibility of a fair trial go very deep with me. When I was listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, with whom I was much impressed, it occurred to me that it is worth wondering what the reaction of this House would be if we were to receive an application from noble Lords much occupied with business in other places—as many of us are—to address this Chamber on video tape. I think that we would lose something in the proceedings of this House which would be very hard to describe with precision but which, nevertheless, is of considerable importance.
The issue of identification sticks with me. I should like to describe an incident which took place in this Chamber last Thursday. A noble Lord with whom I was at school rose to address the House. The last time I had had much to do with him was at the school debating society in, I believe, 1953. On that occasion we defended your Lordships' House which, on this day, has done a great deal to validate the arguments which he and I developed. However, to my shame, I must confess that when that noble Lord rose to speak I did not recognise him. That concerns a shorter period of time than that which applies to the cases with which we are dealing. I identified him while reading the Official Report the following day. As soon as I did so, I could immediately see in his face the lineaments of the schoolboy with whom I had debated. That is a very good example of how easily a witness can be led in matters of identification.
I listened with a great deal of care to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Donaldson of Lymington and Lord Templeman. However, I must confess that I found the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, more persuasive. I entirely agree with him that we are by those amendments proposing to expose the judge to a great deal of media flak for doing something which we do not have the courage to do ourselves. I agree that the directive to be careful of identification evidence is one which a judge has to give in any event. It does not add anything new of great significance.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, said that if we are not satisfied that any fair trials could take place under the Bill, we should vote against it. I am not satisfied. I say that because between the prejudice of publicity and the difficulty of getting equal facilities for the defence, I believe that it is the balance of probability that, in every trial brought under the Bill, a fair trial could not take place. Therefore, I propose to take the leave of the noble and

733
learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, to say that i those circumstances the Bill cannot be acceptably amended.
We have debated at some length the consequences of throwing out the Bill. I accept that the Parliament Acts are an important part of our constitution. I know that "never" is not a political word, but I find it hard to imagine circumstances in which I would vote against the Second Reading of a whipped government Bill.
But this is a free vote. When I am offered a free vote, I find a free vote followed by a Parliament Act a repugnant combination. It sounds a little like the picture of Charles II in 1066, And All That, passing a declaration of indulgence saying that everyone could do whatever they liked, followed by a test Act to find out whether they had done it and, if so, what.
When we think about the effect of what we do, I think or the story of a man who was on trial for his life before the King of France in the middle ages. He was convicted. He was sentenced to death. He pleaded for a stay of execution. He said, "If the King will spare me, within a year I will make the King's horse speak." The King said, "If you can do that within a year, you will be spared. If not, you will be executed." His friend said to him afterwards, "Why did you do that? You can't make the horse speak." The man said, "Within a year, the King might die, or the horse might die, or I might die, or the horse might speak."
So, if we throw out the Bill, while the procedures of the Parliament Act are going through the Government might die, the Parliament might die, the suspects might die, or the Government might change their mind!
11.41 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I had the privilege of winding up from these Benches on 4th December 1989, and opening on 4th June 1990. I have never concealed from your Lordships my grave reservations about the Bill; that the enormity of the crimes should not lead us into debasing our system of justice if the best judgment is that the inherent, inescapable circumstances of these cases today make a fair trial, by our existing standards, in the highest degree question able. I have been opposed to allowing our standards of justice to become the casualty of those awful events nearly half a century ago.
I confess that when the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry was set up it occurred to me that the Government might have felt that they had no choice because of the gravity of the allegations that had come out of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and then were perhaps somewhat taken aback when the report recommended that we move forward.
The report described evil on a vast scale. No one of your Lordships who heard the notable speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, could have failed to have been moved by it. If it were possible to secure justice today, the kind of evil that the noble Baroness described surely cries out for punishment. It is that sense, so eloquently articulated by the noble
734
Lord, Lord Beloff, that must explain the overwhelming view of another place which was contrary to the view that has so far prevailed in your Lordships' House; that is, that the Bill should go forward.
However, when I read the report—the work of two distinguished former heads of criminal prosecution departments, respectively, in England and in Scotland—I became convinced that there was a central gap in its reasoning. It was one which was perhaps to be explained by the fact to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, alluded - that its authors were asking but one question, and that from an exclusively prosecutor's standpoint: is there evidence which would give a reasonable prospect of conviction? They concluded that in some cases there was. No doubt that is a sufficient question when it is contemporary allegations that are being addressed. It is difficult, however, to see how it is sufficient from the standpoint of the defence when events 40 or 50 years ago in the Baltic states are being addressed and when witnesses must come from there if there is to be a fair trial.
There is surely a key question: is it conceivable that the defendants to these charges will, in practice, enjoy the same facilities as the prosecution from within the Soviet Union to enable them to bring evidence in their defence before a British court? In many cases the key issue will be identification. The report recognises that. Think of the practical difficulties. Many witnesses to these atrocities were themselves killed. Where witnesses exist many will be unwilling or unfit to come to give evidence. I doubt whether the courts will admit statements from witnesses, now dead, taken just after the end of the war. Mistaken identity is unquestionably the single greatest cause of wrong convictions. It is not a matter of trusting the judge or trusting the jury, that is too glib. It is a matter of asking whether the task of doing justice between victim and accused can sensibly be imposed on a British jury today. If trials proceed I doubt whether we will see many witnesses from the Soviet Union. I have the greatest doubts whether evidence from abroad could fairly be given in these cases through a live television link or through video links.
Bearing in mind how long this debate has taken and how distinguished it has been, the best service I can do your Lordships at this hour is to abstain from repeating at any great length arguments that have been made so fully on previous occasions as well as today. What is striking is the stark difference between the collective view of your Lordships' House and the other place. The two places disagree, but neither is perverse; there is much argument on both sides. At the outset we were told most eloquently by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby that the issue now at stake for this House is the maintenance of its honour and integrity and the need to demonstrate a mind of its own. However, I translate that, in the circumstances which face this House tonight, into another question: does this House stand out to the bitter end? Does it maintain principle to the point where the principle is lost absolutely—to register in the name of principle what is in substance a protest vote—when the Bill will relentlessly pass into law via the Parliament Act?

735
We face the reality of the situation which was so clearly articulated in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich. I too confess to being guilty of the sin of pragmatism. I wonder, in common with the noble and learned Lord, whether pragmatism, in the situation which faces this House, has a respectable role. I am not sure that there is not another principle apart from the consistency, honour and integrity of this House. It is that we have a public duty to achieve the best that we can in the practice of politics. As I understand it, we have some kind of undertaking from the noble Lord the Leader of the House that our amendments would be considered. That would of course be exclusively a matter for the other place which, as the noble Lord, Lord Blake, pointed out, could simply say no.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is the noble Lord asking the Leader of the House to give an undertaking that he will pay heed to any amendments, or is the noble Lord saying that the Leader of the House has already offered to do that? I did not hear the Leader of the House make any such comments and I have been present throughout the whole debate.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I have not conversed with the Leader of the House. In the comments that I have just made I placed an interpretation upon remarks made by the Leader of the House when he opened the debate. The Minister will soon reply for himself, when it is time to do so.
I submit to the House that the most crucial amendment that this House could table for the avoidance of any doubt would be that the judge should have a discretion to refuse a prosecution and to prohibit a prosecution where the combination of delay and the circumstances affecting a defendant in attempting to prepare his defence are such that the judge cannot be satisfied that a fair trial is possible.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, canvassed two other possible amendments. I am sure that your Lordships' House would be assisted by knowing whether the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, would himself favour and would recommend this House placing such amendments on the face of the Bill. I also feel that your Lordships' House would be assisted if the noble Lord could inform us whether he has successfully engaged, or has attempted to engage, in any consultations with his colleagues in another place—this follows the intervention of my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff—which allow him to say anything of an encouraging character to this House on the subject of the amendments contemplated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich.
I put the question directly. Can this House have any assurance that the amendments that have been canvassed will find favour with the Government not merely in this House, but where it matters most—in another place? In theory there are three options before this House, though in substance they are reduced to two. They are: the Bill as it stands; no Bill at all; or the Bill carefully amended in this Chamber. In reality, those three options are reduced to two. If the
736
amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is accepted, we shall end up with the Bill as it stands because it is inconceivable that the House of Commons will decide that there is to be no Bill at all. Therefore, the second option is theoretical only. Alternatively we can amend the Bill economically and with care here. I hope that we shall be encouraged to follow that course if we can gain some confidence from the reply to the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that those amendments might be accepted by the Government not merely here but in another place.
On these Benches there is a free vote, but the recommendation of this Front Bench is either to vote for the Bill or to abstain.
11.54 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have been present in the Chamber throughout almost the whole of the debate, which has been memorable. As a very new Member of the House, I hope I may say that it is a debate of which the House can be proud. We have been debating a most difficult issue. I believe that everyone who has followed the debate will have been impressed by the clear determination of all who have taken part to do what is right, whichever side of the argument they have supported. The spirit in which your Lordships have dealt with the subject, together with the lucidity and the informed nature of the contributions made, are, I am sure, in the best traditions of the House.
I ought to start by saying a word or two about the notable maiden speech made by my noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults. I hope that we hear a lot of him. As a business manager, I hope that I also see a lot of him even if on this particular occasion he does not feel able to support the argument which I have advanced in this debate. He gave a graphic description of how far we are now from the events in question and cautioned us about the difficulty of identification, a point to which I shall return.
The debate started with a fascinating speech by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I did not think that I would ever meet anybody who was in at the birth of the Parliament Act 1911. All of us thoroughly enjoyed his historical allusions, and they will be long remembered.
After we had enjoyed his speech we got a cold douche from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, who reminded us, perhaps a little tactlessly, of the preamble to the Parliament Act 1911. If any of us needed sobering up, that should have done it.
However, I disagree with those who tried to elevate this into a great constitutional issue. I do not think that it is. One has to go back to the origins of the War Crimes Bill. As we all now know, the position is that after a vote had been taken in the other place on the principle of legislation the Bill was introduced. The Bill received a Second Reading, with an enormous majority—such as I never experienced when I was Chief Whip in the other place—and found its way here. Having been rejected here on Second Reading, the Bill was reintroduced in another place.

737
That is the first point that I would make, because harsh words have been spoken about the Government. There has been talk about abuse of power and of it being repugnant to bring the Bill back. However, most noble Lords will understand why the Bill was brought back. If one has a free vote in the other place, which supports the Bill so strongly, it would indeed be extraordinary if no opportunity was given to the other place to say once again, after the Bill had been rejected here, that it wanted this House to think again and bear in mind the strong endorsement that had been given to the Bill in another place.
Therefore, it is not right to talk about abuse of power. It is not right, as has been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, to talk about a threat to use the Parliament Act. It is not a question of a Parliament Act being held as a threat over your Lordships tonight. We all know that it is a matter of fact that if this Bill is rejected by this House tonight the Parliament Act comes into play by operation of law. It is in those circumstances that I have to do my best to advise the House as to how to approach the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.
It cart surely only be to reject that amendment, not because there is a constitutional issue before your Lordships but because, if the noble Lord's amendment is accepted by the House, the only result of that acceptance will be that this House will lose its opportunity to improve the Bill.
I listened very carefully to the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge. The noble and learned Lord, who said that he did not like the Bill, also told this House that in his opinion the Bill could be improved by amendment. I can help the House to some extent. There would still be a free vote in another place, so an amendment approved here would have to be approved there on a free vote. However, I can say with some confidence, because that has been the tone of all the debates that have taken place in another place, that there will be no reluctance to consider sympathetically amendments designed to ensure fairness to the accused.
Noble Lords will remember that in my opening speech I said that it has certainly always been the intention that the Bill should preserve intact the court's inherent jurisdiction over. the fairness of proceedings and the right of the court to terminate a trial if that fairness could not be assured. However, I was corrected by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, who pointed out to the House that the unamended Act might not leave that power in the hands of the court. Therefore, the Government would be open to proposals to put beyond doubt that the inherent jurisdiction of the court to stay proceedings in the interests of a fair trial is unaffected by the Bill, because that has always been our intention.
However, if your Lordships pass the Bill today and were dissatisfied with the Government's treatment here of amendments proposed, or the House did not receive adequate undertakings here of Government support for amendments in another place, the House
738
could always reject the Bill on Third Reading and make quite plain that it did not feel that the Government had made any proper attempt to meet the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge.
Although I am unable today to give a positive response to the other suggestions for amendments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich—and I have to tell my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that I have never seen them—I am sure that the House will understand that. Surely the best course may be to give the Government time to consider what is proposed rather than reject the Bill tonight and close off all chances of amending and improving the Bill.
Many issues have been raised and it has been such a long debate that it would be discourteous to bore the House with a long speech. However, perhaps I may quickly identify some of the main issues raised. Could a trial be fair after such a lapse of time? Further safeguards might be written into the Bill, specifically on evidence of identification. The House will remember the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, who concluded by saying that people face to face with their persecutors do not forget.
The House may also bear in mind that identification would sometimes not arise as an issue. That was a point drawn to the attention of the House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. The defence might for instance be, "I was involved, but I was acting on superior orders. I had no option but to act as I did". I therefore cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that all cases will necessarily turn on identification. Strong views were expressed about the dangers which could undoubtedly arise. Certainly, strong views were expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, about the difficulty for the accused in finding evidence. There was the contribution made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark who said that no statutory limitation for murder exists in this country and there is no reason for having one. It was a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. But he went on to say that he would prefer to deal with the problem by means of extradition. I remind the House that that was a point considered by the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry and was rejected because it was said by them—and I think that most in the House would agree—that the systems of justice in the countries to which these people would be returned is not up to the standards of the system of justice in this country.
There was a big debate as to whether the book was closed. There is clearly a big conflict of view. Certainly the book was closed so far as the Nuremberg trials are concerned. But I remind the House that the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry found no evidence, having examined the records, that there was a positive decision not to prosecute a war criminal if one turned up here. I remind the House, because some of these facts emerged during Starred Questions the other day, that when the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred to the Statement which he made in the other place in 1948, the Statement was about extradition of alleged

739
war criminals to Yugoslavia. It was not a Statement about the policy of the Government so far as war crimes trials were concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred to another document which he had the opportunity of examining. From the date that he gave to the House, I think that he was quoting discussions which took place in March 1945, which was even before the setting up of the Nuremberg tribunal. So there certainly could not have been a decision at that time about the future of war crimes trials. The other Cabinet minute referred to was one in 1946. That again had nothing to do with the question of war crimes trials here in this country. It was about a proposal to surrender to the American authorities in the American zone in Germany five German industrialists. In fact the decision was made to surrender them to the American authorities.
There is the whole question of whether the legislation should be stigmatised as retrospective and condemned for that reason. I cannot help the House further on that. Various views have been expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Dacre, said that the issue did not excite him, although for other reasons he was firmly opposed to the Bill.
There is the whole question of selectivity, mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I believe that I dealt with that matter in my opening speech. We are dealing with a Bill limited to crimes in German occupied territory, because that was the matter investigated by the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry. It would have been very strange if legislation had been introduced to deal with a non-existent mischief, there never having been any evidence of war criminals in Japan, for instance, being in this country.
Lastly and above all, there is the immensely difficult question of whether justice and not vengeance demands action. The noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, made a most moving speech, urging on us that the passage of time in no way lessens the guilt. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon gave us his guidance on what is undoubtedly a moral issue. How can I have the temerity to try to help your Lordships further? I just hope that noble Lords will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat, I think that he has gone some way to meet us this evening by what he has said. It certainly makes trying to come to an accommodation a little easier. I only wish that such accommodation had been attempted earlier instead of waiting until the 59th minute of the eleventh hour.
What will be the attitude of the Government, for example, if one of the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, is put to the House and the Government oppose it but it is nevertheless carried? Will they then recommend it to the Commons or will they maintain their initial opposition? That is a very important matter.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is certainly a hypothetical question. As a result of what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, I envisage that he would put to the Government one
740
amendment at least which must almost certainly be acceptable to the Government because it is designed to make absolutely plain on the face of the Bill that the inherent jurisdiction of the court's stay proceedings is safeguarded and maintained in spite of the terms of the Bill. That surely should be some assurance to your Lordships on one amendment at least.
I can only tell noble Lords that having taken part in two debates in the other place, there has never been a reluctance on the part of advocates of the Bill in another place to examine all ways in which the interests of an accused person, and the fairness of his trial, can properly be safeguarded. I shall certainly look with sympathy at the amendments which have been suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge. If they are carried in this House, that of course will carry considerable weight with the Government.
12.10 a.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, what a pity it is that we are driven to the wall at 10 minutes past 12 to try finally to resolve the differences between the two Houses. Why were we hectored so much earlier on when we were giving our opinion so firmly to the other place? Why was the recent answer from the House of Commons so brusque that they shortened their proceedings especially to get the debate over and get the Bill back to us? We should have received the Bill earlier but for the conditions of the Parliament Act 1911 which requires a lapse of one month before the Bill could be returned.
None of us in the House at present has ever been through this experience before. Reference has been made to precedents and conventions. It is a quite exceptional occasion. It seems to me that we can find our way out of it in our own way and not in the manner suggested by the noble Lord. He said to the House, "Give us the Second Reading, and your conscience and your comfort will be safe in our hands". We are not on equal terms on that basis. We are asked to sacrifice the principle before we see the terms of the amendments. In any case, I believe that we are prohibited from raising again the principle when we begin to discuss amendments. The Second Reading presumes that we accept the principle of the Bill.
The amendment is the soft answer, and nothing more. I thought that the soft answer might turn away wrath. We gave the House of Commons a firm rejection on the first occasion. However, on the second, it seemed to me that it would be better to put down a delaying Motion. I am sorry now that I did not try a new adventure in our conventional life and substitute six weeks for the six months referred to in the amendment. Then we might have gained a breathing space before the final Second Reading of the Bill that we probably require to resolve our differences.
There is no crisis; and there is no need for any ill will. I believe that we can preserve the good relations between the two Houses while at the same time being quite firm about our position.
If the amendment is passed, the Government still have the means to overcome our difficulties. They are

741
not obliged to go straight to the Queen to ask for Royal Assent. There is no timetable on such a Bill under the Parliament Act 1911. There is a timetable for a money Bill but not for one such as this. It would be open to the Government to defer presentation of the Bill to Her Majesty while they explore further opportunities to overcome the difficulties between the two Houses. There is no difficulty about that. In any case, there is no other way of establishing our position firmly in relation to the other House except by deferring, as the amendment does, the Second Reading of the Bill for a further period. There is no occasion for us to hasten our way through these difficulties. I believe that we should be in a much stronger position to establish our role in the parliamentary system if we adopted the unconventional way—a way which nevertheless I think is open to us—to meet the difficulties arising from the other place. We are not being treated properly, and I think we are entitled to represent to the other place that it must try to meet the situation in a different way from the one suggested by the noble Lord.
I agree that we cannot claim to be representative. But we can claim to be the custodians of what rests more in this House than anywhere else. The monarch cannot do it. In many instances the Commons are not in a mood to do it. We are the custodians of anything that regard as approaching the standard of principle whether constitutional or concerning the propriety of a system of jurisprudence or criminal law. We are going wrong here and are likely to be dragged down the path of Canada and Australia. We shall find that there is nothing at the end except confusion and frustration. We are trying to fit into the fastidious structure of our system of criminal law the ragged and tattered remnants of the conflict of nearly 50 years ago.
On these occasions when we are discussing war crimes, an aura of guilt descends upon us as if in some way we were under a moral obligation to satisfy demands that are made upon our emotions and our actions because of the dreadful things done to the Jewish peoples in various parts of Europe. We fought a war to destroy the evil system of which they were the victims. If blood is crying out for vengeance, for acknowledgement or for retribution, that allows fallen men and women in the war to be taken into account. They are the people who perhaps paid a greater sacrifice in the war in numbers. So in being reminded of all the horrible things that happened we should not feel we are in some sense under a cloak of guilt that we have to shed in the course of our decision on these matters.
Therefore I hope that noble Lords will decide that they should still support the amendment. Otherwise, I fear our confidence is ebbing away and we shall finish up in a position in which we wish we had never put ourselves. Our message to the Commons is, "We are very sorry that we cannot go along with you on this as it is. We must have the opportunity of dealing with you on more equal terms which would occur under the amendment rather than by accepting the alternative offered by the noble Lord the Leader of the House".
Lord Waddington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am quite sure that entirely unintentionally the noble Lord may have misled the House. From the Companion to the Standing Orders it is plain that the carrying of the Motion amounts to rejection of the Bill. After the rejection of the Bill, Section 2 of the Parliament Act comes into play. Therefore, there is no procedure whereby the Bill could return to this House after further consideration in another place.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the original Question was that the Bill be now read a second time; since when an amendment has been moved to leave out "now" and at end to insert "this day six months". The Question I now therefore put is: that this amendment be agreed to.
12.22 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 131; Not-Contents, 109.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Acton, L.

Gibson, L.

Aldington, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Grantchester, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gridley, L.

Annaly, L.

Grimond, L.

Ardwick, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Bancroft, L.

Halsbury, E.

Barber, L.

Hampton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harlech, L.

Benson, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hertford, M.

Blake, L.

Holderness, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Hood, V.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L. [Teller.]

Borthwick, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Camrose, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Keith of Castleacre, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Killearn, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Kinloss, Ly.

Clanwilliam, E.

Kintore, E.

Cobbold, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lindsay, E.

Craigavon, V.

Liverpool, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Lockwood, B.

Crathorne, L.

Longford, E.

Cross, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mayhew, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Merrivale, L.

Derwent, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Monkswell, L.

Downshire, M.

Monson, L.

Elles, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Falkland, V.

Moran, L.

Flowers, L.

Morris, L.

Foot, L.

Mountevans, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Newall, L.

743

Norfolk, D.

Selborne, E.

Onslow, E.

Selsdon, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Sharples, B.

Palmer, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Perth, E.

Shawcross, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Sherfield, L.

Pym, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Raglan, L.

Strafford, E.

Rees, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Renwick, L.

Sudeley, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Swinfen, L.

Rochester, L.

Swinton, E.

Rodney, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Romney, E.

Vinson, L.

Russell, E.

Walpole, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Walston, L.

Westbury, L.

Salisbury, M.

Wilberforce, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Savile, L.

Windlesham, L.

Seear, B.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dudley, E.

Annan, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Barnett, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Beloff, L.

Ferrers, E.

Belstead, L.

Fitt, L.

Birk, B.

Foley, L.

Blatch, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Blyth, L.

Glenamara, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Goff of Chieveley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Gray, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Griffiths, L.

Brightman, L.

Haig, E.

Butterworth, L.

Hartwell, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Havers, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Henley, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Hesketh, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hylton, L.

Carnock, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Carter, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Kagan, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kennet, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Denman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mersey, V.

744

Mishcon, L.

Strange, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Swansea, L.

Nelson, E.

Templeman, L.

Norrie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Northbourne, L.

Thurlow, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Tollemache, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Rea, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Reay, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Renton, L.

Tryon, L.

Richard, L.

Ullswater, V.

Ripon, Bp.

Waddington, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Wharton, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Seccombe, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Selkirk, E.

Wolfson, L.

Serota, B.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
12.30 a.m.

Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Registered Homes (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Tay Road Bridge Order Confirmation Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendment agreed to.

Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
A Message was brought from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution relative to the Bill communicated in the Lords Message of yesterday.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before one o'clock.

  TREASURE TROVE
  TREASURE TROVE
  TURKISH STRAITS: LAWFUL PASSAGE
  TURKISH STRAITS: LAWFUL PASSAGE
  SPECIAL EDUCATION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS
  SPECIAL EDUCATION IN MAINSTREAM SCHOOLS
  SPECIAL EDUCATION AND LOCAL AUTHORITY SERVICES
  SPECIAL EDUCATION AND LOCAL AUTHORITY SERVICES
  SPECIAL SCHOOLS: STATUS
  SPECIAL SCHOOLS: STATUS
  NATIONAL CURRICULUM ASSESSMENTS: ARRANGEMENTS
  NATIONAL CURRICULUM ASSESSMENTS: ARRANGEMENTS
  ASSESSMENT TESTS FOR SEVEN-YEAR-OLDS: COSTS
  ASSESSMENT TESTS FOR SEVEN-YEAR-OLDS: COSTS
  DTI OBJECTIVES
  DTI OBJECTIVES
  CRIME PREVENTION: GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE
  CRIME PREVENTION: GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE